Private jet companies are charging executives puny sums to supposedly make the flights carbon-neutral. What a greenwash
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 October 2009 11.51 GMT
Ah, the joys of your own executive jet. No more standing in line at the airport; no more travelling according to someone else's timetable; no more getting into the same plane as beastly ordinary people. And to hell with the climate consequences.
Well, that used to be the mantra. But these days something even more worrying is afoot. Now you can hire your own private plane and bask in the glow of being carbon-neutral at the same time.
NetJets Europe, which claims to be "the world's largest business aviation company", is adding compulsory carbon offsetting to contracts with all its customers. It says that by 2012, when all existing contracts will have been renewed, the entire operation will be carbon-neutral.
Its partner in this process is the Dublin-based offsetting company Ecosecurities, which specialises in cutting methane emissions from pig farm slurry pits, landfills and water treatment works across the world.
Gulp if you will, but arguably this is the logical outcome of the carbon offsetting business. It means the filthy rich can maintain their lifestyles while buying virtue at a cost few of them will notice. The cost of those offsets will generally be less than 1% of the hire cost of a plane.
NetJets is so far sticking by only voluntary offsets outside Europe. But, to be fair, it is also looking at biofuels as a long-term option, which has the potential to drastically cut actual emissions from the company's fleet. It is sponsoring research at Princeton University on future jet fuels.
Other private jet companies are joining the green push. But most are simply offering their customers off-the-shelf ways to buy their way to a green image through offsets. So you can "eliminate your carbon footprint" with Chief Executive Air, which says:
Enjoy the comfort and convenience of flying private and work with us to promote a cleaner environment by sponsoring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Fly Chief Executive Air for personalized private flight that's GREEN.
You might almost believe –and I can't help thinking some executives will believe – that the more you fly the better it is for the environment.
An increasing number of carbon offset companies are joining in, too. Their old mantra that you should cut your emissions first and then offset what emissions are unavoidable seems to have been lost in the rush to soak up the cash and carbon of the rich.
How much greater are the emissions from executive jets? I am indebted to HalogenGuides Jets, "the insider's guide to private aviation", for doing the stats.
They reviewed 10 popular private jets using emissions stats provided by TerraPass, the offset company used by Chief Executive Air. The planes ranged from the Gulfstream 400, which burns up 32l of fuel a minute and can carry up to 19 passengers, to the Learjet 40XR, which burns more than 13l a minute to carry a maximum of five passengers.
HeliumReport converts this fuel burn into carbon dioxide emissions per hour. If we assume the plane is fully loaded with passengers, they mostly come in at between 200-300kg of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere per passenger per hour. But of course, the purpose of having your own jet is that you are not stuck with silly cost-cutting exercises like filling every seat on the plane.
I know of no analysis of how full private jets normally fly, but let's assume they are mostly half full. That gives emissions per passenger-hour of 400-600kg of carbon dioxide. That's about half a tonne.
How does that compare with a regular commercial flight? For one from London to Paris, which is roughly an hour, TerraPass reckons 59kg per passenger per hour, or little more more than a 10th as much as flying your own, half full, Learjet.
If you are interested in carbon emissions, these numbers are scary. An hour's flight on a private jet will emit more carbon dioxide than most Africans do in a whole year.
But of course if you are a top executive, offsetting costs on average, according to HeliumReport, between 0.1% and 0.6% of the hourly hire cost of the aircraft. Small change, in other words.
This cannot be right. This is not the place to pursue the question of how leaky and unpredictable the climate benefits of carbon offsets often are. They have some value, for sure, but they are very much second best to cutting your emissions.
I blame the offsetters for the marketing of offsets as an alternative, even a superior alternative, to cutting corporate emissions. They get an easy ride from greens. TerraPass proudly quotes the green blog Treehugger's plaudit that "we've always been impressed with the way TerraPass thinks beyond offsets to how they can actually encourage folks to lead greener lifestyles too".
I'm sorry. TerraPass has a special part of its website dedicated to signing up corporate clients using private jets. I didn't see any mention there of how, maybe, commercial flying might be better.
It's a sham. It's greenwash.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Thursday, 29 October 2009
U.S.-China Climate Pact Isn't on Table, Envoy Says
SHANGHAI -- U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said he doesn't expect bilateral agreements on global climate issues when U.S. President Barack Obama visits China next month.
The U.S. and China will use the opportunity to look for common ground and try to facilitate agreements at the Copenhagen climate-change summit in December, he said.
"We are not trying to cut some separate deals," Mr. Stern told reporters. "We'll try to get as much alliance as possible [between China and the U.S.] to get a deal in Copenhagen," he said.
He also said the two sides will continue discussions on cooperation in clean energy and technology during Mr. Obama's visit, and these talks would also involve the private sector.
Mr. Obama is due to visit Beijing and Shanghai Nov. 15-18. His visit constitutes the last chance for high-level face-to-face talks between the two sides ahead of the United Nations summit in Copenhagen. Agreement between the two countries -- the world's largest greenhouse-gas emitters -- is widely seen as crucial to the success of any global effort to fight climate change.
The two nations have been locked in a stalemate for years over the degree to which either should have to commit to mandatory emissions cuts, and to what extent rich nations should have to help finance efforts by poorer nations to fight climate change.
During the visit, the two country's presidents may ask each other what their bottom lines are on climate-change issues, a Chinese government official told Dow Jones Newswires.
"Climate-change negotiation is not an issue between two countries. It is an issue at the United Nations," the Chinese official said, adding, "What the two countries would do is to learn about each other's need and concerns, and to see if these concerns could be resolved through the international pact."
Mr. Stern's comments came as representatives of major industries testified before a U.S. Senate panel that is holding hearings this week on a proposal to cut U.S. emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. Valero Energy Corp.'s chief executive told lawmakers the proposed bill could have a "staggering" impact on his company and cost the refining industry around $4.1 billion a year.
The U.S. and China will use the opportunity to look for common ground and try to facilitate agreements at the Copenhagen climate-change summit in December, he said.
"We are not trying to cut some separate deals," Mr. Stern told reporters. "We'll try to get as much alliance as possible [between China and the U.S.] to get a deal in Copenhagen," he said.
He also said the two sides will continue discussions on cooperation in clean energy and technology during Mr. Obama's visit, and these talks would also involve the private sector.
Mr. Obama is due to visit Beijing and Shanghai Nov. 15-18. His visit constitutes the last chance for high-level face-to-face talks between the two sides ahead of the United Nations summit in Copenhagen. Agreement between the two countries -- the world's largest greenhouse-gas emitters -- is widely seen as crucial to the success of any global effort to fight climate change.
The two nations have been locked in a stalemate for years over the degree to which either should have to commit to mandatory emissions cuts, and to what extent rich nations should have to help finance efforts by poorer nations to fight climate change.
During the visit, the two country's presidents may ask each other what their bottom lines are on climate-change issues, a Chinese government official told Dow Jones Newswires.
"Climate-change negotiation is not an issue between two countries. It is an issue at the United Nations," the Chinese official said, adding, "What the two countries would do is to learn about each other's need and concerns, and to see if these concerns could be resolved through the international pact."
Mr. Stern's comments came as representatives of major industries testified before a U.S. Senate panel that is holding hearings this week on a proposal to cut U.S. emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. Valero Energy Corp.'s chief executive told lawmakers the proposed bill could have a "staggering" impact on his company and cost the refining industry around $4.1 billion a year.
Blair whispers overshadow climate change agenda
David Charter: Analysis
Tony Blair is the elephant in the room at this summit. But frankly he is not the real reason that European leaders are gathering in Brussels today.
Inevitably, the chatter in the corridors and the questions at press conferences will be about the EU presidency, but 95 per cent of the formal agenda is focused on other things. The EU’s credibility is on the line over climate change; Gordon Brown is pushing for a new declaration on the economy and jobs; a solution has to be found to persuade the Czech President to sign the Lisbon treaty; and the the EU’s proposed new diplomatic service will be discussed.
This is the last chance for the 27 leaders to agree how much money they are prepared to give to help to reach agreement at the global climate change conference in Copenhagen next month. Despite the insistence of Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands, many EU countries are against plans to fund developing nations to cut their emissions.
As with the appointment of Mr Blair, all eyes are on Angela Merkel, of Germany, who has resisted the call for Europe to spell out its part of an international package of up to €100 billion a year.
Gordon Brown has suggested that the EU should pay €10 billion a year from 2020 to help poorer countries to go green and has said that Britain would pay €1 billion. But the Germans view any commitment of figures as bad tactics before the tough negotiations expected in Copenhagen.
A group of nine former Iron Curtain countries led by Poland are also blocking the move, demanding to know exactly how much it will cost each nation before they sign up. Green campaigners believe that failure to agree a funding plan for Copenhagen backed by hard cash could be a mortal blow to the talks, which are aimed at setting emissions cuts across the world.
The leaders must also agree on a concession for President Klaus of the Czech Republic to persuade him to sign the Lisbon treaty, which has been ratified in all the other countries. They are likely to meet his demand for an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, similar to those granted to Britain and Poland.
Besides the possible choice of Mr Blair for president, the EU leaders also have to consider the appointment of a new EU foreign minister. The two posts will be assessed as a pair because they must be able to work together and should also come from different political backgrounds so that one party does not monopolise the top jobs in the EU.
Candidates for the foreign minister include Carl Bildt, the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Olli Rehn, the Finnish EU Enlargement Commissioner, and two former foreign ministers: Ursula Plassnik of Austria and Dora Bakoyannis of Greece. The list of contenders seems lightweight and has led to speculation that David Miliband could be asked to take the job if Mr Blair is rejected for president. Mr Miliband has denied that he is interested in it.
EU leaders will hear a progress report on the creation of a diplomatic corps to work under their new foreign minister — the European External Action Service, which is already being referred to as a foreign office for the EU.
While all eyes have been on Tony Blair, the EU’s ambitions for a diplomatic service to boost its presence in countries around the world could be the most far-reaching result of this summit.
Tony Blair is the elephant in the room at this summit. But frankly he is not the real reason that European leaders are gathering in Brussels today.
Inevitably, the chatter in the corridors and the questions at press conferences will be about the EU presidency, but 95 per cent of the formal agenda is focused on other things. The EU’s credibility is on the line over climate change; Gordon Brown is pushing for a new declaration on the economy and jobs; a solution has to be found to persuade the Czech President to sign the Lisbon treaty; and the the EU’s proposed new diplomatic service will be discussed.
This is the last chance for the 27 leaders to agree how much money they are prepared to give to help to reach agreement at the global climate change conference in Copenhagen next month. Despite the insistence of Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands, many EU countries are against plans to fund developing nations to cut their emissions.
As with the appointment of Mr Blair, all eyes are on Angela Merkel, of Germany, who has resisted the call for Europe to spell out its part of an international package of up to €100 billion a year.
Gordon Brown has suggested that the EU should pay €10 billion a year from 2020 to help poorer countries to go green and has said that Britain would pay €1 billion. But the Germans view any commitment of figures as bad tactics before the tough negotiations expected in Copenhagen.
A group of nine former Iron Curtain countries led by Poland are also blocking the move, demanding to know exactly how much it will cost each nation before they sign up. Green campaigners believe that failure to agree a funding plan for Copenhagen backed by hard cash could be a mortal blow to the talks, which are aimed at setting emissions cuts across the world.
The leaders must also agree on a concession for President Klaus of the Czech Republic to persuade him to sign the Lisbon treaty, which has been ratified in all the other countries. They are likely to meet his demand for an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, similar to those granted to Britain and Poland.
Besides the possible choice of Mr Blair for president, the EU leaders also have to consider the appointment of a new EU foreign minister. The two posts will be assessed as a pair because they must be able to work together and should also come from different political backgrounds so that one party does not monopolise the top jobs in the EU.
Candidates for the foreign minister include Carl Bildt, the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Olli Rehn, the Finnish EU Enlargement Commissioner, and two former foreign ministers: Ursula Plassnik of Austria and Dora Bakoyannis of Greece. The list of contenders seems lightweight and has led to speculation that David Miliband could be asked to take the job if Mr Blair is rejected for president. Mr Miliband has denied that he is interested in it.
EU leaders will hear a progress report on the creation of a diplomatic corps to work under their new foreign minister — the European External Action Service, which is already being referred to as a foreign office for the EU.
While all eyes have been on Tony Blair, the EU’s ambitions for a diplomatic service to boost its presence in countries around the world could be the most far-reaching result of this summit.
Honesty is a more sustainable climate policy
Talk of catastrophe and make-or-break summits is unrealistic. Small, positive steps will take us in the right direction
Bill Emmott
Here is an oddity. Most human progress, in overcoming natural obstacles or curing diseases, say, has been driven by optimism — the view that if we only try hard enough or apply enough brainpower, we can solve any problem. Perhaps, to wax philosophical for a moment, such optimism arises from our awareness of mortality: how else to keep ourselves going? So why, when it comes to the environment, do campaigners think that pessimism and fear is the way to drive us on?
Naturally, some fear or alarm is inherent in defining and acknowledging the size of any problem. But does it really help the cause of climate-change mitigation for us to be told that we will all have to become vegetarians soon?
Do we really benefit from being told by the purest greens that we need to change our whole lifestyles, digging allotments and owning our own windmills? Does it, indeed, help to describe the world’s current trajectory as “catastrophic”?
May I suggest, naive as I am, that honesty might be a better idea? The reason, to borrow a word beloved of environmentalists, is that honesty would be a more sustainable policy, in the face of the facts about the environment and about the Copenhagen climate change conference that is hurtling towards us in December.
For the moment, that event, scheduled to last just 11 days and to assemble 20,000 delegates from 192 countries for the task of agreeing on a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is being billed as a unique opportunity, a make-or-break meeting to save the planet for the 21st century and beyond. It cannot possibly rise to that billing, and we should all hope that it doesn’t.
An agreement hammered out or even finalised at such a meeting is unlikely to be effective or credible. There are plenty of signs of progress in making climate-change mitigation a real, long-term strategy in all the biggest countries — the European Union, Japan, China, even the United States — even if that progress is considered inadequate by the climate lobbyists.
But anyway, a multicentury problem, if that is what global warming is (see later — I am not a denier), needs to be solved by a whole series of decisions, initiatives and efforts, not in some sort of big bang. To start by setting acceptable frameworks that can be tightened up repeatedly later makes perfect sense, especially amid a global recession.
An honest way to describe the world’s current trajectory, from the point of view both of climate change and of greenhouse-gas emissions, would surely be more like a school report: “Improving, but needs to try harder.” A more honest way to describe the trend in global temperatures is: “Stabilising, but don’t depend on it.”
And if honesty is applied to the great bogeyman of a melting of the polar ice caps it would need, since the recent Catlin Arctic Survey conducted by Pen Hadow and his explorers, to say that “the ice got thicker last year, but we’re not sure that improvement will last”.
Instead, people who point out these “inconvenient truths”, to use the phrase that won a fear-mongering failed American politician a Nobel prize, get demonised. Lord Lawson of Blaby, who pointed out in his book An Appeal to Reason that global temperatures have in fact been stable for the past decade, says that he has twice been disinvited from the BBC’s Question Time, presumably because his view on climate change is too reasonable. Bjørn Lomborg, the Danish statistician whose brilliant book The Skeptical Environmentalist exposed, by calmly laying out the facts, the falsity of so many claims that we are heading for an apocalypse, is a hate figure for greens the world over.
By now, this column will have annoyed a lot of people. But annoyance is not the only intention: it is to advocate not just honesty but positive thinking. As Dr Lomborg showed, we have succeeded in making the air much cleaner in developed-country cities and the water more drinkable and supportive of biodiversity in developed-country rivers.
Britain, like many developed countries, has more forest cover than a century ago, not less as the deforestation mantra would have it. This is worth noting not to advocate complacency but to point out that environmental improvements can be achieved, because they have been in the recent past, without resorting to hair shirts or giving up economic growth.
This is exactly what the International Energy Agency has just forecast is likely to happen in China. In a section of its annual World Energy Outlook, released early to inform the climate debate, it said that if China carries out its stated programme for energy efficiency and emissions reduction, its annual output of carbon dioxide in 2030 will be about 7 gigatonnes instead of the 11.1 gigatonnes previously predicted — and not because China is expected somehow to give up getting richer.
What this cut by a third shows is how predictions that cover decades can be hugely influenced by changes in the assumptions fed into them. Of course, there is no guarantee that this forecast will be anywhere near accurate, or that China will succeed in implementing its programme — but then all the predictions in the climate debate, of economic growth, of energy efficiency, of global temperatures, are highly uncertain. That, in fact, is the nub of our problem, not some inevitable catastrophe.
What the Chinese forecast, combined with past evidence of successful environmental policy, also suggests is that this task, of dealing with the risks arising from the unfavourable long-term trend in global temperatures, is a matter of mitigation, of adaptation and of technological development. It is not a drastic, all-or-nothing affair. It is an area of public policy and private activity in which changed government regulations and targets will need to be mixed with price signals and technological breakthroughs to produce a successful and adequate change to the world’s trajectory.
That is a more mundane, long-drawn-out and, ultimately, less costly process than the catastrophe theorists would prefer us to believe in. But it is more realistic, more honest and more likely to attract widespread public acceptance.
Bill Emmott
Here is an oddity. Most human progress, in overcoming natural obstacles or curing diseases, say, has been driven by optimism — the view that if we only try hard enough or apply enough brainpower, we can solve any problem. Perhaps, to wax philosophical for a moment, such optimism arises from our awareness of mortality: how else to keep ourselves going? So why, when it comes to the environment, do campaigners think that pessimism and fear is the way to drive us on?
Naturally, some fear or alarm is inherent in defining and acknowledging the size of any problem. But does it really help the cause of climate-change mitigation for us to be told that we will all have to become vegetarians soon?
Do we really benefit from being told by the purest greens that we need to change our whole lifestyles, digging allotments and owning our own windmills? Does it, indeed, help to describe the world’s current trajectory as “catastrophic”?
May I suggest, naive as I am, that honesty might be a better idea? The reason, to borrow a word beloved of environmentalists, is that honesty would be a more sustainable policy, in the face of the facts about the environment and about the Copenhagen climate change conference that is hurtling towards us in December.
For the moment, that event, scheduled to last just 11 days and to assemble 20,000 delegates from 192 countries for the task of agreeing on a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is being billed as a unique opportunity, a make-or-break meeting to save the planet for the 21st century and beyond. It cannot possibly rise to that billing, and we should all hope that it doesn’t.
An agreement hammered out or even finalised at such a meeting is unlikely to be effective or credible. There are plenty of signs of progress in making climate-change mitigation a real, long-term strategy in all the biggest countries — the European Union, Japan, China, even the United States — even if that progress is considered inadequate by the climate lobbyists.
But anyway, a multicentury problem, if that is what global warming is (see later — I am not a denier), needs to be solved by a whole series of decisions, initiatives and efforts, not in some sort of big bang. To start by setting acceptable frameworks that can be tightened up repeatedly later makes perfect sense, especially amid a global recession.
An honest way to describe the world’s current trajectory, from the point of view both of climate change and of greenhouse-gas emissions, would surely be more like a school report: “Improving, but needs to try harder.” A more honest way to describe the trend in global temperatures is: “Stabilising, but don’t depend on it.”
And if honesty is applied to the great bogeyman of a melting of the polar ice caps it would need, since the recent Catlin Arctic Survey conducted by Pen Hadow and his explorers, to say that “the ice got thicker last year, but we’re not sure that improvement will last”.
Instead, people who point out these “inconvenient truths”, to use the phrase that won a fear-mongering failed American politician a Nobel prize, get demonised. Lord Lawson of Blaby, who pointed out in his book An Appeal to Reason that global temperatures have in fact been stable for the past decade, says that he has twice been disinvited from the BBC’s Question Time, presumably because his view on climate change is too reasonable. Bjørn Lomborg, the Danish statistician whose brilliant book The Skeptical Environmentalist exposed, by calmly laying out the facts, the falsity of so many claims that we are heading for an apocalypse, is a hate figure for greens the world over.
By now, this column will have annoyed a lot of people. But annoyance is not the only intention: it is to advocate not just honesty but positive thinking. As Dr Lomborg showed, we have succeeded in making the air much cleaner in developed-country cities and the water more drinkable and supportive of biodiversity in developed-country rivers.
Britain, like many developed countries, has more forest cover than a century ago, not less as the deforestation mantra would have it. This is worth noting not to advocate complacency but to point out that environmental improvements can be achieved, because they have been in the recent past, without resorting to hair shirts or giving up economic growth.
This is exactly what the International Energy Agency has just forecast is likely to happen in China. In a section of its annual World Energy Outlook, released early to inform the climate debate, it said that if China carries out its stated programme for energy efficiency and emissions reduction, its annual output of carbon dioxide in 2030 will be about 7 gigatonnes instead of the 11.1 gigatonnes previously predicted — and not because China is expected somehow to give up getting richer.
What this cut by a third shows is how predictions that cover decades can be hugely influenced by changes in the assumptions fed into them. Of course, there is no guarantee that this forecast will be anywhere near accurate, or that China will succeed in implementing its programme — but then all the predictions in the climate debate, of economic growth, of energy efficiency, of global temperatures, are highly uncertain. That, in fact, is the nub of our problem, not some inevitable catastrophe.
What the Chinese forecast, combined with past evidence of successful environmental policy, also suggests is that this task, of dealing with the risks arising from the unfavourable long-term trend in global temperatures, is a matter of mitigation, of adaptation and of technological development. It is not a drastic, all-or-nothing affair. It is an area of public policy and private activity in which changed government regulations and targets will need to be mixed with price signals and technological breakthroughs to produce a successful and adequate change to the world’s trajectory.
That is a more mundane, long-drawn-out and, ultimately, less costly process than the catastrophe theorists would prefer us to believe in. But it is more realistic, more honest and more likely to attract widespread public acceptance.
Climate change will devastate Africa, top UK scientist warns
Professor Sir Gordon Conway warns continent will face intense droughts, famine, disease and floods
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 17.41 GMT
One of the world's most influential scientists has warned that climate change could devastate Africa, predicting an increase in catastrophic food shortages.
Professor Sir Gordon Conway, the outgoing chief scientist at the UK's Department for International Development, and former head of the philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation, argued in a new scientific paper (pdf) that the continent is already warming faster than the global average and that people living there can expect more intense droughts, floods and storm surges.
There will be less drinking water, diseases such as malaria will spread and the poorest will be hit the hardest as farmland is damaged in the coming century, Conway wrote.
"There is already evidence that Africa is warming faster than the global average, with more warm spells and fewer extremely cold days. Northern and southern Africa are likely to become as much as 4C hotter over the next 100 years, and [will become ] much drier," he said.
Conway predicts hunger on the continent could increase dramatically in the short term as droughts and desertification increase, and climate change affects water supplies. "Projected reductions in crop yields could be as much as 50% by 2020 and 90% by 2100," the paper says.
Conway held out some hope that east Africa and the Horn of Africa, presently experiencing its worst drought and food shortages in 20 years, will become wetter. But he said that the widely hoped-for 8-15% increase in African crop yields as a direct result of more CO2 in the atmosphere may fail to materialise.
"The latest analyses of more realistic field trials suggest the benefits of carbon dioxide may be significantly less than initially thought," he said.
Instead, population growth combined with climate change would mean countries face extreme problems growing more food: "We are going to need an awful lot more crop production, 70-100% more food will be needed than we have at present. Part of [what is needed] is getting more organic matter into Africa's soils, which are very depleted, but we also have to improve water availability and produce crops that yield more, and use nitrogen and water more efficiently."
Sir Gordon, now professor of international development at Imperial College London, oversaw a major expansion in the UK government's support for GM research in developing countries, and said that new technologies must be part of the African response to tackling hunger and droughts. "In certain circumstances we will need GM crops because we wont be able to find the gene naturally. GM may be the speediest and most efficient way to increase yields. Drought tolerance is governed by a range of genes. It is a big problem for breeders of [both] GM and ordinary plants", he said.
He called for more research into climate change. "There is much that we do not know. The Sahel may get wetter or remain dry. The flow of the Nile may be greater or less. We do not know if the fall in agricultural production will be very large or relatively small. The best assumption is that many regions of Africa will suffer more droughts and floods with greater intensity and frequency. We have to plan for the certainty that more extreme events will occur in the future but with uncertain regularity".
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 17.41 GMT
One of the world's most influential scientists has warned that climate change could devastate Africa, predicting an increase in catastrophic food shortages.
Professor Sir Gordon Conway, the outgoing chief scientist at the UK's Department for International Development, and former head of the philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation, argued in a new scientific paper (pdf) that the continent is already warming faster than the global average and that people living there can expect more intense droughts, floods and storm surges.
There will be less drinking water, diseases such as malaria will spread and the poorest will be hit the hardest as farmland is damaged in the coming century, Conway wrote.
"There is already evidence that Africa is warming faster than the global average, with more warm spells and fewer extremely cold days. Northern and southern Africa are likely to become as much as 4C hotter over the next 100 years, and [will become ] much drier," he said.
Conway predicts hunger on the continent could increase dramatically in the short term as droughts and desertification increase, and climate change affects water supplies. "Projected reductions in crop yields could be as much as 50% by 2020 and 90% by 2100," the paper says.
Conway held out some hope that east Africa and the Horn of Africa, presently experiencing its worst drought and food shortages in 20 years, will become wetter. But he said that the widely hoped-for 8-15% increase in African crop yields as a direct result of more CO2 in the atmosphere may fail to materialise.
"The latest analyses of more realistic field trials suggest the benefits of carbon dioxide may be significantly less than initially thought," he said.
Instead, population growth combined with climate change would mean countries face extreme problems growing more food: "We are going to need an awful lot more crop production, 70-100% more food will be needed than we have at present. Part of [what is needed] is getting more organic matter into Africa's soils, which are very depleted, but we also have to improve water availability and produce crops that yield more, and use nitrogen and water more efficiently."
Sir Gordon, now professor of international development at Imperial College London, oversaw a major expansion in the UK government's support for GM research in developing countries, and said that new technologies must be part of the African response to tackling hunger and droughts. "In certain circumstances we will need GM crops because we wont be able to find the gene naturally. GM may be the speediest and most efficient way to increase yields. Drought tolerance is governed by a range of genes. It is a big problem for breeders of [both] GM and ordinary plants", he said.
He called for more research into climate change. "There is much that we do not know. The Sahel may get wetter or remain dry. The flow of the Nile may be greater or less. We do not know if the fall in agricultural production will be very large or relatively small. The best assumption is that many regions of Africa will suffer more droughts and floods with greater intensity and frequency. We have to plan for the certainty that more extreme events will occur in the future but with uncertain regularity".
Why we need a world environment organisation
There is an urgent need for an environmental organisation within the UN system with real political clout
Stefania Prestigiacomo and John Njoroge Michuki
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 17.17 GMT
Global environmental crises, from vanishing biodiversity and degrading forests to collapsing fish stocks and climate change, will not be solved without some tough thinking about international governance.
The world's response to these unfolding challenges has become a bewildering array of institutions, agreements and treaties that is in urgent need of reform.
That urgency has been given momentum by Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Sarkozy of France. In a letter to the UN secretary general they emphasised that we must overhaul environmental governance and use Copenhagen climate talks in December to progress the creation of a world environmental organisation. Other world leaders adopted a similar tone, albeit in the corridors, at the recent UN summit on climate change and at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.
Many minsters of environment have known for some time that solving environmental challenges and seizing opportunities will prove impossible without political clout and effective institutions.
International organisations charged with addressing the sustainable development have a welter of mandates – but all too often their hands are tied by a lack of sufficient funding or authority to deliver on them. The UN Environment Programme (Unep), which is mandated as the global authority for the environment, has one of the lowest annual budgets in the UN system – less than the price of a new Boeing 737. A lot of the funding that is available for the environment is also often channelled through facilities and funds that are disconnected from the very agency requested to set the global environmental agenda.
The problem is made worse by the fact that most of the hundreds of treaties meant to solve global environmental concerns have separate secretariats, which makes cooperation among the collection of bodies difficult, to put it mildly.
It is also a drain on scarce funds – a recent independent study has estimated the costs of separate secretariats are four times more compared with organisations that have all their related treaties under one roof. Resources could be better used to address the challenges.
For developing economies with scarce human and financial capacity, it is a particular challenge in terms of costs but also the sheer complexity and time-consuming nature of the current landscape. Over the period 1992-2007 for example, there were over 540 meetings linked to 18 international environmental treaties. These meetings generated more than 5,000 decisions, upon which countries are required to act.
There is an urgent need for an environmental organisation within the UN system with real influence that can stand side by side with strong organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and World Heath Organisation.
History has proven that strong international institutions are the precondition for building any successful international cooperation. The global financial crisis and the collaboration through the G20 and the International Monetary Fund are recent examples. A planet of six billion people, which will be nine billion by 2050, requires governments to plan for tomorrow, otherwise tomorrow will plan itself.
If that planning is to be serious about solving persistent, systemic and emerging environmental crises, and if governments now accept that a low-carbon, highly resource efficient economy is the only way for the world to survive, let alone thrive in the 21st century, then strengthening the international environmental governance system must be part of the package of enlightened reforms under worldwide debate.
• Stefania Prestigiacomo is the minister for environment, land and sea for Italy and John Njoroge Michuki is the minister for environment and mineral resources for Kenya, and they co-chair the Unep Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on International Environmental Governance.
Stefania Prestigiacomo and John Njoroge Michuki
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 17.17 GMT
Global environmental crises, from vanishing biodiversity and degrading forests to collapsing fish stocks and climate change, will not be solved without some tough thinking about international governance.
The world's response to these unfolding challenges has become a bewildering array of institutions, agreements and treaties that is in urgent need of reform.
That urgency has been given momentum by Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Sarkozy of France. In a letter to the UN secretary general they emphasised that we must overhaul environmental governance and use Copenhagen climate talks in December to progress the creation of a world environmental organisation. Other world leaders adopted a similar tone, albeit in the corridors, at the recent UN summit on climate change and at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.
Many minsters of environment have known for some time that solving environmental challenges and seizing opportunities will prove impossible without political clout and effective institutions.
International organisations charged with addressing the sustainable development have a welter of mandates – but all too often their hands are tied by a lack of sufficient funding or authority to deliver on them. The UN Environment Programme (Unep), which is mandated as the global authority for the environment, has one of the lowest annual budgets in the UN system – less than the price of a new Boeing 737. A lot of the funding that is available for the environment is also often channelled through facilities and funds that are disconnected from the very agency requested to set the global environmental agenda.
The problem is made worse by the fact that most of the hundreds of treaties meant to solve global environmental concerns have separate secretariats, which makes cooperation among the collection of bodies difficult, to put it mildly.
It is also a drain on scarce funds – a recent independent study has estimated the costs of separate secretariats are four times more compared with organisations that have all their related treaties under one roof. Resources could be better used to address the challenges.
For developing economies with scarce human and financial capacity, it is a particular challenge in terms of costs but also the sheer complexity and time-consuming nature of the current landscape. Over the period 1992-2007 for example, there were over 540 meetings linked to 18 international environmental treaties. These meetings generated more than 5,000 decisions, upon which countries are required to act.
There is an urgent need for an environmental organisation within the UN system with real influence that can stand side by side with strong organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and World Heath Organisation.
History has proven that strong international institutions are the precondition for building any successful international cooperation. The global financial crisis and the collaboration through the G20 and the International Monetary Fund are recent examples. A planet of six billion people, which will be nine billion by 2050, requires governments to plan for tomorrow, otherwise tomorrow will plan itself.
If that planning is to be serious about solving persistent, systemic and emerging environmental crises, and if governments now accept that a low-carbon, highly resource efficient economy is the only way for the world to survive, let alone thrive in the 21st century, then strengthening the international environmental governance system must be part of the package of enlightened reforms under worldwide debate.
• Stefania Prestigiacomo is the minister for environment, land and sea for Italy and John Njoroge Michuki is the minister for environment and mineral resources for Kenya, and they co-chair the Unep Consultative Group of Ministers or High-Level Representatives on International Environmental Governance.
Centrica issues green energy warning
Firm to go ahead with £725m windfarm but says renewable targets will not be met unless government continues current subsidy levels
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 16.51 GMT
Centrica gave the go-ahead to one of the UK's largest offshore windfarms today but warned the government that its 2020 renewable energy targets would be missed unless the current level of subsidy was maintained.
The firm, which owns British Gas, announced that it would invest £725m in the 270MW project off the coast of Lincolnshire, which will be able to power a city twice the size of Cambridge when the wind blows.
The government announced in the last budget that offshore windfarms approved by March next year would receive higher subsidies, or renewables obligation certificates (Rocs).
But officials said tonight that there were no plans to make this arrangement permanent, leaving the economics of offshore wind unviable, according to Centrica.
Sarwjit Sambhi, managing director of Centrica's power business, said: "Without [the higher subsidy] we could not have gone ahead with the Lincs project."
The project, which will boost the size of Centrica's wind portfolio by two thirds, secured planning permission months ago but the slump in energy prices has resulted in a host of wind and other power projects being scrapped.
The windfarm, 8km off the coast near Skegness, will have 75 turbines. Construction would begin next year and electricity would begin to be generated around 2012, the company said.
Centrica also announced that it had sold a 50% stake in three of its smaller offshore windfarms to a subsidiary of Société Générale's asset management arm for £84m. The company added it had raised a further £340m of debt, secured against the three windfarms, from a consortium of banks. The proceeds from both will go towards funding the Lincolnshire project.
Ofgem, the energy regulator, has predicted that £200bn will need to be invested in the next decade in green energy equipment to meet the 2020 renewable targets. These targets would require the UK to generate a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as windfarms. Centrica has promised to invest £15bn by 2020 but Sambhi said that other investors, beyond energy companies, would also be needed. "[£200bn] is a big chunk of investment to make. We need to attract other investor classes."
The government is setting up an independent body designed to handle planning applications for large projects such as windfarms or nuclear power plants. By taking such decisions away from ministers, the hope is that national concerns would take precedence over local objections and fewer schemes would get blocked.
Sambhi said that the 2020 targets could be met, but only if the current level of subsidies was maintained. "The new planning regulations would need to be as smooth as the government has promised," he added.
The Conservatives have promised to hand back the final say-so to ministers. Sambhi said that their decisions would have to be "transparent" for the system to work.
Sam Laidlaw, Centrica's chief executive, said: "Our decision to build Lincs illustrates our continued commitment to develop renewable generation and confirms our position as one of the UK leaders in green energy. The government's enhanced financial framework for offshore wind has been fundamental in improving the overall project economics of this development."
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 16.51 GMT
Centrica gave the go-ahead to one of the UK's largest offshore windfarms today but warned the government that its 2020 renewable energy targets would be missed unless the current level of subsidy was maintained.
The firm, which owns British Gas, announced that it would invest £725m in the 270MW project off the coast of Lincolnshire, which will be able to power a city twice the size of Cambridge when the wind blows.
The government announced in the last budget that offshore windfarms approved by March next year would receive higher subsidies, or renewables obligation certificates (Rocs).
But officials said tonight that there were no plans to make this arrangement permanent, leaving the economics of offshore wind unviable, according to Centrica.
Sarwjit Sambhi, managing director of Centrica's power business, said: "Without [the higher subsidy] we could not have gone ahead with the Lincs project."
The project, which will boost the size of Centrica's wind portfolio by two thirds, secured planning permission months ago but the slump in energy prices has resulted in a host of wind and other power projects being scrapped.
The windfarm, 8km off the coast near Skegness, will have 75 turbines. Construction would begin next year and electricity would begin to be generated around 2012, the company said.
Centrica also announced that it had sold a 50% stake in three of its smaller offshore windfarms to a subsidiary of Société Générale's asset management arm for £84m. The company added it had raised a further £340m of debt, secured against the three windfarms, from a consortium of banks. The proceeds from both will go towards funding the Lincolnshire project.
Ofgem, the energy regulator, has predicted that £200bn will need to be invested in the next decade in green energy equipment to meet the 2020 renewable targets. These targets would require the UK to generate a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as windfarms. Centrica has promised to invest £15bn by 2020 but Sambhi said that other investors, beyond energy companies, would also be needed. "[£200bn] is a big chunk of investment to make. We need to attract other investor classes."
The government is setting up an independent body designed to handle planning applications for large projects such as windfarms or nuclear power plants. By taking such decisions away from ministers, the hope is that national concerns would take precedence over local objections and fewer schemes would get blocked.
Sambhi said that the 2020 targets could be met, but only if the current level of subsidies was maintained. "The new planning regulations would need to be as smooth as the government has promised," he added.
The Conservatives have promised to hand back the final say-so to ministers. Sambhi said that their decisions would have to be "transparent" for the system to work.
Sam Laidlaw, Centrica's chief executive, said: "Our decision to build Lincs illustrates our continued commitment to develop renewable generation and confirms our position as one of the UK leaders in green energy. The government's enhanced financial framework for offshore wind has been fundamental in improving the overall project economics of this development."
Fuel from waste — or even algae
The aim is to have 15 per cent of the UK’s energy derived from renewable sources by 2020
David Binning
The Government has said that by 2020 it wants 15 per cent of the UK’s energy to be derived from renewable sources. Things are not going quite to plan, however — the figure now stands at about 2 per cent.
Along with the large-scale proposals for wind and tidal power — and the highly controversial nuclear option — a number of other alternatives for power generation are being explored both in the UK and globally. One of the more advanced is biomass, the conversion of plant and other biological material into power, which generates no carbon emissions. Biomass has made a start in the UK with two 300-megawatt plants in Teesside and Port Talbot in development.
Around the world, much faith has been placed in solar energy, with China one of the world leaders in developing cheap and lightweight solar cell technology.
Another possibility is the conversion of waste into energy. About 100 million tonnes of waste produced each year could be converted to energy, with the potential to supply up to 4 per cent of the UK’s electricity and heating requirements, according to the Energy Technologies Institute.
When it comes to transport, there is no doubt that we need a real alternative to fossil fuels. And while there has been strong interest in electric and hybrid cars, it will be some time before they make any real impact.
Biofuels have long been touted as a panacea but enthusiasm has waned somewhat.
The Carbon Trust recently launched a programme to commercialise the use of biofuel produced from algae by 2030. It is estimated that algae-based fuels could replace some 70 billion litres a year of fossil fuel by 2030 — equivalent to 12 per cent of global jet fuel consumption
David Binning
The Government has said that by 2020 it wants 15 per cent of the UK’s energy to be derived from renewable sources. Things are not going quite to plan, however — the figure now stands at about 2 per cent.
Along with the large-scale proposals for wind and tidal power — and the highly controversial nuclear option — a number of other alternatives for power generation are being explored both in the UK and globally. One of the more advanced is biomass, the conversion of plant and other biological material into power, which generates no carbon emissions. Biomass has made a start in the UK with two 300-megawatt plants in Teesside and Port Talbot in development.
Around the world, much faith has been placed in solar energy, with China one of the world leaders in developing cheap and lightweight solar cell technology.
Another possibility is the conversion of waste into energy. About 100 million tonnes of waste produced each year could be converted to energy, with the potential to supply up to 4 per cent of the UK’s electricity and heating requirements, according to the Energy Technologies Institute.
When it comes to transport, there is no doubt that we need a real alternative to fossil fuels. And while there has been strong interest in electric and hybrid cars, it will be some time before they make any real impact.
Biofuels have long been touted as a panacea but enthusiasm has waned somewhat.
The Carbon Trust recently launched a programme to commercialise the use of biofuel produced from algae by 2030. It is estimated that algae-based fuels could replace some 70 billion litres a year of fossil fuel by 2030 — equivalent to 12 per cent of global jet fuel consumption
London's rubbish could power 2m homes, report says
• London assembly study says capital produces enough waste to fill Canary Wharf skyscraper every eight days• Boris Johnson considering plans
Hélène Mulholland and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 14.48 GMT
Boris Johnson is considering plans to convert rubbish into energy as part of plans to save at least £100m in refuse collection and disposal costs, it emerged today.
City Hall signalled the move in response to a report by the London assembly which found that the waste generated by Londoners could be used to generate enough electricity to power up to 2m homes and provide heat for 625,000 houses.
The capital produced around 22m tonnes of waste every year, the report found, enough to fill the largest skyscraper at Canary Wharf every eight days.
More than half of London's rubbish ends up in landfill, with only a fifth (22%) being recycled, according to research by the assembly's environment committee said.
Converting non-recyclable rubbish such as leftover food into energy, through methods that did not involve incineration, could reduce the amount sent to landfill – an increasingly expensive option as the tax on dumping waste in the ground is high and rising.
Creating gas from the rubbish which could be used for heating or generating electricity could also cut London's carbon dioxide emissions by 1.2m tonnes and reduce emissions of another greenhouse gas, methane, which is produced when waste breaks down in landfill, the report found.
The environment committee called on Johnson to take the lead in developing the technologies to convert energy from waste such as anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis.
The technologies face a number of barriers, including public opposition, difficulties obtaining planning consent and long-term existing contracts for rubbish that prevent potential companies obtaining waste material.
Johnson, who is chair of the London Waste and Recycling Board, is already considering the move to turn rubbish into energy as part of plans to minimise refuse that ends up either in landfill or incinerated, according to his office.
"The mayor wants Londoners to recycle more, send less waste to landfill and take advantage of the massive economic opportunities available to the capital if we start to manage our waste more efficiently.
"We know that currently 75% of London's household waste is either landfilled or incinerated, whilst around 90% of municipal waste could actually be reused, recycled or used to generate greener energy. By recycling as much as possible, and using the remaining waste to produce energy, we estimate London could save at least £100m in collection and disposal costs."
The Waste and Recycling Board has £84m to spend over the next three years to find new ways to deal with waste.
The mayor's draft waste strategy for London, due to be published later this year, will address many of the issues contained in today's report, a spokeswoman added.
Hélène Mulholland and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009 14.48 GMT
Boris Johnson is considering plans to convert rubbish into energy as part of plans to save at least £100m in refuse collection and disposal costs, it emerged today.
City Hall signalled the move in response to a report by the London assembly which found that the waste generated by Londoners could be used to generate enough electricity to power up to 2m homes and provide heat for 625,000 houses.
The capital produced around 22m tonnes of waste every year, the report found, enough to fill the largest skyscraper at Canary Wharf every eight days.
More than half of London's rubbish ends up in landfill, with only a fifth (22%) being recycled, according to research by the assembly's environment committee said.
Converting non-recyclable rubbish such as leftover food into energy, through methods that did not involve incineration, could reduce the amount sent to landfill – an increasingly expensive option as the tax on dumping waste in the ground is high and rising.
Creating gas from the rubbish which could be used for heating or generating electricity could also cut London's carbon dioxide emissions by 1.2m tonnes and reduce emissions of another greenhouse gas, methane, which is produced when waste breaks down in landfill, the report found.
The environment committee called on Johnson to take the lead in developing the technologies to convert energy from waste such as anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis.
The technologies face a number of barriers, including public opposition, difficulties obtaining planning consent and long-term existing contracts for rubbish that prevent potential companies obtaining waste material.
Johnson, who is chair of the London Waste and Recycling Board, is already considering the move to turn rubbish into energy as part of plans to minimise refuse that ends up either in landfill or incinerated, according to his office.
"The mayor wants Londoners to recycle more, send less waste to landfill and take advantage of the massive economic opportunities available to the capital if we start to manage our waste more efficiently.
"We know that currently 75% of London's household waste is either landfilled or incinerated, whilst around 90% of municipal waste could actually be reused, recycled or used to generate greener energy. By recycling as much as possible, and using the remaining waste to produce energy, we estimate London could save at least £100m in collection and disposal costs."
The Waste and Recycling Board has £84m to spend over the next three years to find new ways to deal with waste.
The mayor's draft waste strategy for London, due to be published later this year, will address many of the issues contained in today's report, a spokeswoman added.
West Texas Town Recasts Itself as Wind-Power Hub
By ANGEL GONZALEZ
ROSCOE, Texas -- The dust has barely settled since this month's completion of the world's largest wind farm here, but the shoots of a "green" economy are already emerging among the cotton fields that have long been the staple of this West Texas rural community.
Wind-energy-service companies now sit on the same street as the old grocery store, and so does the headquarters warehouse of E.On Climate & Renewables, a unit of Germany-based E.On AG that owns the Roscoe wind farm. The project has 627 turbines -- one for every two inhabitants of Roscoe -- and employs about 70 technicians, including contractors and staffers. It has enough capacity to power 230,000 homes, most of them in the more populated eastern parts of the state.
"It's helped the city kind of reinvent itself," said city manager Cody Thompson, who on a recent day was putting the finishing touches on the third annual West Texas Wind Harvest Festival, a local celebration featuring live music from high-school bands and helicopter tours of the 100,000-acre project.
Roscoe is in Nolan County, which has about 17,000 people and nearly 10% of U.S. wind-power-generating capacity -- built at breakneck speed over the past decade. The financial crisis and bottlenecks in transmission capacity have slowed the proliferation of wind turbines, but the area has become a powerhouse for an emerging technology that advocates say would help reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.
Greg Wortham, the mayor of Sweetwater -- the county seat and economic hub -- said wind-power development in the region could be a model for revitalizing rural America, if the windy Great Plains are linked to the power-hungry East and West coasts. Already, local businesses and construction crews that cut their teeth in this area's pioneering wind farms are working in emerging wind-power hubs like Iowa.
Mr. Wortham said 20% of Nolan County's jobs are related to the wind-development rush here -- as many as those in oil and gas. He said many of these new jobs come with a base pay of about $50,000, nearly double the average per-job wage in 2007. In September, the county's unemployment rate was 6.4% -- lower than Texas's 8.3%. More than a decade ago, unemployment in the county was well above the state's rate.
"This is the microcosm of what's going to happen," Mr. Wortham said.
The area around Sweetwater, which is best known for its annual Rattlesnake Roundup festival, attracted wind developers because of its open spaces, constant winds and the availability of enough transmission capacity to get the power to Dallas-Fort Worth, some 200 miles away. Now there is congestion in that capacity -- meaning construction jobs have dipped -- but once more transmission lines are built here and across the country, other centers could emerge. "There's huge unexploited potential" in the U.S., said Kenneth Westrick, chief executive of 3Tier, a renewable-energy forecasting company.
At the peak of its building, the Roscoe wind project employed 600 people, said Patrick Woodson, chief development officer for E.On Climate & Renewables. Now the project employs about 10 permanent staffers. The company also employs about 60 contractors who perform maintenance on turbines made by Siemens AG, Mitsubishi Corp. and General Electric Co.'s energy unit.
Not everyone is sold on the wind-power idea. Susan Combs, Texas's state comptroller, said clean-technology jobs will replace a small fraction of the jobs she believes will be lost if Congress passes a climate-change bill penalizing refineries for emitting carbon. "I don't know where the new jobs are going to come from," said Ms. Combs, a Republican. "They're not going to come from wind."
Then there are the people who just don't like the turbines' aesthetics. "Some call wind energy eye pollution: They don't like the looks of it," said Ken Becker, executive director of the Sweetwater Enterprise for Economic Development. But Mr. Becker added that the industry's development has made the area's tax base expand to $2.3 billion from $500 million in 1998.
To monitor and service the hundreds of GE turbines in the vicinity, GE set up its first U.S. wind-energy service center at a former Coca-Cola distribution plant. The center employs about 120 technicians, many of them former utility workers, mechanics and even firefighters, said Tracy Chapman, the center's lead operations manager. Some were retired military from nearby bases looking for a new start -- "a very well paying start," Ms. Chapman said.
Royalties from turbines also are making some landowners wax poetic. Maz Webb a local grocer and rancher, has allowed California-based Third Planet Windpower to install a single turbine on her land.
"I love my turbine," she said. "We only have one, but it's the prettiest one out there."
Write to Angel Gonzalez at angel.gonzalez@dowjones.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
