Reuters, Monday October 26 2009
TOKYO, Oct 26 (Reuters) - Poland will soon sign a deal to sell a total 40 million euros ($60 million) of surplus greenhouse gas emission rights to Spain and Ireland, the first such government-to-government deal under the Kyoto Protocol, its environment minister said.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, signatory nations that are comfortably below their emissions targets can sell their surpluses in the form of credits, called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), to governments and companies that are short of their goals.
Poland, the European Union's biggest ex-communist state, is able to sell about 500 million tonnes in CO2 equivalent of AAUs over the 2008-2012 period of Kyoto's first phase and is looking to sell them in Japan, said Environment Minister Maciej Nowicki, who was visiting Tokyo for an investment seminar.
"Just in two weeks I will sign the first contract with Spain and with Ireland through EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development)," Nowicki told Reuters in an interview on Monday.
The EBRD has set up a Multilateral Carbon Credit Fund to help governments seeking to trade such surplus credits via market schemes under the Kyoto Protocol.
"Spain and Ireland this year in budgets together have 40 million euros for this purpose," he said, referring to the value to be spent on Poland's AAUs by the two governments. Nowicki declined to disclose the amount of AAUs or other details. ($1=.6665 Euro) (Reporting by Risa Maeda; Editing by Chris Gallagher)
Monday, 26 October 2009
Outcry over Crown's rent rise for wind farms
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
Plans by the Crown Estate to treble its revenues from offshore wind parks have angered energy companies, who say that the move could jeopardise the viability of important new projects and undermine government hopes to boost renewable energy in Britain.
The Crown Estate, which owns the seabed out to 12 nautical miles, is already set for a £500 million windfall from offshore wind power production by charging rent based on each unit of electricity produced.
A negotiated fee of about £1 per megawatt hour of electricity generated has been increased to £3 in talks over nine new giant offshore schemes, casting doubt over whether some of them will be commercial, according to the energy companies.
“The economics of offshore wind are difficult enough as it is,” an insider at one company said, “but the scale of these new charges can make the difference between new projects being built or not built . . . It’s creating a lot of difficulty in terms of making the numbers stand up.”
He estimated that if the Government meets its goal of building 33 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2020, the Crown Estate stands to earn £262 million a year from offshore wind generation. Already, it is set to make about £25 million a year from existing wind projects where the leases have been awarded.
The Crown Estate, which holds property owned by the Queen, pays surplus revenues to the Treasury. Rob Hastings, director of its marine estate, confirmed that it was seeking higher charges for its latest leases — in line with inflation — and said: “Our rental charges are not material to the economics of these projects . . . The rental is practically notional.”
The Crown Estate, one of the largest property owners in Britain, with a portfolio worth £6 billion, is expected to award the leases to nine companies and consortiums by the end of the year. To meet UK targets of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, compared with 1990, the Government has launched a programme to expand its offshore wind farms, already the world’s biggest, at about one gigawatt. To achieve this, about £100 billion of investment will be required by 2020, the Crown Estate reported this month. The total gener-ating capacity of all Britain’s power stations and wind farms stands at about 75 gigawatts.
The latest “Round 3” offshore projects are divided into nine zones and the first turbine is expected to be in the water by 2014. ScottishPower, Mainstream Renewable Power, Vattenfall, RWE and Scottish & Southern Energy are among those bidding.
Plans by the Crown Estate to treble its revenues from offshore wind parks have angered energy companies, who say that the move could jeopardise the viability of important new projects and undermine government hopes to boost renewable energy in Britain.
The Crown Estate, which owns the seabed out to 12 nautical miles, is already set for a £500 million windfall from offshore wind power production by charging rent based on each unit of electricity produced.
A negotiated fee of about £1 per megawatt hour of electricity generated has been increased to £3 in talks over nine new giant offshore schemes, casting doubt over whether some of them will be commercial, according to the energy companies.
“The economics of offshore wind are difficult enough as it is,” an insider at one company said, “but the scale of these new charges can make the difference between new projects being built or not built . . . It’s creating a lot of difficulty in terms of making the numbers stand up.”
He estimated that if the Government meets its goal of building 33 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2020, the Crown Estate stands to earn £262 million a year from offshore wind generation. Already, it is set to make about £25 million a year from existing wind projects where the leases have been awarded.
The Crown Estate, which holds property owned by the Queen, pays surplus revenues to the Treasury. Rob Hastings, director of its marine estate, confirmed that it was seeking higher charges for its latest leases — in line with inflation — and said: “Our rental charges are not material to the economics of these projects . . . The rental is practically notional.”
The Crown Estate, one of the largest property owners in Britain, with a portfolio worth £6 billion, is expected to award the leases to nine companies and consortiums by the end of the year. To meet UK targets of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, compared with 1990, the Government has launched a programme to expand its offshore wind farms, already the world’s biggest, at about one gigawatt. To achieve this, about £100 billion of investment will be required by 2020, the Crown Estate reported this month. The total gener-ating capacity of all Britain’s power stations and wind farms stands at about 75 gigawatts.
The latest “Round 3” offshore projects are divided into nine zones and the first turbine is expected to be in the water by 2014. ScottishPower, Mainstream Renewable Power, Vattenfall, RWE and Scottish & Southern Energy are among those bidding.
MPs demand inquiry into great energy 'swindle'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Monday, 26 October 2009
An investigation into claims the "big six" energy suppliers are swindling millions of customers through manipulation of household fuel bills will be demanded by politicians today.
Amid growing anger over energy prices, 51 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a competition inquiry into whether British Gas, EDF and other suppliers are unfairly failing to pass on steep falls in wholesale costs.
The shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Liberal Democrat energy spokesman, Simon Hughes, have signed the motion, to be tabled by the Labour backbencher John Grogan.
It calls for an investigation by the Competition Commission into the pricing behaviour of the "big six" suppliers, which could lead to price caps being imposed on the £27bn-a-year household energy business. Hundreds more MPs could back the move because, in addition to being official Tory and Liberal Democrat policy, fuel bills are above average in Labour's heartlands in the north of England and Scotland.
Anger is growing over energy prices because the "big six" – British Gas, EDF, E.ON, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern – have cut bills by only 4 per cent this year to £1,140, despite wholesale costs, which make up 60 per cent of the bill, halving in the past year. Minnows such as First:Utility and OVO Energy have recently introduced bills as low as £921, £440 cheaper than Scottish Power's tariff of £1,361.
The "Great Energy Rip-Off" campaign, launched by The Independent two weeks ago, is calling for price reductions of 10 per cent, the extent of overcharging estimated by Britain's biggest energy analyst, McKinnon & Clarke.
Ofgem last year cleared the "big six" of collusion to fix prices, but Mr Grogan, who believes his early-day motion will attract significant support, suggested the problem lay not in an outright cartel but in their dominance.
As well as supplying 99 per cent of households, the "big six" own a network of power stations, making them strong examples of "vertically-integrated" businesses.
Mr Grogan, MP for Selby, said: "I do not think that the 'big six' energy companies meet together and fix prices, but their sheer dominance in the market and the vertical integration of power generation and retail distribution have led to a disconnect between wholesale and retail prices."
For the Tories, Mr Clark complained the relationship between wholesale prices and the bills families received was opaque. "Even the Government's own watchdog, Consumer Focus, has said that every household is paying £96 a year too much. The Government should cut through the confusion and end it once and for all by a swift, forensic reference to the Competition Commission."
The "big six" suppliers say they cannot lower prices because they are locked into expensive, long-term contracts agreed when prices spiked last year and have been hit by rising environmental costs and bad debt. In September, they rebuffed Ofgem's demand for them to outline a timetable for cuts in prices to the UK's 26 million electricity and 22 million gas customers.
Some experts believe that they will try to hold off announcing cuts until January, to ensure families pay high rates during peak demand in the winter.
Monday, 26 October 2009
An investigation into claims the "big six" energy suppliers are swindling millions of customers through manipulation of household fuel bills will be demanded by politicians today.
Amid growing anger over energy prices, 51 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a competition inquiry into whether British Gas, EDF and other suppliers are unfairly failing to pass on steep falls in wholesale costs.
The shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Liberal Democrat energy spokesman, Simon Hughes, have signed the motion, to be tabled by the Labour backbencher John Grogan.
It calls for an investigation by the Competition Commission into the pricing behaviour of the "big six" suppliers, which could lead to price caps being imposed on the £27bn-a-year household energy business. Hundreds more MPs could back the move because, in addition to being official Tory and Liberal Democrat policy, fuel bills are above average in Labour's heartlands in the north of England and Scotland.
Anger is growing over energy prices because the "big six" – British Gas, EDF, E.ON, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern – have cut bills by only 4 per cent this year to £1,140, despite wholesale costs, which make up 60 per cent of the bill, halving in the past year. Minnows such as First:Utility and OVO Energy have recently introduced bills as low as £921, £440 cheaper than Scottish Power's tariff of £1,361.
The "Great Energy Rip-Off" campaign, launched by The Independent two weeks ago, is calling for price reductions of 10 per cent, the extent of overcharging estimated by Britain's biggest energy analyst, McKinnon & Clarke.
Ofgem last year cleared the "big six" of collusion to fix prices, but Mr Grogan, who believes his early-day motion will attract significant support, suggested the problem lay not in an outright cartel but in their dominance.
As well as supplying 99 per cent of households, the "big six" own a network of power stations, making them strong examples of "vertically-integrated" businesses.
Mr Grogan, MP for Selby, said: "I do not think that the 'big six' energy companies meet together and fix prices, but their sheer dominance in the market and the vertical integration of power generation and retail distribution have led to a disconnect between wholesale and retail prices."
For the Tories, Mr Clark complained the relationship between wholesale prices and the bills families received was opaque. "Even the Government's own watchdog, Consumer Focus, has said that every household is paying £96 a year too much. The Government should cut through the confusion and end it once and for all by a swift, forensic reference to the Competition Commission."
The "big six" suppliers say they cannot lower prices because they are locked into expensive, long-term contracts agreed when prices spiked last year and have been hit by rising environmental costs and bad debt. In September, they rebuffed Ofgem's demand for them to outline a timetable for cuts in prices to the UK's 26 million electricity and 22 million gas customers.
Some experts believe that they will try to hold off announcing cuts until January, to ensure families pay high rates during peak demand in the winter.
Barack Obama: Renewable energies will drive the renewal of American pride
Monday, 26 October 2009
The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are travelling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil. Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation.
So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue – they are being marginalised. But it is important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much-needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy – when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those making cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.
So we're going to have to work on those folks. But there is also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way of progress – and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing.
Implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important – that fighting American spirit; that willingness to tackle hard challenges; that determination to see those challenges to the end; that we can solve problems; that we can act collectively; that somehow that is something of the past. I reject that argument. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers. And this generation is no different.
Taken from the US President's speech to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) last Friday
The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are travelling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil. Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation.
So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue – they are being marginalised. But it is important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much-needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy – when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those making cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.
So we're going to have to work on those folks. But there is also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way of progress – and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing.
Implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important – that fighting American spirit; that willingness to tackle hard challenges; that determination to see those challenges to the end; that we can solve problems; that we can act collectively; that somehow that is something of the past. I reject that argument. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers. And this generation is no different.
Taken from the US President's speech to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) last Friday
Marine reserves offer best chance of healthy and productive seas
Frank Pope, Ocean Correspondent
In the long term, conservationists and the fishing industry want the same thing: healthy, productive seas. The question is, are marine reserves the best way of rediscovering them?
All around the world fish stocks are in bad shape and Europe is one of the worst. Records show us just how good the fishing could be, if only we could back off long enough to let populations grow.
Fishing is not like farming, where a closed system can be pumped with fertilisers for big yields. The fish that trawlers chase are wild and rely on the integrity of their ecosystem to survive.
The traditional methods of controlling fishing using quotas, temporary closures of spawning grounds and restrictions on net sizes can help to control how much fish is taken from the sea, but they don’t bring back the vital complexity of life on the seabed.
Evidence from highly protected marine reserves recently implemented in other countries is starting to come in and show impressive results. A third of the waters off St Lucia in South Africa were protected in 1995, and in just three years the biomass of fish within the reserve tripled.
Critics argue that science does not know enough about our seas to position the reserves — and they’re right. But with an ocean facing pollution, coastal development, warming waters and overfishing, waiting for complete knowledge would result in there being little left to protect.
In the long term, conservationists and the fishing industry want the same thing: healthy, productive seas. The question is, are marine reserves the best way of rediscovering them?
All around the world fish stocks are in bad shape and Europe is one of the worst. Records show us just how good the fishing could be, if only we could back off long enough to let populations grow.
Fishing is not like farming, where a closed system can be pumped with fertilisers for big yields. The fish that trawlers chase are wild and rely on the integrity of their ecosystem to survive.
The traditional methods of controlling fishing using quotas, temporary closures of spawning grounds and restrictions on net sizes can help to control how much fish is taken from the sea, but they don’t bring back the vital complexity of life on the seabed.
Evidence from highly protected marine reserves recently implemented in other countries is starting to come in and show impressive results. A third of the waters off St Lucia in South Africa were protected in 1995, and in just three years the biomass of fish within the reserve tripled.
Critics argue that science does not know enough about our seas to position the reserves — and they’re right. But with an ocean facing pollution, coastal development, warming waters and overfishing, waiting for complete knowledge would result in there being little left to protect.
Investigation: How farm fishing boom in Chile threatens eco disaster
Separated by an ocean, a continent and more than 7,000 miles, Chile seems an awfully long way to go to find sushi for millions of Britons.
By Robert MendickPublished: 9:30AM GMT 25 Oct 2009
The packaging gives no clue to the origins of the “salmon trout”.
Nor does it make clear the disastrous consequences of intensive fish farming along Chile’s once pristine coastline where, according to eco-activists, many farms are plagued by disease and pollution.
There is, of course, no suggestion that the fish served by Waitrose or Pret a Manger, two of Britain’s most environmentally friendly food suppliers, comes from a farm that has prompted concern.
The rise of Chile’s fish industry began about a decade ago when international corporations realised there was money to be made in the blue water off a short stretch of coast around Puerto Montt, 600 miles south of the capital Santiago.
The explosion in global demand for salmon and trout led to a rapid expansion of the open net fish farming industry, in which fish are kept in pens in the sea.
By the middle of this decade, Chile had become the world’s second largest producer of salmon and trout – after Norway – with a business worth more than £1.2 billion a year.
With labour and energy costs a fraction of those in Norway, Scotland and Canada – average workers in the Chilean fish farming industry earn less than £5,000 a year – Chile’s Pacific coast was making big corporations huge profits. However, environmentalists complained that regulation was not robust enough.
What followed was disaster. In July 2007, Marine Harvest, a Norwegian company that supplies one in four of the world’s salmon, reported its first case on the South American continent of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), a virus deadly to the fish.
For months, according to insiders, the rest of the industry ignored the threat.
But the lack of robust regulation and the way the farms were packed together with no space for buffer zones allowed the disease to spread.
At one stage, said Jorgen Christiansen, a spokesman for Marine Harvest, about 400,000 tons of salmon – tens of millions of fish – were being harvested in a 75-mile stretch of coast around Puerto Montt. That compared with about 800,000 tons of farmed salmon along 1,900 miles of Norwegian coast.
The conditions have also promoted the spread of bacterial diseases, according to environmental campaigners. One study showed that Chilean salmon contained 5,000 times more antibiotics than Norwegian salmon – an indicator, they say, of how drugs were used to try to keep the fish disease-free. Within a year, ISA – which does not affect the “salmon trout” imported to Britain – had taken its toll, wiping out huge numbers of salmon.
Almost overnight the industry had been brought to its knees with thousands of workers laid off, fish farms lying empty and local waters polluted. This year the industry will export about 150,000 tons of salmon, a huge drop on its peak years.
“These intensive farms are a recipe for eco-disaster,” said Don Staniford, a campaigner for Pure Salmon, who has made a film to be premiered next month about the fish farming industry and its effects on Chile.
“The inherent problem in farming salmon and sea trout in open net pens is that waste is discharged into the sea, it spreads diseases and parasites that impact on local fish stocks. The fish can also escape, causing a huge imbalance with local fish.”
The west London company which imports the Chilean salmon trout told The Sunday Telegraph that it regularly inspected the farm, which has signed up to global regulatory rules.
The fish come from a farm further south than Puerto Montt, in Chonchi, owned by Salmones Antarctica, a once-local company bought out by a Japanese business.
“There are problems with the salmon in Chile but we are importing salmon trout. It’s a completely different species,” said Derek Lewis, spokesman for importer Taiko Foods. “We know there are problems down there [in Chile] but it isn’t our farm and it isn’t our species.”
By Robert MendickPublished: 9:30AM GMT 25 Oct 2009
The packaging gives no clue to the origins of the “salmon trout”.
Nor does it make clear the disastrous consequences of intensive fish farming along Chile’s once pristine coastline where, according to eco-activists, many farms are plagued by disease and pollution.
There is, of course, no suggestion that the fish served by Waitrose or Pret a Manger, two of Britain’s most environmentally friendly food suppliers, comes from a farm that has prompted concern.
The rise of Chile’s fish industry began about a decade ago when international corporations realised there was money to be made in the blue water off a short stretch of coast around Puerto Montt, 600 miles south of the capital Santiago.
The explosion in global demand for salmon and trout led to a rapid expansion of the open net fish farming industry, in which fish are kept in pens in the sea.
By the middle of this decade, Chile had become the world’s second largest producer of salmon and trout – after Norway – with a business worth more than £1.2 billion a year.
With labour and energy costs a fraction of those in Norway, Scotland and Canada – average workers in the Chilean fish farming industry earn less than £5,000 a year – Chile’s Pacific coast was making big corporations huge profits. However, environmentalists complained that regulation was not robust enough.
What followed was disaster. In July 2007, Marine Harvest, a Norwegian company that supplies one in four of the world’s salmon, reported its first case on the South American continent of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), a virus deadly to the fish.
For months, according to insiders, the rest of the industry ignored the threat.
But the lack of robust regulation and the way the farms were packed together with no space for buffer zones allowed the disease to spread.
At one stage, said Jorgen Christiansen, a spokesman for Marine Harvest, about 400,000 tons of salmon – tens of millions of fish – were being harvested in a 75-mile stretch of coast around Puerto Montt. That compared with about 800,000 tons of farmed salmon along 1,900 miles of Norwegian coast.
The conditions have also promoted the spread of bacterial diseases, according to environmental campaigners. One study showed that Chilean salmon contained 5,000 times more antibiotics than Norwegian salmon – an indicator, they say, of how drugs were used to try to keep the fish disease-free. Within a year, ISA – which does not affect the “salmon trout” imported to Britain – had taken its toll, wiping out huge numbers of salmon.
Almost overnight the industry had been brought to its knees with thousands of workers laid off, fish farms lying empty and local waters polluted. This year the industry will export about 150,000 tons of salmon, a huge drop on its peak years.
“These intensive farms are a recipe for eco-disaster,” said Don Staniford, a campaigner for Pure Salmon, who has made a film to be premiered next month about the fish farming industry and its effects on Chile.
“The inherent problem in farming salmon and sea trout in open net pens is that waste is discharged into the sea, it spreads diseases and parasites that impact on local fish stocks. The fish can also escape, causing a huge imbalance with local fish.”
The west London company which imports the Chilean salmon trout told The Sunday Telegraph that it regularly inspected the farm, which has signed up to global regulatory rules.
The fish come from a farm further south than Puerto Montt, in Chonchi, owned by Salmones Antarctica, a once-local company bought out by a Japanese business.
“There are problems with the salmon in Chile but we are importing salmon trout. It’s a completely different species,” said Derek Lewis, spokesman for importer Taiko Foods. “We know there are problems down there [in Chile] but it isn’t our farm and it isn’t our species.”
Rainforest treaty 'fatally flawed'
Climate summit loophole lets palm oil producers cull vital wilderness
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Monday, 26 October 2009
A vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation – headed by Britain – has blocked its reinsertion.
Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
Now they are calling on Britain to take a lead in restoring the anti-plantations safeguard at the final negotiating session in a week's time, saying that otherwise the agreement – which seeks to halve global deforestation rates by 2020 – will be fatally flawed.
"It is a priority for the safeguard to be reinserted, or otherwise we will have a situation where countries are paid for converting their natural forests into palm plantations," said Emily Brickell, the climate and forests officer for the Worldwide Find for Nature (WWF-UK).
"If this is not changed, the agreement will be part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it will allow things to carry on as they are now and we will continue to see the loss of natural rainforest," added Simon Counsell, the executive director of the Rainforest Foundation.
The key piece of text which was lost said that parties to the treaty "shall protect biological diversity, including safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations".
It was deleted in closed negotiations but some observers think it was done at the instigation of African rainforest countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon, while other states including Indonesia and Malaysia are believed to have supported it. Both are heavily involved in the oil palm industry, which is a major driver of deforestation because palm oil is used to make biofuels.
A move to reinsert the clause was blocked at the last talks in Bangkok by British officials, who feared that the gains of the week's negotiations (the text was reduced from 19 pages to nine) would be lost if the text were reopened. Green campaigners accept that this was a matter of procedure but think it will have been a disastrously bad call if officials do not move swiftly to replace the lost text at the final negotiations in Barcelona, beginning a week today.
"The EU has to make sure the wording goes back in," said Charlie Kronik, of Greenpeace. "It's absolutely essential, otherwise it leaves open the possibility of removing intact, high-value forests and replacing them with oil palms as party of the treaty."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The UK is pushing hard for the strongest possible deal to stop deforestation and that includes wanting specific language in the UN text on the protection of natural forests."
The proposed forest pact, which could be one of the most positive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, addresses the fact that deforestation, mostly in Central and South America, Africa and Asia, now produces nearly 20 per cent of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – more than from all the world's transport. Many policymakers consider that the key goal of limiting global warming to no more than C above the pre-industrial level will be unattainable unless the problem of deforestation emissions is tackled. The issue, which has become known in official jargon as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries), now has a section to itself in the proposed Copenhagen accord.
Nearly 200 countries will meet in December to try to frame a new treaty that would put the world on a path towards cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Scientists say this is the very minimum that can be done to keep temperature rises below C, which is regarded as the threshold of climate change that presents a real threat to humans society. Last week, British government scientists said a potentially disastrous rise of 4C by 2060 was on the cards if emissions continued to rise at their present rate.
The Copenhagen accord, if signed, will replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol. A deal will depend on developing nations such as China and India cutting pollution because their growing economies will be responsible for 90 per cent of CO2 emissions growth in the future.
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Monday, 26 October 2009
A vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation – headed by Britain – has blocked its reinsertion.
Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
Now they are calling on Britain to take a lead in restoring the anti-plantations safeguard at the final negotiating session in a week's time, saying that otherwise the agreement – which seeks to halve global deforestation rates by 2020 – will be fatally flawed.
"It is a priority for the safeguard to be reinserted, or otherwise we will have a situation where countries are paid for converting their natural forests into palm plantations," said Emily Brickell, the climate and forests officer for the Worldwide Find for Nature (WWF-UK).
"If this is not changed, the agreement will be part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it will allow things to carry on as they are now and we will continue to see the loss of natural rainforest," added Simon Counsell, the executive director of the Rainforest Foundation.
The key piece of text which was lost said that parties to the treaty "shall protect biological diversity, including safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations".
It was deleted in closed negotiations but some observers think it was done at the instigation of African rainforest countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon, while other states including Indonesia and Malaysia are believed to have supported it. Both are heavily involved in the oil palm industry, which is a major driver of deforestation because palm oil is used to make biofuels.
A move to reinsert the clause was blocked at the last talks in Bangkok by British officials, who feared that the gains of the week's negotiations (the text was reduced from 19 pages to nine) would be lost if the text were reopened. Green campaigners accept that this was a matter of procedure but think it will have been a disastrously bad call if officials do not move swiftly to replace the lost text at the final negotiations in Barcelona, beginning a week today.
"The EU has to make sure the wording goes back in," said Charlie Kronik, of Greenpeace. "It's absolutely essential, otherwise it leaves open the possibility of removing intact, high-value forests and replacing them with oil palms as party of the treaty."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The UK is pushing hard for the strongest possible deal to stop deforestation and that includes wanting specific language in the UN text on the protection of natural forests."
The proposed forest pact, which could be one of the most positive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, addresses the fact that deforestation, mostly in Central and South America, Africa and Asia, now produces nearly 20 per cent of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – more than from all the world's transport. Many policymakers consider that the key goal of limiting global warming to no more than C above the pre-industrial level will be unattainable unless the problem of deforestation emissions is tackled. The issue, which has become known in official jargon as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries), now has a section to itself in the proposed Copenhagen accord.
Nearly 200 countries will meet in December to try to frame a new treaty that would put the world on a path towards cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Scientists say this is the very minimum that can be done to keep temperature rises below C, which is regarded as the threshold of climate change that presents a real threat to humans society. Last week, British government scientists said a potentially disastrous rise of 4C by 2060 was on the cards if emissions continued to rise at their present rate.
The Copenhagen accord, if signed, will replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol. A deal will depend on developing nations such as China and India cutting pollution because their growing economies will be responsible for 90 per cent of CO2 emissions growth in the future.
Illegal logging responsible for loss of 10 million hectares in Indonesia
By Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent
Monday, 26 October 2009
Lush tropical rainforest once covered almost all of Indonesia's 17,000 islands between the Indian and Pacific oceans. And just half a century ago, 80 per cent remained. But since then, rampant logging and burning has destroyed nearly half that cover, and made the country the world's third largest emitter of greenhouses gases after the US and China.
Indonesia still has one-tenth of the world's remaining rainforests, a treasure trove of rare plant and animal species, including critically endangered tigers, elephants and orang-utans. However, it is destroying its forests faster than any other country, according to the Guinness Book of Records, with an average two million hectares disappearing every year, double the annual loss in the 1980s.
It is that frenzied rate of deforestation that has propelled Indonesia, home to 237 million people, into its top-three spot in the global league table of climate change villains. According to a government report released last month, the destruction of forests and carbon-rich peatlands accounts for 80 per cent of the 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the country annually.
The situation is partly a legacy of the 32-year rule of the dictator Suharto, during which Indonesia's forests were regarded purely as a source of revenue to be exploited for economic gain. Suharto, who stepped down in 1998, handed out logging concessions covering more than half the total forest area, many of them to his relatives and political allies.
Although the current Indonesian government, under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is committed to reducing deforestation and CO2 emissions, not much has changed on the ground. Poor land management is compounded by lawlessness and corruption, and illegal logging is widespread. According to one official estimate, the latter is responsible for the loss of 10 million hectares of forest.
Legal logging, too, is conducted at unsustainable levels, thanks to soaring demand from a rapidly expanding pulp and paper industry, in a country struggling with high levels of poverty.
The recent government report forecast that carbon emissions, which have risen from 1.6 billion tons in 1990, will increase to 3.6 billion by 2030, a leap of 57 per cent from today's level. The main reason is logging and clearing of forests for agriculture and industrial plantations, including oil palms. The government granted permission last year for two million hectares of peatland to be cleared for oil palms.
The rapid spread of oil palm plantations, particularly on Sumatra and Borneo islands, is threatening the orang-utan's forest habitat and hastening its extinction, according to conservationists.
Clearing land releases into the atmosphere the carbon stored in trees and below ground, either during burning or when the timber decomposes. Forest fires – regarded as a cheap and easy way of clearing forest – are deliberately lit by farmers as well as timber and oil palm plantation owners, and occur regularly on Sumatra and Borneo during the dry season.
Indonesia supports the UN's Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) initiative, welcoming the idea of being paid to conserve its forests. However, some observers question whether the carbon credits it would receive will be priced high enough to make the scheme worthwhile.
At present, Indonesia accounts for 8 per cent of global carbon emissions, although the archipelago represents barely 1 per cent of the world's landmass. It still has the third largest tracts of tropical rainforest, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite losing one-quarter of its forest cover between 1990 and 2005.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Lush tropical rainforest once covered almost all of Indonesia's 17,000 islands between the Indian and Pacific oceans. And just half a century ago, 80 per cent remained. But since then, rampant logging and burning has destroyed nearly half that cover, and made the country the world's third largest emitter of greenhouses gases after the US and China.
Indonesia still has one-tenth of the world's remaining rainforests, a treasure trove of rare plant and animal species, including critically endangered tigers, elephants and orang-utans. However, it is destroying its forests faster than any other country, according to the Guinness Book of Records, with an average two million hectares disappearing every year, double the annual loss in the 1980s.
It is that frenzied rate of deforestation that has propelled Indonesia, home to 237 million people, into its top-three spot in the global league table of climate change villains. According to a government report released last month, the destruction of forests and carbon-rich peatlands accounts for 80 per cent of the 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the country annually.
The situation is partly a legacy of the 32-year rule of the dictator Suharto, during which Indonesia's forests were regarded purely as a source of revenue to be exploited for economic gain. Suharto, who stepped down in 1998, handed out logging concessions covering more than half the total forest area, many of them to his relatives and political allies.
Although the current Indonesian government, under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is committed to reducing deforestation and CO2 emissions, not much has changed on the ground. Poor land management is compounded by lawlessness and corruption, and illegal logging is widespread. According to one official estimate, the latter is responsible for the loss of 10 million hectares of forest.
Legal logging, too, is conducted at unsustainable levels, thanks to soaring demand from a rapidly expanding pulp and paper industry, in a country struggling with high levels of poverty.
The recent government report forecast that carbon emissions, which have risen from 1.6 billion tons in 1990, will increase to 3.6 billion by 2030, a leap of 57 per cent from today's level. The main reason is logging and clearing of forests for agriculture and industrial plantations, including oil palms. The government granted permission last year for two million hectares of peatland to be cleared for oil palms.
The rapid spread of oil palm plantations, particularly on Sumatra and Borneo islands, is threatening the orang-utan's forest habitat and hastening its extinction, according to conservationists.
Clearing land releases into the atmosphere the carbon stored in trees and below ground, either during burning or when the timber decomposes. Forest fires – regarded as a cheap and easy way of clearing forest – are deliberately lit by farmers as well as timber and oil palm plantation owners, and occur regularly on Sumatra and Borneo during the dry season.
Indonesia supports the UN's Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) initiative, welcoming the idea of being paid to conserve its forests. However, some observers question whether the carbon credits it would receive will be priced high enough to make the scheme worthwhile.
At present, Indonesia accounts for 8 per cent of global carbon emissions, although the archipelago represents barely 1 per cent of the world's landmass. It still has the third largest tracts of tropical rainforest, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite losing one-quarter of its forest cover between 1990 and 2005.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
£3,300 per car: Lord Turner unveils green tax blitz
Danny Fortson
An influential think-tank, supported by the government, will tomorrow urge £150 billion of new green taxes on businesses and households — including a £3,300 levy on new cars.
The recommendations from the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC), to be presented by Lord Turner, head of the committee on climate change — and chairman of the Financial Services Authority — could bring a drastic reshaping of the tax system to curb greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in low-carbon technology. Among the proposals are a tripling of fuel duty over the next decade, a household energy tax, and the hefty tax added to the price of every new car.
Greg Barker, the Tory environment spokesman, Alan Whitehead, a Labour MP on the energy select committee, and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, will speak at the launch of the 100-page report from the commission — a body of academics, industrialists and politicians set up to advise government.
The GFC, which is chaired by Robert Napier, chairman of the Met Office, argues for a “fundamental rebalancing of the tax system” based on the “polluter pays” principle.
It wants to double the proportion of green taxes in the overall tax take from the current 7%. The government’s total tax income would not rise because the hikes in green levies would be offset by cuts to income tax and National Insurance contributions.
The report sets out different models for the tax system depending on different commodity-price assumptions and required levels of investment for clean technologies and energy-efficiency measures.
The broad theme is for a raft of new “eco taxes” aimed at curtailing activities, of both individuals and businesses, that use natural resources or create pollution.
Paul Elkins, a professor at University College London and the author of the report, said: “It’s really a question of moving a mindset. We’ve had it as a given that energy is cheap, so we have been wasteful. This has to change and the only way to do that is to make the polluters pay.” Elkins said he was “hopeful” that the recommendations will be adopted by the leading political parties.
Among the most controversial proposals would be a £300 tax on new cars, increasing annually to £3,300 by 2020.
Representatives from the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour were closely involved in drafting the report.
The Tories have been briefing power companies on a scheme that would provide £6,500 to every household in Britain to spend on energy-efficiency measures. The sum would come in the form of a low-cost loan to energy suppliers, which would be repaid over several years via contributions through domestic energy bills.
An influential think-tank, supported by the government, will tomorrow urge £150 billion of new green taxes on businesses and households — including a £3,300 levy on new cars.
The recommendations from the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC), to be presented by Lord Turner, head of the committee on climate change — and chairman of the Financial Services Authority — could bring a drastic reshaping of the tax system to curb greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in low-carbon technology. Among the proposals are a tripling of fuel duty over the next decade, a household energy tax, and the hefty tax added to the price of every new car.
Greg Barker, the Tory environment spokesman, Alan Whitehead, a Labour MP on the energy select committee, and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, will speak at the launch of the 100-page report from the commission — a body of academics, industrialists and politicians set up to advise government.
The GFC, which is chaired by Robert Napier, chairman of the Met Office, argues for a “fundamental rebalancing of the tax system” based on the “polluter pays” principle.
It wants to double the proportion of green taxes in the overall tax take from the current 7%. The government’s total tax income would not rise because the hikes in green levies would be offset by cuts to income tax and National Insurance contributions.
The report sets out different models for the tax system depending on different commodity-price assumptions and required levels of investment for clean technologies and energy-efficiency measures.
The broad theme is for a raft of new “eco taxes” aimed at curtailing activities, of both individuals and businesses, that use natural resources or create pollution.
Paul Elkins, a professor at University College London and the author of the report, said: “It’s really a question of moving a mindset. We’ve had it as a given that energy is cheap, so we have been wasteful. This has to change and the only way to do that is to make the polluters pay.” Elkins said he was “hopeful” that the recommendations will be adopted by the leading political parties.
Among the most controversial proposals would be a £300 tax on new cars, increasing annually to £3,300 by 2020.
Representatives from the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour were closely involved in drafting the report.
The Tories have been briefing power companies on a scheme that would provide £6,500 to every household in Britain to spend on energy-efficiency measures. The sum would come in the form of a low-cost loan to energy suppliers, which would be repaid over several years via contributions through domestic energy bills.
Business faces £370bn bill for climate change
Tricia Holly Davis
British business faces a £370 billion bill by 2020 to meet the cost of fighting climate change, according to estimates to be published ahead of December’s Copenhagen climate-change summit.
The amount would mainly cover the cost of building renewable-energy capacity, smart grids and high-speed rail links. About £40 billion would finance upgrades to Britain’s water distribution and treatment networks.
This is only part of the picture, said the report’s author, Andrew Raingold of Aldersgate Group, a coalition of business and environmental groups.
“These are conservative estimates and don’t include the costs attached to deploying low-carbon vehicles and supporting infrastructure such as charging stations. This could add another few billion to businesses’ total liability,” he said.
Raingold points to a recent analysis by the Policy Exchange, a think tank, which estimates that the UK will need to spend £50 billion every year for 10 years on low-carbon energy and transport to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. This is more than twice the amount Ofgem, the energy regulator, has said is necessary to meet the government’s target of cutting emissions 34% by 2020.
Various estimates on the costs of cutting carbon out of the economy have been published recently.
The reports are being deployed by industry on one side and governments on the other as they attempt to hammer out a new pollution-cutting agreement at the Copenhagen summit.
All sides agree it will be monumentally expensive. They differ on who should pay for it. Raingold said: “Businesses will end up footing the vast majority of the costs of combating climate change because the Treasury doesn’t have the money.”
Governments and many experts argue that the economic impact of a warmer climate and the costs industry will bear if the carbon price increases will be much greater if businesses do nothing. “There is actually a big opportunity to make money if we don’t drag our feet,” said Sir Brian Hoskins of the Committee on Climate Change, the government ’s green watchdog. It estimates that climate change will cost the UK economy 1% of GDP by 2050.
Last week the Worldwide Fund for Nature said global investment of $1 trillion a year was needed across a range of low-carbon technologies, at least for the next decade, and that it would largely have to come from the private sector.
“The upside of flooding the market with so much capital is you cut the cost of green technology, so clean energy becomes competitively priced with fossil fuels,” said Karl Mallon, lead researcher on the Worldwide Fund for Nature report.
Alice Chapple of Forum for the Future, an environmental think tank, said: “To get this level of investment from business, particularly in a recession, is going to require a variety of incentives, removal of fossilfuel subsidies and agreements between governments and business to share the risks of developing new technologies.”
Keith Clarke, chief executive of the Atkins technology consultancy, said: “Businesses can’t afford to not invest in climate change. But the real question is not about how much, it’s about reaching the right agreements to decarbonise our economy and secure investment.”
Today Britain’s low-carbon market is worth £100 billion, with green manufacturing accounting for 30% of that. The government has forecast the market will grow to £150 billion in five years. Even if that forecast is accurate, the UK could still face a substantial funding gap up to 2020.
By then, there must be a fivefold increase in renewable electricity, and 10% of all energy used for road transport must come from renewable sources.
“I doubt the funding will be found,” said Dan Lewis at the Economic Research Council. “The current system is too biased in favour of making a quick buck on intermittent power rather than developing low-carbon technologies, which require much longer time horizons to merit investment.”
British business faces a £370 billion bill by 2020 to meet the cost of fighting climate change, according to estimates to be published ahead of December’s Copenhagen climate-change summit.
The amount would mainly cover the cost of building renewable-energy capacity, smart grids and high-speed rail links. About £40 billion would finance upgrades to Britain’s water distribution and treatment networks.
This is only part of the picture, said the report’s author, Andrew Raingold of Aldersgate Group, a coalition of business and environmental groups.
“These are conservative estimates and don’t include the costs attached to deploying low-carbon vehicles and supporting infrastructure such as charging stations. This could add another few billion to businesses’ total liability,” he said.
Raingold points to a recent analysis by the Policy Exchange, a think tank, which estimates that the UK will need to spend £50 billion every year for 10 years on low-carbon energy and transport to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. This is more than twice the amount Ofgem, the energy regulator, has said is necessary to meet the government’s target of cutting emissions 34% by 2020.
Various estimates on the costs of cutting carbon out of the economy have been published recently.
The reports are being deployed by industry on one side and governments on the other as they attempt to hammer out a new pollution-cutting agreement at the Copenhagen summit.
All sides agree it will be monumentally expensive. They differ on who should pay for it. Raingold said: “Businesses will end up footing the vast majority of the costs of combating climate change because the Treasury doesn’t have the money.”
Governments and many experts argue that the economic impact of a warmer climate and the costs industry will bear if the carbon price increases will be much greater if businesses do nothing. “There is actually a big opportunity to make money if we don’t drag our feet,” said Sir Brian Hoskins of the Committee on Climate Change, the government ’s green watchdog. It estimates that climate change will cost the UK economy 1% of GDP by 2050.
Last week the Worldwide Fund for Nature said global investment of $1 trillion a year was needed across a range of low-carbon technologies, at least for the next decade, and that it would largely have to come from the private sector.
“The upside of flooding the market with so much capital is you cut the cost of green technology, so clean energy becomes competitively priced with fossil fuels,” said Karl Mallon, lead researcher on the Worldwide Fund for Nature report.
Alice Chapple of Forum for the Future, an environmental think tank, said: “To get this level of investment from business, particularly in a recession, is going to require a variety of incentives, removal of fossilfuel subsidies and agreements between governments and business to share the risks of developing new technologies.”
Keith Clarke, chief executive of the Atkins technology consultancy, said: “Businesses can’t afford to not invest in climate change. But the real question is not about how much, it’s about reaching the right agreements to decarbonise our economy and secure investment.”
Today Britain’s low-carbon market is worth £100 billion, with green manufacturing accounting for 30% of that. The government has forecast the market will grow to £150 billion in five years. Even if that forecast is accurate, the UK could still face a substantial funding gap up to 2020.
By then, there must be a fivefold increase in renewable electricity, and 10% of all energy used for road transport must come from renewable sources.
“I doubt the funding will be found,” said Dan Lewis at the Economic Research Council. “The current system is too biased in favour of making a quick buck on intermittent power rather than developing low-carbon technologies, which require much longer time horizons to merit investment.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
