Government and industry need to work more closely towards developing solutions
DAVID BINNING
As the true scale of energy and environmental challenges becomes clearer, there is a growing realisation of the need for government and industry to work more closely towards developing solutions.
One sturdy bridge between government and industry in the UK, the Technology Strategy Board, has sustainable energy and low carbon as one of its key remits.
Both the board and the Carbon Trust are working with numerous private entities to develop solutions for energy and the environment, focusing particularly on wind and tidal technologies.
A recently formed Public Private Partnership, the Energy Technologies Institute, is focusing on the big players, working with the likes of Shell, BP, E.ON, EDF, Rolls-Royce and Caterpillar, with the aim of producing commercial solutions to energy and environmental problems.
Next January the Technology Strategy Board will run a competition to find the best marine turbine designs in Britain. David Bolt, the board’s director of innovation programmes, said competitions had proved an effective way of connecting innovative Britons with government money to develop their ideas.
A separate competition resulted in the board forming partnerships with the likes of Nissan, Jaguar, Mitsubishi, Lotus, BMW and Peugeot to advance the development of electric cars in the UK.
These activities all fall under the board’s Integrated Delivery Programme, a £200 million investment scheme jointly funded by government and business and designed to accelerate the introduction of low-carbon vehicles on to Britain’s roads.
Oxford Yasa Motors, an Oxford University spin-off, is working to develop ultra-lightweight electric motors for cars. A project of the university’s commercialisation unit Isis Innovation, Yasa recently secured £1.45 million in private equity funding as well as securing £1.89 million from the Technology Strategy Board.
Of course, the financial commitment was contingent on Yasa competing for the money and demonstrating its worthiness, an approach that Bolt said was delivering real results.
“If we give you half the money we need to know what is going to happen bigger or faster — which applications demonstrate through a small business plan.”
Thursday, 29 October 2009
How to meet the challenge
Population surging, oil running out and water scarce — we need solutions before then, says David Binning
By 2050 the world’s population is expected to exceed nine billion, at which point fossil fuels may be no more, countries will no longer be reliant on the Middle East for fuel, America will no longer be the world’s leading economy and areas now sparsely populated may be home to bustling metropolises.
The health of national and world economies as well as people and the environment at this juncture depends very much on widespread collaboration between governments and industries of all kinds to fast-track alternative energy programmes and global agreements on carbon trading and emissions caps.
Many hope that the Copenhagen summit in December will mark a big step in the right direction. However, no one is under any illusions about the difficulty of achieving a proper global accord, especially one that does not disadvantage developing countries.
The fact that we are in real danger of encountering some sort of energy crisis in the future is not debatable. At issue is finding the right balance between the need for long-term planning and more immediate action in identifying new reserves of fossil fuels and other short-term options.
One key concern is that the growing energy needs of countries such as China and India are pushing up prices for coal, oil and gas, leading to sharp rises in electricity costs for industry and homes.
While many acknowledge that most of the easily accessible oil and gas has been exploited, advances in geological mapping, drilling and computational modelling may buy us more time before we need to lose our dependency on fossil fuels completely.
Many people expect that nuclear power will emerge as the world’s dominant energy source in the decades to come. Once the scourge of environmentalists and people of virtually all political persuasions, nuclear has been recast as a possible environmental saviour. Some see it as the best short-term solution to addressing greenhouse emissions from the burning of fossil fuels but of all the energy types it faces the most opposition.
Some scientists stress that a reduction in CO2 emissions of the order of 80 per cent is needed within the next few decades if the world is not going to dry up, freeze or become submerged, depending on which Armageddon scenario you subscribe to.
Yet there is growing disagreement about the science of climate change. Many of the claims made in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth have been debunked in the face of mounting evidence that the planet has been heating and cooling in the same cycles since long before the industrial revolution, and has not become warmer in the past ten years.
It would seem that people will have a different, certainly a more sophisticated, understanding of man’s effect on the weather long before 2050, a fact that will influence government and industry responses to the challenges now being outlined.
David Clarke, chief executive of the Energy Technologies Institute, calculated that Britain needs to spend about £100 billion to meet its 2020 energy and environment targets and at least that amount again before 2050. This includes the massive investments needed in carbon capture and storage.
“We have to understand what we need to do from a supply chain and skills point of view,” Clarke said. “We need to think about not just what we can do but what we need to do.”
Working in partnership with big corporations to solve energy and environmental problems, the Energy Technologies Institute employs complex computer modelling to learn more about key factors, including power, heat, transport and infrastructure and the interplay between them. Predicting population and demographic changes will also be key to developing a clean and sustainable future.
Professor Peter Dobson, head of Oxford University’s Begbroke Science Park and an expert in energy and sustainability, acknowledges that there are serious concerns surrounding energy and food, but predicts that the sourcing and supply of water will emerge as the biggest challenge facing the planet, come 2050.
“We are going to be running out of fossil fuel, that’s a given. However, in terms of energy challenges we have to integrate with a whole range of societal needs like water, which is of course essential for growing food.”
By 2050 the world’s population is expected to exceed nine billion, at which point fossil fuels may be no more, countries will no longer be reliant on the Middle East for fuel, America will no longer be the world’s leading economy and areas now sparsely populated may be home to bustling metropolises.
The health of national and world economies as well as people and the environment at this juncture depends very much on widespread collaboration between governments and industries of all kinds to fast-track alternative energy programmes and global agreements on carbon trading and emissions caps.
Many hope that the Copenhagen summit in December will mark a big step in the right direction. However, no one is under any illusions about the difficulty of achieving a proper global accord, especially one that does not disadvantage developing countries.
The fact that we are in real danger of encountering some sort of energy crisis in the future is not debatable. At issue is finding the right balance between the need for long-term planning and more immediate action in identifying new reserves of fossil fuels and other short-term options.
One key concern is that the growing energy needs of countries such as China and India are pushing up prices for coal, oil and gas, leading to sharp rises in electricity costs for industry and homes.
While many acknowledge that most of the easily accessible oil and gas has been exploited, advances in geological mapping, drilling and computational modelling may buy us more time before we need to lose our dependency on fossil fuels completely.
Many people expect that nuclear power will emerge as the world’s dominant energy source in the decades to come. Once the scourge of environmentalists and people of virtually all political persuasions, nuclear has been recast as a possible environmental saviour. Some see it as the best short-term solution to addressing greenhouse emissions from the burning of fossil fuels but of all the energy types it faces the most opposition.
Some scientists stress that a reduction in CO2 emissions of the order of 80 per cent is needed within the next few decades if the world is not going to dry up, freeze or become submerged, depending on which Armageddon scenario you subscribe to.
Yet there is growing disagreement about the science of climate change. Many of the claims made in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth have been debunked in the face of mounting evidence that the planet has been heating and cooling in the same cycles since long before the industrial revolution, and has not become warmer in the past ten years.
It would seem that people will have a different, certainly a more sophisticated, understanding of man’s effect on the weather long before 2050, a fact that will influence government and industry responses to the challenges now being outlined.
David Clarke, chief executive of the Energy Technologies Institute, calculated that Britain needs to spend about £100 billion to meet its 2020 energy and environment targets and at least that amount again before 2050. This includes the massive investments needed in carbon capture and storage.
“We have to understand what we need to do from a supply chain and skills point of view,” Clarke said. “We need to think about not just what we can do but what we need to do.”
Working in partnership with big corporations to solve energy and environmental problems, the Energy Technologies Institute employs complex computer modelling to learn more about key factors, including power, heat, transport and infrastructure and the interplay between them. Predicting population and demographic changes will also be key to developing a clean and sustainable future.
Professor Peter Dobson, head of Oxford University’s Begbroke Science Park and an expert in energy and sustainability, acknowledges that there are serious concerns surrounding energy and food, but predicts that the sourcing and supply of water will emerge as the biggest challenge facing the planet, come 2050.
“We are going to be running out of fossil fuel, that’s a given. However, in terms of energy challenges we have to integrate with a whole range of societal needs like water, which is of course essential for growing food.”
Powermeter: Google's household energy monitor arrives in UK
Online tool allows householders to monitor energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, thereby reducing consumption and saving money
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 05.00 GMT
Google may be best known for helping you find things on the web, but the online search company's latest move is a bid to make futuristic low-energy eco-homes a reality.
Launching for the first time in the UK today, Google Powermeter is an online tool that allows householders to monitor their home's energy use and greenhouse gas emissions via the web, and so reduce their consumption and save money.
Already being trialled in the US, the free energy-monitoring service uses new smart meters, or an add-on clip for conventional meters, to send electricity consumption to a personalised iGoogle web page. Users will be able to check their energy use anywhere in the world via a computer or mobile phone.
The idea is that householders will be persuaded to stop overfilling kettles, switch appliances off standby and turn off unused lights after being confronted with their daily energy use. Studies by organisations including the government's Energy Saving Trust have suggested such energy monitoring leads people to cut their bills by 3-15%, potentially saving the average UK household £75 a year.
Google Powermeter is itself free, but will initially be available to British homeowners either by buying a gadget called AlertMe Energy or switching to first:utility, a small energy supplier. AlertMe's device works using a broadband hub and a clip for your electricity meter. It can be bought from today for £69 with a £3 monthly subscription fee. First:utility customers will have to wait until next month to try the service.
Powermeter works by showing graphs of a user's energy consumption over time – by day, week or month – and comparing it to their previous usage and regional averages. Ben Coppin, an employee at AlertMe who has trialled it for the last six months, said using the software had led him to switch off an unnecessary immersion heater that was costing £300-400 annually, and to halve his tumble dryer's energy use by switching from its highest setting to its lowest.
Jens Redmer, director for business development at Google, said Powermeter's value came from "immediate feedback". He told of testers in California discovering pool pumps they hadn't used for years but that were draining energy, and one woman who saved her apartment from burning down by detecting a burning toaster while at work and alerting a neighbour.
Redmer added that a social element could be a next step for the service, which keeps users' energy usage private. "In the future, one new feature could be friendly competition – why can't I challenge my friends to say I'll save 10% over a year, and then trigger alerts when they're falling behind, so I could ping them to encourage them?"
Pilgrim Beart, the founder and CEO of AlertMe, said: "Many consumers feel they can't protect themselves from rising energy costs or do anything to stop climate change. However, more than a quarter of all energy use happens in our homes and this gives consumers the power to monitor, control, and reduce the energy they use." Heating and power for UK homes account for 27% of the UK's carbon footprint.
Powermeter's move into the UK puts it a step ahead of Microsoft's rival project, Hohm, which is in a US-only beta trial and works by creating an online dashboard of energy data from partnered utility companies. Unlike Google's software, it covers both electricity and gas use, and you can enter your usage manually.
Enthusiasts have previously developed kits using open-source code that allow homes to post their energy usage to Twitter, and several companies sell energy monitors – such as the OWL and Wattson – which show real-time electricity consumption on wireless handheld displays. One such gadget available in the US, the TED 5000, already works with Powermeter.
The UK government is consulting on the specification for smart meters – whether they should feature wireless displays, for example – which will be fitted in every home by 2020.
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 05.00 GMT
Google may be best known for helping you find things on the web, but the online search company's latest move is a bid to make futuristic low-energy eco-homes a reality.
Launching for the first time in the UK today, Google Powermeter is an online tool that allows householders to monitor their home's energy use and greenhouse gas emissions via the web, and so reduce their consumption and save money.
Already being trialled in the US, the free energy-monitoring service uses new smart meters, or an add-on clip for conventional meters, to send electricity consumption to a personalised iGoogle web page. Users will be able to check their energy use anywhere in the world via a computer or mobile phone.
The idea is that householders will be persuaded to stop overfilling kettles, switch appliances off standby and turn off unused lights after being confronted with their daily energy use. Studies by organisations including the government's Energy Saving Trust have suggested such energy monitoring leads people to cut their bills by 3-15%, potentially saving the average UK household £75 a year.
Google Powermeter is itself free, but will initially be available to British homeowners either by buying a gadget called AlertMe Energy or switching to first:utility, a small energy supplier. AlertMe's device works using a broadband hub and a clip for your electricity meter. It can be bought from today for £69 with a £3 monthly subscription fee. First:utility customers will have to wait until next month to try the service.
Powermeter works by showing graphs of a user's energy consumption over time – by day, week or month – and comparing it to their previous usage and regional averages. Ben Coppin, an employee at AlertMe who has trialled it for the last six months, said using the software had led him to switch off an unnecessary immersion heater that was costing £300-400 annually, and to halve his tumble dryer's energy use by switching from its highest setting to its lowest.
Jens Redmer, director for business development at Google, said Powermeter's value came from "immediate feedback". He told of testers in California discovering pool pumps they hadn't used for years but that were draining energy, and one woman who saved her apartment from burning down by detecting a burning toaster while at work and alerting a neighbour.
Redmer added that a social element could be a next step for the service, which keeps users' energy usage private. "In the future, one new feature could be friendly competition – why can't I challenge my friends to say I'll save 10% over a year, and then trigger alerts when they're falling behind, so I could ping them to encourage them?"
Pilgrim Beart, the founder and CEO of AlertMe, said: "Many consumers feel they can't protect themselves from rising energy costs or do anything to stop climate change. However, more than a quarter of all energy use happens in our homes and this gives consumers the power to monitor, control, and reduce the energy they use." Heating and power for UK homes account for 27% of the UK's carbon footprint.
Powermeter's move into the UK puts it a step ahead of Microsoft's rival project, Hohm, which is in a US-only beta trial and works by creating an online dashboard of energy data from partnered utility companies. Unlike Google's software, it covers both electricity and gas use, and you can enter your usage manually.
Enthusiasts have previously developed kits using open-source code that allow homes to post their energy usage to Twitter, and several companies sell energy monitors – such as the OWL and Wattson – which show real-time electricity consumption on wireless handheld displays. One such gadget available in the US, the TED 5000, already works with Powermeter.
The UK government is consulting on the specification for smart meters – whether they should feature wireless displays, for example – which will be fitted in every home by 2020.
U.S. trumpets grants for advanced electricity-grid projects
By JONATHAN WEISMAN And REBECCA SMITH
ARCADIA, Fla.—The Obama administration launched a clean-energy blitz Tuesday, with President Barack Obama sweeping into this Central Florida hamlet to unveil $3.4 billion in stimulus grants for advanced electricity-grid projects and Vice President Joe Biden traveling to his home state of Delaware to open an electric-automobile plant.
The administration Tuesday released a list of about 100 companies and communities in 45 states and territories that will receive federal subsidies to modernize the electric grid. The administration promised the projects would create "tens of thousands of jobs."
Among the big winners are companies and communities in Florida, which received more than $267 million in grants, and North Carolina, which got more than $400 million, including more than $200 million for units of utility giant Duke Energy Corp., which has supported administration efforts to modernize technology and cap greenhouse-gas emissions.
When combined with funds from utility customers, the federal program is expected to inject more than $8 billion into grid-modernization efforts nationally, administration officials said. Even so, that represents just a fraction of what would be needed to bring the U.S. electrical grid into the digital age.
With 3,000 utilities in the U.S., federal funding still will leave millions of customers untouched. Department of Energy officials said they hope mass deployments would drive down costs for those utilities that haven't yet taken action and would help blaze a path.
Vendors still were sorting out whether they benefit from specific grants because many utilities didn't name specific vendors in applications. In some cases, utilities must now go to state utility commissions for permission to begin the projects because many don't have clearance to use the ratepayer funds they pledged in their grant applications. Grants passed over some big utilities in states like California, Texas and Illinois that have been pushing ahead with meter projects, perhaps on the assumption that no further assistance was needed.
A main goal of grid modernization is to give customers and utilities more data to use energy more efficiently—which represents an opportunity for software vendors as well as companies that make electrical-system hardware. "The richness of the information you get starts to explode" as digital meters and other controllers are put in place, said Jon Arnold, managing director of Microsoft Corp.'s power and utilities business.
Tuesday's twin events, and last Friday's presidential visit to a wind-energy-testing lab in Boston, signal a renewed push on energy issues by the Obama administration, after weeks during which energy and climate change have taken a back seat to fights over health care and future strategy in Afghanistan. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held its first hearing Tuesday on long-stalled climate-change legislation.
The administration also sought to tie its energy initiatives to jobs. In Delaware, Mr. Biden presided over the reopening of a shuttered General Motors plant in Wilmington that has been acquired by Fisker Automotive, which plans to use it to build a new line of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The Department of Energy said grants of $400,000 to $200 million will lead to the installation of at least 18 million advanced digital meters.
ARCADIA, Fla.—The Obama administration launched a clean-energy blitz Tuesday, with President Barack Obama sweeping into this Central Florida hamlet to unveil $3.4 billion in stimulus grants for advanced electricity-grid projects and Vice President Joe Biden traveling to his home state of Delaware to open an electric-automobile plant.
The administration Tuesday released a list of about 100 companies and communities in 45 states and territories that will receive federal subsidies to modernize the electric grid. The administration promised the projects would create "tens of thousands of jobs."
Among the big winners are companies and communities in Florida, which received more than $267 million in grants, and North Carolina, which got more than $400 million, including more than $200 million for units of utility giant Duke Energy Corp., which has supported administration efforts to modernize technology and cap greenhouse-gas emissions.
When combined with funds from utility customers, the federal program is expected to inject more than $8 billion into grid-modernization efforts nationally, administration officials said. Even so, that represents just a fraction of what would be needed to bring the U.S. electrical grid into the digital age.
With 3,000 utilities in the U.S., federal funding still will leave millions of customers untouched. Department of Energy officials said they hope mass deployments would drive down costs for those utilities that haven't yet taken action and would help blaze a path.
Vendors still were sorting out whether they benefit from specific grants because many utilities didn't name specific vendors in applications. In some cases, utilities must now go to state utility commissions for permission to begin the projects because many don't have clearance to use the ratepayer funds they pledged in their grant applications. Grants passed over some big utilities in states like California, Texas and Illinois that have been pushing ahead with meter projects, perhaps on the assumption that no further assistance was needed.
A main goal of grid modernization is to give customers and utilities more data to use energy more efficiently—which represents an opportunity for software vendors as well as companies that make electrical-system hardware. "The richness of the information you get starts to explode" as digital meters and other controllers are put in place, said Jon Arnold, managing director of Microsoft Corp.'s power and utilities business.
Tuesday's twin events, and last Friday's presidential visit to a wind-energy-testing lab in Boston, signal a renewed push on energy issues by the Obama administration, after weeks during which energy and climate change have taken a back seat to fights over health care and future strategy in Afghanistan. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held its first hearing Tuesday on long-stalled climate-change legislation.
The administration also sought to tie its energy initiatives to jobs. In Delaware, Mr. Biden presided over the reopening of a shuttered General Motors plant in Wilmington that has been acquired by Fisker Automotive, which plans to use it to build a new line of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The Department of Energy said grants of $400,000 to $200 million will lead to the installation of at least 18 million advanced digital meters.
Call for green label on laptop chargers
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 15.40 GMT
If laptop users were willing to pay an extra two dollars to upgrade their power supply units, the world could save more than 200m tons of carbon a year, according to a leading component supplier in Taiwan.
Delta Electronics, which makes more than half of the boxes at the end of the world's power cables, wants consumers to be informed of the carbon and energy efficiency of its products so that they can make a choice about whether to pay extra for greener computers.
The current energy efficiency standard for switching power supplies on laptop computers is 87%, though many firms fit devices that fall well below this level.
Delta says its best equipment could reach 93% for $1 or $2 more. It is not yet widely adopted because computer firms such as HP and Dell are reluctant to pass on the cost to consumers.
"The point is, consumers never know the efficiency of their computers," said Delta Electronics' founder and chairman, Bruce Cheng. "We are serious in our efforts to reduce global warming by our unrelenting research into ever more energy efficient products."
The firm expects to sell about 63m adaptors this year. With an improvement of eight percentage points, it estimates the average laptop could save 8.8kWh a year.
"Consumers should ask for higher efficiency. That's why we want a carbon label on goods. We would be the biggest benefactor," said Emelie Yeh, a company spokesperson.
Taiwanese firms supply most of the IT components, fans and power supply adaptors in computers and household appliances. Peter Rowling, of the environmental consultancy ERM, welcomed the push to inform the public. "This is good because carbon labelling is about disclosure, but what is important is that it looks at the whole life cycle of the product. We also need to know the energy and resources that go into products."
Taiwan is moving in this direction. Last month, AU Optronics, a leading producer of LCD televisions, announced one of Taiwan's first carbon-footprint verification schemes. Other firms are expected to follow.
Delta, however, said users could make big energy savings simply by switching devices off when they are not used rather than leaving them on standby. The company estimates that 5% of the world's household electricity is wasted this way each year – equivalent to the annual output of a 12GW power plant.
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 15.40 GMT
If laptop users were willing to pay an extra two dollars to upgrade their power supply units, the world could save more than 200m tons of carbon a year, according to a leading component supplier in Taiwan.
Delta Electronics, which makes more than half of the boxes at the end of the world's power cables, wants consumers to be informed of the carbon and energy efficiency of its products so that they can make a choice about whether to pay extra for greener computers.
The current energy efficiency standard for switching power supplies on laptop computers is 87%, though many firms fit devices that fall well below this level.
Delta says its best equipment could reach 93% for $1 or $2 more. It is not yet widely adopted because computer firms such as HP and Dell are reluctant to pass on the cost to consumers.
"The point is, consumers never know the efficiency of their computers," said Delta Electronics' founder and chairman, Bruce Cheng. "We are serious in our efforts to reduce global warming by our unrelenting research into ever more energy efficient products."
The firm expects to sell about 63m adaptors this year. With an improvement of eight percentage points, it estimates the average laptop could save 8.8kWh a year.
"Consumers should ask for higher efficiency. That's why we want a carbon label on goods. We would be the biggest benefactor," said Emelie Yeh, a company spokesperson.
Taiwanese firms supply most of the IT components, fans and power supply adaptors in computers and household appliances. Peter Rowling, of the environmental consultancy ERM, welcomed the push to inform the public. "This is good because carbon labelling is about disclosure, but what is important is that it looks at the whole life cycle of the product. We also need to know the energy and resources that go into products."
Taiwan is moving in this direction. Last month, AU Optronics, a leading producer of LCD televisions, announced one of Taiwan's first carbon-footprint verification schemes. Other firms are expected to follow.
Delta, however, said users could make big energy savings simply by switching devices off when they are not used rather than leaving them on standby. The company estimates that 5% of the world's household electricity is wasted this way each year – equivalent to the annual output of a 12GW power plant.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Key Democrat Cites Concerns on Climate Bill
By SIOBHAN HUGHES and IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Max Baucus said Tuesday he has "serious reservations" about climate legislation unveiled by his Democratic colleagues, signaling trouble for a proposal that is stronger in certain respects than a bill passed by the House.
Mr. Baucus made his comments at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which took up climate legislation written by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.). The bill calls for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. That is tougher than a House-passed version, which calls for a reduction of 17%.
The Senate bill also protects the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, powers that were stripped by the House.
Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat who is chairman of the Finance Committee, will be a key player in shaping any final bill, as that panel also has jurisdiction over some elements of climate legislation. His views are closer to those of other Democrats from heartland and coal-dependent states whose support will be essential to passing a climate bill.
"I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill," Mr. Baucus said at the start of hearings Tuesday. "I have serious reservations with the depth of the midterm reduction target...and the lack of pre-emption of the Clean Air Act."
As proposed, the bill risks moving legislators "further away from that achievable consensus on common-sense climate-change [legislation]," Mr. Baucus said.
Ms. Boxer said Mr. Baucus might adjust his position when she explains that the 20% target is easier to achieve since U.S. greenhouse-gas levels have fallen in recent years. "We're going to be talking with him about that," she said.
Other Democratic members of the committee also hinted they would like to see a more moderate bill. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) expressed concern that emission-intense industries such as oil refining or coal-production might be hurt. Pennsylvania industry relies heavily on coal-generated power.
Supporters of the climate proposal can ill afford to lose any Democratic votes in the Senate, given stiff Republican opposition. GOP panel members have said they will try to keep the bill from passing out of committee if there isn't a comprehensive review of costs by the EPA and the Congressional Budget Office. Republicans say the Kerry-Boxer bill as drafted could hurt the economy.
Several cabinet officials appeared at the hearing to encourage passage of a bill to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The Senate bill, like the House measure, would require companies across the economy to hold government-issued permits to emit greenhouse gases -- including carbon dioxide -- which scientists have linked to a long-term rise in global temperatures.
Like the House measure, the Senate bill aims to ease costs to industry by initially giving away for free permits to certain industries, such as electric utilities and makers of steel and cement. Over time, the government would reduce the number of permits issued, bringing down emissions, while letting companies trade the valuable permits among themselves.
Write to Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com and Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Max Baucus said Tuesday he has "serious reservations" about climate legislation unveiled by his Democratic colleagues, signaling trouble for a proposal that is stronger in certain respects than a bill passed by the House.
Mr. Baucus made his comments at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which took up climate legislation written by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.). The bill calls for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. That is tougher than a House-passed version, which calls for a reduction of 17%.
The Senate bill also protects the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, powers that were stripped by the House.
Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat who is chairman of the Finance Committee, will be a key player in shaping any final bill, as that panel also has jurisdiction over some elements of climate legislation. His views are closer to those of other Democrats from heartland and coal-dependent states whose support will be essential to passing a climate bill.
"I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill," Mr. Baucus said at the start of hearings Tuesday. "I have serious reservations with the depth of the midterm reduction target...and the lack of pre-emption of the Clean Air Act."
As proposed, the bill risks moving legislators "further away from that achievable consensus on common-sense climate-change [legislation]," Mr. Baucus said.
Ms. Boxer said Mr. Baucus might adjust his position when she explains that the 20% target is easier to achieve since U.S. greenhouse-gas levels have fallen in recent years. "We're going to be talking with him about that," she said.
Other Democratic members of the committee also hinted they would like to see a more moderate bill. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) expressed concern that emission-intense industries such as oil refining or coal-production might be hurt. Pennsylvania industry relies heavily on coal-generated power.
Supporters of the climate proposal can ill afford to lose any Democratic votes in the Senate, given stiff Republican opposition. GOP panel members have said they will try to keep the bill from passing out of committee if there isn't a comprehensive review of costs by the EPA and the Congressional Budget Office. Republicans say the Kerry-Boxer bill as drafted could hurt the economy.
Several cabinet officials appeared at the hearing to encourage passage of a bill to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The Senate bill, like the House measure, would require companies across the economy to hold government-issued permits to emit greenhouse gases -- including carbon dioxide -- which scientists have linked to a long-term rise in global temperatures.
Like the House measure, the Senate bill aims to ease costs to industry by initially giving away for free permits to certain industries, such as electric utilities and makers of steel and cement. Over time, the government would reduce the number of permits issued, bringing down emissions, while letting companies trade the valuable permits among themselves.
Write to Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com and Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com
Climate change is a feminist issue
Granting women control over their own reproduction would combat overpopulation and reduce carbon emissions
Mary Fitzgerald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 16.30 GMT
When it emerged earlier this year that Obama's science tsar John Holdren had once, back in 1977, co-authored a textbook discussing possible methods of population control, among them sterilisation, America's rightwing fury machine triumphantly seized upon it, dubbing him Obama's "science fiction tsar".
Yet with the climate change conference in Copenhagen approaching, how fictitious is the need for population control? As Alex Renton noted in November's Prospect magazine, if the world's population continues to grow at present rate, by 2050 the globe will need the resources of a second Earth to sustain it. And if you throw in the projected effects of a warming planet, the problem starts to look as apocalyptic as it did to Holdren, and many others, back in the 1970s.
However world leaders might try to spin this problem, nearly all the ways of tackling climate change involve taking rights away from people – be it their right to fly, to drive, or to heat their patios. The one thing that would do the opposite, that would empower human beings, would be to give women across the world control over their own bodies. Plenty of them want it: according to the UN, there are currently more than 200 million women worldwide wanting but unable to get contraception. So forget ghoulish 1970s notions of compulsory abortions – as Michelle Goldberg points out, feminism has already vanquished these – we can start "controlling" population simply by providing women with basic rights. In short, population control, and by extension climate change, are feminist issues.
Wherever women have adequate access to contraception, education, the right to work, equality before the law, the birth rate plummets. And this is where western liberal proclivities towards cultural relativism start to break down. However much we might want to respect other cultures, those that deny women these rights are directly harming all of us, even if our own society is an equitable, gender-blind utopia. Unless we want a world ravaged by droughts and floods, we are going to have to start demanding women be treated as equal citizens – everywhere. In fact, you don't even have to call it feminism. You could call it calculated self-interest.
Population control is not something the "developing world" alone needs to wise up to, either. Quite the opposite. The one-child policy of China, the world's fastest developing country, is infamous, yet as a result we already have 300-400m fewer people on the planet. (Interestingly, China is doing a lot more on climate change in other areas than we assume too). That's not to suggest that we import China's birth control policies wholesale – the People's Republic, after all, is not widely known for its regard for anyone's rights, female or otherwise. But we have to do something: one British child pollutes more than 30 children in sub-Saharan Africa do. And, unlike in Britain, there are pressing economic reasons why women in sub-Saharan Africa need children.
True, many women in rich countries already choose to limit their families; Britain's average birth rate per family is a modest 1.97, roughly average for the developed world. But this means a vast number of women are still having more than three children and, given the disproportionate bulk of their carbon footprint, they need to be persuaded not to. This doesn't have to take the shape of draconian legislation, but rather positive incentives. We should not deny women autonomy over their own bodies (as many pro-life campaigns seek to), but we could make child benefits for smaller families much more generous. We could also offer middle-class families generous tax breaks if they have two children or less. This isn't taking away people's rights, it's just weighting the options differently – and, in turn, better protecting the rights of others who share this planet.
You don't even have to believe in global warming to come to this conclusion; you can still have your head firmly in the sand about the fact that humans are having an effect on the temperature of this planet. The population question exists outside this issue. It's simply a matter of maths: the Earth can only host a finite number of people. And surely educating and bettering the lives of the world's women, for whatever purpose, is no bad thing?
Mary Fitzgerald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 16.30 GMT
When it emerged earlier this year that Obama's science tsar John Holdren had once, back in 1977, co-authored a textbook discussing possible methods of population control, among them sterilisation, America's rightwing fury machine triumphantly seized upon it, dubbing him Obama's "science fiction tsar".
Yet with the climate change conference in Copenhagen approaching, how fictitious is the need for population control? As Alex Renton noted in November's Prospect magazine, if the world's population continues to grow at present rate, by 2050 the globe will need the resources of a second Earth to sustain it. And if you throw in the projected effects of a warming planet, the problem starts to look as apocalyptic as it did to Holdren, and many others, back in the 1970s.
However world leaders might try to spin this problem, nearly all the ways of tackling climate change involve taking rights away from people – be it their right to fly, to drive, or to heat their patios. The one thing that would do the opposite, that would empower human beings, would be to give women across the world control over their own bodies. Plenty of them want it: according to the UN, there are currently more than 200 million women worldwide wanting but unable to get contraception. So forget ghoulish 1970s notions of compulsory abortions – as Michelle Goldberg points out, feminism has already vanquished these – we can start "controlling" population simply by providing women with basic rights. In short, population control, and by extension climate change, are feminist issues.
Wherever women have adequate access to contraception, education, the right to work, equality before the law, the birth rate plummets. And this is where western liberal proclivities towards cultural relativism start to break down. However much we might want to respect other cultures, those that deny women these rights are directly harming all of us, even if our own society is an equitable, gender-blind utopia. Unless we want a world ravaged by droughts and floods, we are going to have to start demanding women be treated as equal citizens – everywhere. In fact, you don't even have to call it feminism. You could call it calculated self-interest.
Population control is not something the "developing world" alone needs to wise up to, either. Quite the opposite. The one-child policy of China, the world's fastest developing country, is infamous, yet as a result we already have 300-400m fewer people on the planet. (Interestingly, China is doing a lot more on climate change in other areas than we assume too). That's not to suggest that we import China's birth control policies wholesale – the People's Republic, after all, is not widely known for its regard for anyone's rights, female or otherwise. But we have to do something: one British child pollutes more than 30 children in sub-Saharan Africa do. And, unlike in Britain, there are pressing economic reasons why women in sub-Saharan Africa need children.
True, many women in rich countries already choose to limit their families; Britain's average birth rate per family is a modest 1.97, roughly average for the developed world. But this means a vast number of women are still having more than three children and, given the disproportionate bulk of their carbon footprint, they need to be persuaded not to. This doesn't have to take the shape of draconian legislation, but rather positive incentives. We should not deny women autonomy over their own bodies (as many pro-life campaigns seek to), but we could make child benefits for smaller families much more generous. We could also offer middle-class families generous tax breaks if they have two children or less. This isn't taking away people's rights, it's just weighting the options differently – and, in turn, better protecting the rights of others who share this planet.
You don't even have to believe in global warming to come to this conclusion; you can still have your head firmly in the sand about the fact that humans are having an effect on the temperature of this planet. The population question exists outside this issue. It's simply a matter of maths: the Earth can only host a finite number of people. And surely educating and bettering the lives of the world's women, for whatever purpose, is no bad thing?
Senate Democrats push for climate bill ahead of Copenhagen
• Obama administration warns of cost of inaction• Move met with opposition from Baucus and Inhofe
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 19.54 GMT
The epic confrontation about how America will power the economy of the future formally got underway today amid stark warnings from the Obama administration of the costs of inaction on energy reform.
Today's hearing, the first of three blockbuster sessions in the Senate, marks a last heave by administration officials and Democratic leaders to advance a bill to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions before an international climate change meeting at Copenhagen, now just six weeks away.
They were met with strong opposition from a powerful Democrat as well as Republicans on the environment and public works committee.
With the clock running down to Copenhagen, the administration wheeled out four top officials to make the case that failure to act now on climate change would relegate America to lower tier status in the global economy. "When the starting gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United States stumbled," Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told the environment and public works committee. "If we don't choose to begin the development of this new technology, China and other countries will."
American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen.
In an ominous sign for those prospects, Max Baucus, who ranks second on the environment committee and chairs the finance committee which will also review the bill, said the proposed 20% reduction target was too steep. "I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill," he said. "We cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change but we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of legislation."
For weeks, the White House, Democrats, and environmental organisations have lobbied hard to frame the bill as an economic opportunity.
Obama picked up the theme again in a visit to a solar plant in Florida where he announced $3.48bn in government grants to projects modernising America's electrical grid. In introducing the bill today, Barbara Boxer leaned heavily on an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency that showed the shift away from oil and coal would cost just 22 to 30 cents a day.
Global warming isn't waiting for who is a Democrat or who is a Republican. Either we are going to deal with this problem or we are not," she said.
John Kerry, who co-wrote the bill with Boxer, said it would usher in a technological revolution akin to the rapid growth of the internet in the 1990s. "We are going to create the equivalent of five or 10 Googles and that is going to drive the economy of our country," said John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is the other co-author of the bill.
But their arguments appeared to make little headway with Republicanson the committee. James Inhofe, the Okalahoma Republican who notoriously declared global warming a hoax, called the bill a "temple of doom" which would cost Americans up to $400bn a year.
Some Republicans pressed for investment to build 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade, or to expand offshore oil drilling to meet America's future energy needs. Others argued that America would be damaging its own interests if it embarked on costly energy reforms - while emerging powers like India and China did not.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 19.54 GMT
The epic confrontation about how America will power the economy of the future formally got underway today amid stark warnings from the Obama administration of the costs of inaction on energy reform.
Today's hearing, the first of three blockbuster sessions in the Senate, marks a last heave by administration officials and Democratic leaders to advance a bill to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions before an international climate change meeting at Copenhagen, now just six weeks away.
They were met with strong opposition from a powerful Democrat as well as Republicans on the environment and public works committee.
With the clock running down to Copenhagen, the administration wheeled out four top officials to make the case that failure to act now on climate change would relegate America to lower tier status in the global economy. "When the starting gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United States stumbled," Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told the environment and public works committee. "If we don't choose to begin the development of this new technology, China and other countries will."
American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen.
In an ominous sign for those prospects, Max Baucus, who ranks second on the environment committee and chairs the finance committee which will also review the bill, said the proposed 20% reduction target was too steep. "I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill," he said. "We cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change but we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of legislation."
For weeks, the White House, Democrats, and environmental organisations have lobbied hard to frame the bill as an economic opportunity.
Obama picked up the theme again in a visit to a solar plant in Florida where he announced $3.48bn in government grants to projects modernising America's electrical grid. In introducing the bill today, Barbara Boxer leaned heavily on an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency that showed the shift away from oil and coal would cost just 22 to 30 cents a day.
Global warming isn't waiting for who is a Democrat or who is a Republican. Either we are going to deal with this problem or we are not," she said.
John Kerry, who co-wrote the bill with Boxer, said it would usher in a technological revolution akin to the rapid growth of the internet in the 1990s. "We are going to create the equivalent of five or 10 Googles and that is going to drive the economy of our country," said John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is the other co-author of the bill.
But their arguments appeared to make little headway with Republicanson the committee. James Inhofe, the Okalahoma Republican who notoriously declared global warming a hoax, called the bill a "temple of doom" which would cost Americans up to $400bn a year.
Some Republicans pressed for investment to build 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade, or to expand offshore oil drilling to meet America's future energy needs. Others argued that America would be damaging its own interests if it embarked on costly energy reforms - while emerging powers like India and China did not.
Europe puts figure on green aid to push climate change deal
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 20.34 GMT
Europe is to breathe life into the faltering search for a new global deal on climate change by pledging billions of pounds in financial support for poor countries, the Guardian can reveal.
European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around €100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming. The pledge is expected to come at the end of a two-day summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday, and before negotiations on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.
The move marks a victory in Brussels for the UK and Gordon Brown, who appears to have won arguments with member states including Germany over whether Europe should commit to climate funding ahead of the Copenhagen talks. Brown was the first western leader to put hard figures on the table when he said in a speech earlier this year that rich countries needed to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year by 2020.
A draft copy of the European summit's conclusions obtained by the Guardian spells out that a "deal on financing will be a central part of an agreement in Copenhagen" and that Europe is ready to "take on its resulting fair share of total international public finance".
The document says: "It is estimated that the total net incremental costs of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries could amount to around €100bn annually by 2020, to be met through a combination of their own efforts, the international carbon market and international public finance."
It adds: "The overall level of the international public support required is estimated to lie in the range of €22bn to €50bn per year by 2020 … this range could be narrowed down in view of the Copenhagen summit." The document does not specify how much money Europe is willing to provide, though previous estimates have put their likely contribution at about €10bn-€15bn each year. That could land European taxpayers with a bill of about €5bn-€7.5bn each year.
The European move marks the first formal recognition that rich countries will need to pick up the climate change bill prior to Copenhagen. Developing nations such as China and India have stressed that serious financial assistance is a prerequisite for any deal in Copenhagen.
The draft European position says: "All countries, except the least developed, should contribute to international public financing … based on emission levels and on GDP to reflect both responsibility for global emissions and ability to pay."
Such a move would leave the US with a bill running to tens of billions a year, unlikely to go down well in Washington.
The European move comes amid gathering pessimism on the chances of a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. Hanne Bjurstroem, Norway's chief climate negotiator, became the latest senior figure to express doubts when she told Reuters today: "I don't believe we will get a full, ratifiable, legally binding agreement from Copenhagen."
Joss Garman of Greenpeace said: "This document has a big number but as soon as you drill down there's no plan for how to raise the money. Europe needs to push for a levy on shipping and aviation which could raise tens of billions to finance low carbon development in poor countries, and the means to adapt to climate change. Solving the question of finance for the developing world is the key to success in Copenhagen."Some experts have said the true costs to the developing world of tackling climate change could be much higher than what will now be pledged – perhaps up to $200-300bn a year. China and India have called for rich countries to hand over 1% of their GDP.
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 20.34 GMT
Europe is to breathe life into the faltering search for a new global deal on climate change by pledging billions of pounds in financial support for poor countries, the Guardian can reveal.
European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around €100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming. The pledge is expected to come at the end of a two-day summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday, and before negotiations on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.
The move marks a victory in Brussels for the UK and Gordon Brown, who appears to have won arguments with member states including Germany over whether Europe should commit to climate funding ahead of the Copenhagen talks. Brown was the first western leader to put hard figures on the table when he said in a speech earlier this year that rich countries needed to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year by 2020.
A draft copy of the European summit's conclusions obtained by the Guardian spells out that a "deal on financing will be a central part of an agreement in Copenhagen" and that Europe is ready to "take on its resulting fair share of total international public finance".
The document says: "It is estimated that the total net incremental costs of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries could amount to around €100bn annually by 2020, to be met through a combination of their own efforts, the international carbon market and international public finance."
It adds: "The overall level of the international public support required is estimated to lie in the range of €22bn to €50bn per year by 2020 … this range could be narrowed down in view of the Copenhagen summit." The document does not specify how much money Europe is willing to provide, though previous estimates have put their likely contribution at about €10bn-€15bn each year. That could land European taxpayers with a bill of about €5bn-€7.5bn each year.
The European move marks the first formal recognition that rich countries will need to pick up the climate change bill prior to Copenhagen. Developing nations such as China and India have stressed that serious financial assistance is a prerequisite for any deal in Copenhagen.
The draft European position says: "All countries, except the least developed, should contribute to international public financing … based on emission levels and on GDP to reflect both responsibility for global emissions and ability to pay."
Such a move would leave the US with a bill running to tens of billions a year, unlikely to go down well in Washington.
The European move comes amid gathering pessimism on the chances of a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. Hanne Bjurstroem, Norway's chief climate negotiator, became the latest senior figure to express doubts when she told Reuters today: "I don't believe we will get a full, ratifiable, legally binding agreement from Copenhagen."
Joss Garman of Greenpeace said: "This document has a big number but as soon as you drill down there's no plan for how to raise the money. Europe needs to push for a levy on shipping and aviation which could raise tens of billions to finance low carbon development in poor countries, and the means to adapt to climate change. Solving the question of finance for the developing world is the key to success in Copenhagen."Some experts have said the true costs to the developing world of tackling climate change could be much higher than what will now be pledged – perhaps up to $200-300bn a year. China and India have called for rich countries to hand over 1% of their GDP.
The Sketch: It's a climate of confusion, for sure
Simon Carr
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Things are so complicated it's a wonder anyone knows what's going on. But then, no one does. No one can. There's too much to know. Not that Lord Turner of Ecchinswell put it like that. He's climate change. It's his job to project omniscience in the face of the unknowable.
He told the Environmental Audit Committee that reducing emissions by 80 per cent will lead to a 50-50 probability of keeping world temperature increases below C. How wonderfully authoritative that sounds. What certainty it offers, by specifying the degree of uncertainty. What precision. What exactitude.
At the cost of several trillion dollars, we will achieve a global goal that sceptics assume is unachievable. This amazing effort may or may not have the predicted effect. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Is that a little casual? By the same token, he told us that with the 80 per cent reduction, the chance of world temperatures increasing by 4C is just 1 per cent.
But we live in a world where temperature claims on both sides are supported by conflicting statistics and where the economic cycle makes a mockery of politicians' predictions – but here is Lord Turner applying his definitive probabilities to a multi-trillion-dollar bet and assumes he will carry the country with him.
He also said that if we wanted to increase the probability to 99 per cent we would have to start de-industrialising immediately. But then if we did de-industrialise and we still breached the C he would rightfully say: "I did warn you there was one chance in a hundred it would happen."
These unknowables are matched by the more ordinary mysteries of administrative life.
What's the likelihood of getting three nuclear power stations through planning and construction by 2020. Is that going to happen? "It is... absolutely... not impossible," Lord Turner said. He didn't specify the improbability.
Now, as you're a well-informed climate change specialist you can almost certainly explain the difference between a carbon credit and a carbon offset and why a credit is better than an offset. But did you know that your virtuously-procured EU Emissions Trading credits contain offsets? Ah ha!
But even if you're expert in the field to the extent of being on the EAC you might be confused about whether new power stations really had to be clean-coal-compliant. You thought there was wriggle room? No the policy changed in February.
And even if you're the minister you might not know whether some target for 2020 was 2 per cent or 20 per cent – the ministerial preference. It was 2 per cent in the minister's document but it's certain there is a probability factor that everyone was right.
simoncarr@sketch.sc
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Things are so complicated it's a wonder anyone knows what's going on. But then, no one does. No one can. There's too much to know. Not that Lord Turner of Ecchinswell put it like that. He's climate change. It's his job to project omniscience in the face of the unknowable.
He told the Environmental Audit Committee that reducing emissions by 80 per cent will lead to a 50-50 probability of keeping world temperature increases below C. How wonderfully authoritative that sounds. What certainty it offers, by specifying the degree of uncertainty. What precision. What exactitude.
At the cost of several trillion dollars, we will achieve a global goal that sceptics assume is unachievable. This amazing effort may or may not have the predicted effect. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Is that a little casual? By the same token, he told us that with the 80 per cent reduction, the chance of world temperatures increasing by 4C is just 1 per cent.
But we live in a world where temperature claims on both sides are supported by conflicting statistics and where the economic cycle makes a mockery of politicians' predictions – but here is Lord Turner applying his definitive probabilities to a multi-trillion-dollar bet and assumes he will carry the country with him.
He also said that if we wanted to increase the probability to 99 per cent we would have to start de-industrialising immediately. But then if we did de-industrialise and we still breached the C he would rightfully say: "I did warn you there was one chance in a hundred it would happen."
These unknowables are matched by the more ordinary mysteries of administrative life.
What's the likelihood of getting three nuclear power stations through planning and construction by 2020. Is that going to happen? "It is... absolutely... not impossible," Lord Turner said. He didn't specify the improbability.
Now, as you're a well-informed climate change specialist you can almost certainly explain the difference between a carbon credit and a carbon offset and why a credit is better than an offset. But did you know that your virtuously-procured EU Emissions Trading credits contain offsets? Ah ha!
But even if you're expert in the field to the extent of being on the EAC you might be confused about whether new power stations really had to be clean-coal-compliant. You thought there was wriggle room? No the policy changed in February.
And even if you're the minister you might not know whether some target for 2020 was 2 per cent or 20 per cent – the ministerial preference. It was 2 per cent in the minister's document but it's certain there is a probability factor that everyone was right.
simoncarr@sketch.sc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
