Novera Energy, the renewable energy business, added 10.5p to 76p following news that Infinis Energy, backed by Guy Hands' private equity group Terra Firma, had raised its hostile bid form 62.5p to 75p and bought 5.6m shares to take its stake to 46.7%. Novera quickly rejected the new offer, saying it still undervalued the business. Analyst Andrew Shepherd-Barron at KBC Peel Hunt agreed:
An improved 75p cash offer is still too cheap. Infinis can afford 98p in our view. Our target price of 80p-85p is a minimum reflecting a lack of competitive tension. Shareholders should hold out for more.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Superglass boss Alex McLeod calls for clarity on future of Cert energy scheme
Published Date: 26 November 2009
By Hamish Rutherford
NEW Superglass chief executive Alex McLeod has called for clarification of the future of a government scheme to improve home energy efficiency.
The Stirling-based insulation company gained almost half its turnover in the year to 31 August from the Carbon Emission Reduction Target (Cert) scheme, which forces utilities to assist customers to improve their efficiency.McLeod, who joined the firm at the start of the month, said there was no clarity over how the government planned to encourage home energy efficiency from 2012. While the scheme has seen an increase in the retro-fitting of insulation, McLeod said "a sizeable chunk" of Britain's housing stock would still not be properly insulated by 2012.He warned the London listed group's outlook remained uncertain because of the lack of clarity over the Cert scheme, as well as uncertainty over the market for new houses.Increased sales of insulation from Cert helped Superglass offset a sharp decline from sales to the construction industry, as house building slowed. Revenue fell by £3 million to £38.1m, with earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation sliding 44 per cent to £6.6m.Chief financial officer Tony Kirkbright said the performance was "creditable" given the slump in the housing sector.McLeod said he would carry out a strategic review of the business in the coming months, but warned that measures to improve the efficiency of its manufacturing may require capital investment.Superglass cut capital investment to maximise cash flow, allowing it to reduce its borrowings by £2.4m. The company is to pay a reduced final dividend of 0.5p, which it said should leave scope for investment.Shares in Superglass dived 8p or 22.5 per cent to 27.5p.
By Hamish Rutherford
NEW Superglass chief executive Alex McLeod has called for clarification of the future of a government scheme to improve home energy efficiency.
The Stirling-based insulation company gained almost half its turnover in the year to 31 August from the Carbon Emission Reduction Target (Cert) scheme, which forces utilities to assist customers to improve their efficiency.McLeod, who joined the firm at the start of the month, said there was no clarity over how the government planned to encourage home energy efficiency from 2012. While the scheme has seen an increase in the retro-fitting of insulation, McLeod said "a sizeable chunk" of Britain's housing stock would still not be properly insulated by 2012.He warned the London listed group's outlook remained uncertain because of the lack of clarity over the Cert scheme, as well as uncertainty over the market for new houses.Increased sales of insulation from Cert helped Superglass offset a sharp decline from sales to the construction industry, as house building slowed. Revenue fell by £3 million to £38.1m, with earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation sliding 44 per cent to £6.6m.Chief financial officer Tony Kirkbright said the performance was "creditable" given the slump in the housing sector.McLeod said he would carry out a strategic review of the business in the coming months, but warned that measures to improve the efficiency of its manufacturing may require capital investment.Superglass cut capital investment to maximise cash flow, allowing it to reduce its borrowings by £2.4m. The company is to pay a reduced final dividend of 0.5p, which it said should leave scope for investment.Shares in Superglass dived 8p or 22.5 per cent to 27.5p.
Green and confused: The office offenders
Offices that leave their lights on are eco-unfriendly
Kieran Cooke
You recently said that we should use energy-efficient light bulbs at home, but what about the huge office blocks that leave their lights on? Why is the householder the target of the eco-lobbyists and not the commercial sector?
You’re right, of course. While some companies have caught the habit of energy saving, it is remarkable how many want to boast of their profligacy by lighting up buildings like Christmas trees 24 hours a day. Perhaps they think that burning the midnight oil — even when the only people in the building are the watchman and cleaners — is a mark of success. It is a sign of corporate stupidity.
The UK is far behind many countries when it comes to saving on lighting energy: the reason Berlin or Frankfurt are darker cities than London or Birmingham is not because the Germans stop work earlier or enjoy dim places: it’s just that they’re far more sensible about how they use their energy.
Lighting accounts for about 20 per cent of energy in the average office. Turning off the lights at night — or reducing their glow to a minimum — saves energy and lowers bills. But take a good look around: the actual working area of an office usually represents well under half of the total floor space. And even in the working areas, not everyone is present all the time.
One calculation by office designers bdp (bdp.com) is that approximately 70 sq m of the UK office space is lit up unnecessarily, at a cost of £300 million a year. If that energy wasn’t used for needless lighting, offices could prevent about 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 going into the atmosphere and make a big contribution to emissions reduction targets.
The Carbon Trust (carbontrust.co.uk), which gives interest-free loans to companies intent on energy savings, has information on how to cut back on lighting. Using energy-efficient bulbs is important but other simple adjustments can result in substantial savings: fitting motion or occupancy detectors to turn lights off and on in infrequently used spaces and cleaning light fittings regularly can make a considerable impact. Carrying out a carbon audit is a good starting point too.
In daylight hours more should be done about maximising natural light: it is criminal that offices are still being built with little or no regard to using the Sun to help to brighten them up. Equipment that can regulate lighting, dependent on the degree of natural light, is available.
Besides lighting, there’s the energy that often goes on the wasteful use of air conditioning, the sheaves of waste paper and the computers left on round the clock. A single computer and monitor left on 24 hours a day can run up an energy bill of £45 a year: switch it off out of hours or put it on standby and the bill could be reduced to £10 a year — little adjustments can make a big difference.
Send your eco-dilemmas to
greenandconfused@thetimes.co.uk
Kieran Cooke
You recently said that we should use energy-efficient light bulbs at home, but what about the huge office blocks that leave their lights on? Why is the householder the target of the eco-lobbyists and not the commercial sector?
You’re right, of course. While some companies have caught the habit of energy saving, it is remarkable how many want to boast of their profligacy by lighting up buildings like Christmas trees 24 hours a day. Perhaps they think that burning the midnight oil — even when the only people in the building are the watchman and cleaners — is a mark of success. It is a sign of corporate stupidity.
The UK is far behind many countries when it comes to saving on lighting energy: the reason Berlin or Frankfurt are darker cities than London or Birmingham is not because the Germans stop work earlier or enjoy dim places: it’s just that they’re far more sensible about how they use their energy.
Lighting accounts for about 20 per cent of energy in the average office. Turning off the lights at night — or reducing their glow to a minimum — saves energy and lowers bills. But take a good look around: the actual working area of an office usually represents well under half of the total floor space. And even in the working areas, not everyone is present all the time.
One calculation by office designers bdp (bdp.com) is that approximately 70 sq m of the UK office space is lit up unnecessarily, at a cost of £300 million a year. If that energy wasn’t used for needless lighting, offices could prevent about 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 going into the atmosphere and make a big contribution to emissions reduction targets.
The Carbon Trust (carbontrust.co.uk), which gives interest-free loans to companies intent on energy savings, has information on how to cut back on lighting. Using energy-efficient bulbs is important but other simple adjustments can result in substantial savings: fitting motion or occupancy detectors to turn lights off and on in infrequently used spaces and cleaning light fittings regularly can make a considerable impact. Carrying out a carbon audit is a good starting point too.
In daylight hours more should be done about maximising natural light: it is criminal that offices are still being built with little or no regard to using the Sun to help to brighten them up. Equipment that can regulate lighting, dependent on the degree of natural light, is available.
Besides lighting, there’s the energy that often goes on the wasteful use of air conditioning, the sheaves of waste paper and the computers left on round the clock. A single computer and monitor left on 24 hours a day can run up an energy bill of £45 a year: switch it off out of hours or put it on standby and the bill could be reduced to £10 a year — little adjustments can make a big difference.
Send your eco-dilemmas to
greenandconfused@thetimes.co.uk
Sputtering breakthrough for Shell’s new superclean fuel
Carl Mortished: World business briefing
Two cheers for Royal Dutch Shell, which has solved the emissions problem with a novel fuel that is superclean. Next year, in a giant refining complex in the Gulf, the oil company will begin producing a colourless, odourless diesel with almost zero atmospheric pollutants.
It solves every emissions problem except the one that begins with the letter “C”. Shell’s fuel, a liquid synthesised from natural gas, will make the air cleaner, but it will not save the world from climate change. On a well-to-wheels basis, GTL from Pearl, Shell’s fuel factory in Qatar, emits as much carbon dioxide as conventional diesel, the company admits. Some critics claim that GTL emits even more carbon than the stuff sold at garages today.
This is no marketing stunt; it is an enormous financial gamble. Shell will have spent almost $19 billion (£11.4 billion) when the first cargo of posh diesel is shipped out of Qatar late next year. Originally budgeted in 2002 at about $5 billion, Pearl has ballooned into a whale of a project, the world’s largest construction site, employing 48,000 workers. Its operations room, launched last week, has 179 computer servers using 5,850km of cables to handle the data from the plant.
It is a colossal effort to produce a product for solving “yesterday’s problem”. A product that climate activists would argue is redundant even before the first drops emerge at the end of a pipe in Qatar.
If that were true, Shell would have stopped signing cheques in Qatar years ago; Pearl’s output of 120,000 barrels a day of synthetic diesel will be marketed as an additive, a quick way of lowering the sulphur and particulate content of ordinary diesel, jet fuel or marine bunker fuel. If the environmental story that dominates the news is climate change, the other story — atmospheric pollution — has not gone away and is a more pressing problem, particularly in developing countries. The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 600,000 people die every year in China from disease triggered by high levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Acidic rainfall from SO2 damages forests, lakes and rivers.
Shell’s gambit is to spike ordinary diesel with GTL, just as ethanol is added to petrol to make it cleaner. There have been test flights on Qatar airways with GTL replacing kerosene, but Pearl’s product is probably too expensive to use on its own. According to Wood Mackenzie, the consultant, GTL needs an oil price of $45 a barrel to make economic sense, and the process is hugely energy-intensive.
Pearl’s jungle of pipes and pots will suck in 1.4 billion cu ft a day of gas from Qatar’s vast offshore North field, the equivalent of 240,000 barrels of crude oil, to produce its product. Of that huge daily gas feed, as much as 40 per cent is lost in the energy demand of the plant, according to Deutsche Bank analysts. Compare that with the energy loss of 11 per cent in the process of liquefying gas for transport in ships as LNG and the 4 per cent energy loss in a refinery that makes conventional diesel.
Were it not for a dramatic fall in the price of natural gas, GTL would probably make little sense, even at today’s high oil price. In Qatar, Shell is sitting on one of the world’s largest gas resources but, thanks to recession, there is weak demand for the fuel. By converting natural gas into diesel, Shell more than doubles its worth, given today’s crude oil price. But if GTL can turn useless gas into liquid money, it is no solution to carbon emissions and could even at the margin increase CO2 emissions. Shell argues that its plant is configured to capture its CO2 for storage at some future date. However, if carbon-capture were economically feasible, one could assume that the oil company would have launched the plant with the equipment already in place.
But consider the equipment that Shell has installed in Qatar — a 2 million tonne, gas-guzzling, state-of-the-art chemistry set. The steel forest in a sandpit is the end of a scientific journey that began in the 1920s when Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, the German scientists, discovered how to make synthetic fuel using catalysts to combine carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The technology was used to turn coal into fuel for the Wehrmacht during the Second World War and by South Africa during apartheid, both regimes being unable to secure oil.
Coal-to-liquids worked only in a siege economy, but Shell’s scientists looked again at the technology during the Arab oil boycotts and found a better catalyst. A pilot plant built in Malaysia to make diesel from natural gas struggled with high costs during low oil prices, but the economics have turned and the cashflow from GTL looks good.
But Pearl has cost a mint and the near-century-long development time of GTL technology tells a cautionary tale for those who carp at oil companies for their failure to cut carbon from fuel. The climate change lobby wants carbon captured from every power station, car and home, with punitive fines and levies for malefactors.
Instead of the usual earnest platitudes, big oil should get tough in Copenhagen. They should shout about prices, construction costs, ask bankrupt governments for credit references. It took almost 100 years to make a pint of clean diesel fuel, and now we want it carbon-free.
Two cheers for Royal Dutch Shell, which has solved the emissions problem with a novel fuel that is superclean. Next year, in a giant refining complex in the Gulf, the oil company will begin producing a colourless, odourless diesel with almost zero atmospheric pollutants.
It solves every emissions problem except the one that begins with the letter “C”. Shell’s fuel, a liquid synthesised from natural gas, will make the air cleaner, but it will not save the world from climate change. On a well-to-wheels basis, GTL from Pearl, Shell’s fuel factory in Qatar, emits as much carbon dioxide as conventional diesel, the company admits. Some critics claim that GTL emits even more carbon than the stuff sold at garages today.
This is no marketing stunt; it is an enormous financial gamble. Shell will have spent almost $19 billion (£11.4 billion) when the first cargo of posh diesel is shipped out of Qatar late next year. Originally budgeted in 2002 at about $5 billion, Pearl has ballooned into a whale of a project, the world’s largest construction site, employing 48,000 workers. Its operations room, launched last week, has 179 computer servers using 5,850km of cables to handle the data from the plant.
It is a colossal effort to produce a product for solving “yesterday’s problem”. A product that climate activists would argue is redundant even before the first drops emerge at the end of a pipe in Qatar.
If that were true, Shell would have stopped signing cheques in Qatar years ago; Pearl’s output of 120,000 barrels a day of synthetic diesel will be marketed as an additive, a quick way of lowering the sulphur and particulate content of ordinary diesel, jet fuel or marine bunker fuel. If the environmental story that dominates the news is climate change, the other story — atmospheric pollution — has not gone away and is a more pressing problem, particularly in developing countries. The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 600,000 people die every year in China from disease triggered by high levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Acidic rainfall from SO2 damages forests, lakes and rivers.
Shell’s gambit is to spike ordinary diesel with GTL, just as ethanol is added to petrol to make it cleaner. There have been test flights on Qatar airways with GTL replacing kerosene, but Pearl’s product is probably too expensive to use on its own. According to Wood Mackenzie, the consultant, GTL needs an oil price of $45 a barrel to make economic sense, and the process is hugely energy-intensive.
Pearl’s jungle of pipes and pots will suck in 1.4 billion cu ft a day of gas from Qatar’s vast offshore North field, the equivalent of 240,000 barrels of crude oil, to produce its product. Of that huge daily gas feed, as much as 40 per cent is lost in the energy demand of the plant, according to Deutsche Bank analysts. Compare that with the energy loss of 11 per cent in the process of liquefying gas for transport in ships as LNG and the 4 per cent energy loss in a refinery that makes conventional diesel.
Were it not for a dramatic fall in the price of natural gas, GTL would probably make little sense, even at today’s high oil price. In Qatar, Shell is sitting on one of the world’s largest gas resources but, thanks to recession, there is weak demand for the fuel. By converting natural gas into diesel, Shell more than doubles its worth, given today’s crude oil price. But if GTL can turn useless gas into liquid money, it is no solution to carbon emissions and could even at the margin increase CO2 emissions. Shell argues that its plant is configured to capture its CO2 for storage at some future date. However, if carbon-capture were economically feasible, one could assume that the oil company would have launched the plant with the equipment already in place.
But consider the equipment that Shell has installed in Qatar — a 2 million tonne, gas-guzzling, state-of-the-art chemistry set. The steel forest in a sandpit is the end of a scientific journey that began in the 1920s when Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, the German scientists, discovered how to make synthetic fuel using catalysts to combine carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The technology was used to turn coal into fuel for the Wehrmacht during the Second World War and by South Africa during apartheid, both regimes being unable to secure oil.
Coal-to-liquids worked only in a siege economy, but Shell’s scientists looked again at the technology during the Arab oil boycotts and found a better catalyst. A pilot plant built in Malaysia to make diesel from natural gas struggled with high costs during low oil prices, but the economics have turned and the cashflow from GTL looks good.
But Pearl has cost a mint and the near-century-long development time of GTL technology tells a cautionary tale for those who carp at oil companies for their failure to cut carbon from fuel. The climate change lobby wants carbon captured from every power station, car and home, with punitive fines and levies for malefactors.
Instead of the usual earnest platitudes, big oil should get tough in Copenhagen. They should shout about prices, construction costs, ask bankrupt governments for credit references. It took almost 100 years to make a pint of clean diesel fuel, and now we want it carbon-free.
Power of osmosis used to deliver eco-friendly energy
A Norwegian firm is testing a renewable and emission-free source of energy that harnesses the power of water through osmosis
Gwladys Fouché
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 November 2009 17.45 GMT
The world's first test plant to harness osmotic power, a new emission-free source of energy, opened on Tuesday, in Norway. Nestled amid pine-covered hills on the banks of the Oslo fjord, 60km south of the Norwegian capital, the facility will exploit the energy produced when fresh water meets seawater.
Statkraft, the Norwegian energy firm behind the test plant, says osmotic power could produce up to 1,600–1,700 terawatt hours worldwide – the equivalent of half of the energy generated in the EU today.
"Osmotic power has great potential," says Arild Skedsmo, head of climate and energy at WWF Norway. "In theory the power is available and it's an emission-free way of producing energy."
He adds: "This is an immature technology. But like all renewables, we need a whole range of technologies to be available. Osmotic power can definitely be part of the solution."
The right site
Statkraft says osmotic power would be especially suited for generating electricity for large cities. "Many are situated at the point where large rivers flow into the sea," says Sverre Gotaas, senior vice-president for innovation and growth at Statkraft. "So you would not need to transport the electricity over long distances."
Another advantage, argues Gotaas, is that a commercial plant would be modest in size, but still produce a significant amount of energy. "A facility the size of a football field could generate 25 megawatts – enough to supply 30,000 households," he says.
However, Skedsmo at WWF Norway sounds a note of caution, explaining that an osmotic plant could have the same environmental impact as a hydropower facility. "The infrastructure built can have an impact on the biodiversity of the area … so it's important to choose the right location," he says. "It should not be built in unspoilt river deltas or protected areas."
Could osmotic power plants appear in the UK? "Certainly," says Gotaas. "Any area where river flows into the ocean could be suitable … Another important aspect is that the rivers can't be too polluted. If it's muddy, we would have to clean the water [before using it]. But you have clean rivers in the UK."
The new technology is based on the principle of osmosis, the diffusion of water through a semi-permeable membrane, which is how plants draw water from the soil.
At the test facility, fresh water and salt water is guided into separate chambers, divided by an artificial membrane. When the fresh and seawater meet on either side of the membrane, the fresh water is drawn towards the seawater. The flow puts pressure on the seawater side, and that pressure can be used to drive a turbine, producing electricity.
The two-storey, tennis-court-size plant, situated next to a pulp mill, will generate little power. "It will produce two to four kilowatts. You might be able to run a coffee machine on it, if you are lucky," says Gotaas.
There is no river at the site, situated outside the village of Tofte, so Statkraft will use the water from a nearby lake piped by the pulp mill.
Statkraft has invested 100m crowns (£10.7m) in the project since 1997, in addition to 50m crowns it received from Norwegian and EU funds. The company hopes to launch the first commercial plant between 2015 and 2020 – if everything goes to plan.
Cost of change
The challenges are many. First is the price. As with many renewables, and since it is a new technology, osmotic power is expensive to run. Statkraft says the company can break even if the electricity price reaches between €70 (£63) and €100 a megawatt hour. But current electricity prices in Norway are lower, hovering between €30 and €40 a megawatt hour.
Another challenge is technical. The key to the technology is the membrane, but Statkraft says it needs to be made five times more efficient than it is today. Yet another issue is developing the business, with Statkraft looking to find business partners, such as membrane manufacturers and utility companies.
Statkraft is not the only company trying to harness osmotic power: the Dutch firm Redstack is commercialising a similar technology and is planning to develop a pilot plant in the north of the Netherlands. However, the plan appears to have run into problems. Dutch utility firm Eneco, which had previously said it would help finance the plant, pulled out of the project in October. "We could not agree with the other partners," says Cor de Ruijter, a press officer at Eneco. Executives at Redstack were unavailable for comment.
Nasa is also looking into osmotic power. Researchers at the US space agency are looking to the technology as a possible way to provide enough water for long-term manned missions to the moon or Mars. The idea is a system using osmotic power could separate salt and water from wastewater and purifies human liquid wastes, such as urine and non-potable water, into water that is safe to drink.
Gwladys Fouché
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 November 2009 17.45 GMT
The world's first test plant to harness osmotic power, a new emission-free source of energy, opened on Tuesday, in Norway. Nestled amid pine-covered hills on the banks of the Oslo fjord, 60km south of the Norwegian capital, the facility will exploit the energy produced when fresh water meets seawater.
Statkraft, the Norwegian energy firm behind the test plant, says osmotic power could produce up to 1,600–1,700 terawatt hours worldwide – the equivalent of half of the energy generated in the EU today.
"Osmotic power has great potential," says Arild Skedsmo, head of climate and energy at WWF Norway. "In theory the power is available and it's an emission-free way of producing energy."
He adds: "This is an immature technology. But like all renewables, we need a whole range of technologies to be available. Osmotic power can definitely be part of the solution."
The right site
Statkraft says osmotic power would be especially suited for generating electricity for large cities. "Many are situated at the point where large rivers flow into the sea," says Sverre Gotaas, senior vice-president for innovation and growth at Statkraft. "So you would not need to transport the electricity over long distances."
Another advantage, argues Gotaas, is that a commercial plant would be modest in size, but still produce a significant amount of energy. "A facility the size of a football field could generate 25 megawatts – enough to supply 30,000 households," he says.
However, Skedsmo at WWF Norway sounds a note of caution, explaining that an osmotic plant could have the same environmental impact as a hydropower facility. "The infrastructure built can have an impact on the biodiversity of the area … so it's important to choose the right location," he says. "It should not be built in unspoilt river deltas or protected areas."
Could osmotic power plants appear in the UK? "Certainly," says Gotaas. "Any area where river flows into the ocean could be suitable … Another important aspect is that the rivers can't be too polluted. If it's muddy, we would have to clean the water [before using it]. But you have clean rivers in the UK."
The new technology is based on the principle of osmosis, the diffusion of water through a semi-permeable membrane, which is how plants draw water from the soil.
At the test facility, fresh water and salt water is guided into separate chambers, divided by an artificial membrane. When the fresh and seawater meet on either side of the membrane, the fresh water is drawn towards the seawater. The flow puts pressure on the seawater side, and that pressure can be used to drive a turbine, producing electricity.
The two-storey, tennis-court-size plant, situated next to a pulp mill, will generate little power. "It will produce two to four kilowatts. You might be able to run a coffee machine on it, if you are lucky," says Gotaas.
There is no river at the site, situated outside the village of Tofte, so Statkraft will use the water from a nearby lake piped by the pulp mill.
Statkraft has invested 100m crowns (£10.7m) in the project since 1997, in addition to 50m crowns it received from Norwegian and EU funds. The company hopes to launch the first commercial plant between 2015 and 2020 – if everything goes to plan.
Cost of change
The challenges are many. First is the price. As with many renewables, and since it is a new technology, osmotic power is expensive to run. Statkraft says the company can break even if the electricity price reaches between €70 (£63) and €100 a megawatt hour. But current electricity prices in Norway are lower, hovering between €30 and €40 a megawatt hour.
Another challenge is technical. The key to the technology is the membrane, but Statkraft says it needs to be made five times more efficient than it is today. Yet another issue is developing the business, with Statkraft looking to find business partners, such as membrane manufacturers and utility companies.
Statkraft is not the only company trying to harness osmotic power: the Dutch firm Redstack is commercialising a similar technology and is planning to develop a pilot plant in the north of the Netherlands. However, the plan appears to have run into problems. Dutch utility firm Eneco, which had previously said it would help finance the plant, pulled out of the project in October. "We could not agree with the other partners," says Cor de Ruijter, a press officer at Eneco. Executives at Redstack were unavailable for comment.
Nasa is also looking into osmotic power. Researchers at the US space agency are looking to the technology as a possible way to provide enough water for long-term manned missions to the moon or Mars. The idea is a system using osmotic power could separate salt and water from wastewater and purifies human liquid wastes, such as urine and non-potable water, into water that is safe to drink.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
China calls for 'serious soul-searching' on climate
Jane Macartney in Beijing
China laid out its stall with just days to go before climate change talks in Copenhagen, saying it was time for some serious soul-searching by developed nations and stressing it would not be pushed around.
In an exclusive interview with The Times, China’s special representative to the talks, Ambassador Yu Qingtai, said the major responsibility for reaching a deal lay with world’s developed countries.
China was not ready to give ground on climate issues, Mr Yu intimated, in the absence of firm commitments from developed countries to goals long ago agreed in earlier climate change conferences, from Kyoto to Bali.
China is the world’s third largest economic power and its largest carbon polluter.
He said: “There are nice statements, public announcements by governments and leaders of the developed countries. But if you look at the actions they have been taking, we believe there is a lot of ground to make up. In general, what we wish to see is that the developed countries match their words with their actions.”
Together, the United States and China account for some 40 percent of total carbon emissions.
Beijing has set a target of cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP (gross domestic product) by 20 percent in the five years to 2010. It may reach that by the skin of its teeth.
Another goal China is trying to reach is to increase the ratio of renewable energy, from seven percent to 10 percent of its total generating output by the end of the decade.
Beijing is also aiming to ensure renewable energy makes up 15 percent of its total by 2020, while President Hu Jintao in September pledged to introduce a carbon intensity target, essentially a pledge to reduce the amount of carbon emitted per unit of increased economic output.
That figure has yet to be made public. Mr Yu said researchers were still busily trying to work out a practicable goal, and refused to be drawn on rumours that a number could be made public in Copenhagen.
Mr Yu underscored China’s commitment to accelerate the introduction of cleaner energies in a country that relies on coal for some 70 percent of its electricity needs.
“In the future, China’s overall effort to fight climate change will only be stronger, not weaker.”
The ambassador said China would not be hostage to international demands but was coy on speculation that he may yet bring a surprise offer to the table in Copenhagen, particularly the possibility of raising its goal on renewable energy.
China laid out its stall with just days to go before climate change talks in Copenhagen, saying it was time for some serious soul-searching by developed nations and stressing it would not be pushed around.
In an exclusive interview with The Times, China’s special representative to the talks, Ambassador Yu Qingtai, said the major responsibility for reaching a deal lay with world’s developed countries.
China was not ready to give ground on climate issues, Mr Yu intimated, in the absence of firm commitments from developed countries to goals long ago agreed in earlier climate change conferences, from Kyoto to Bali.
China is the world’s third largest economic power and its largest carbon polluter.
He said: “There are nice statements, public announcements by governments and leaders of the developed countries. But if you look at the actions they have been taking, we believe there is a lot of ground to make up. In general, what we wish to see is that the developed countries match their words with their actions.”
Together, the United States and China account for some 40 percent of total carbon emissions.
Beijing has set a target of cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP (gross domestic product) by 20 percent in the five years to 2010. It may reach that by the skin of its teeth.
Another goal China is trying to reach is to increase the ratio of renewable energy, from seven percent to 10 percent of its total generating output by the end of the decade.
Beijing is also aiming to ensure renewable energy makes up 15 percent of its total by 2020, while President Hu Jintao in September pledged to introduce a carbon intensity target, essentially a pledge to reduce the amount of carbon emitted per unit of increased economic output.
That figure has yet to be made public. Mr Yu said researchers were still busily trying to work out a practicable goal, and refused to be drawn on rumours that a number could be made public in Copenhagen.
Mr Yu underscored China’s commitment to accelerate the introduction of cleaner energies in a country that relies on coal for some 70 percent of its electricity needs.
“In the future, China’s overall effort to fight climate change will only be stronger, not weaker.”
The ambassador said China would not be hostage to international demands but was coy on speculation that he may yet bring a surprise offer to the table in Copenhagen, particularly the possibility of raising its goal on renewable energy.
Plant forests across Britain to beat climate change, say scientists
Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor
The creation of new forests and woodlands across the country will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent and protect communities at risk of flooding, according to a scientific study for the Forestry Commission.
Planting trees in 23,000 hectares a year for the next 40 years — about the size of Queen’s Balmoral estate, or a town the size of Kettering, Northamptonshire — would result in just an extra 4 per cent of land for trees, bringing a total of 16 per cent forest in Britain.
In flood plains and upland areas such as Cumbria, where extreme rainfall and flooding is already a reality, there is a need for new forestry to capture rainfall and lessen the flood risk. Trees in city and town centres would help to mitigate expected higher temperatures, while new woods along rivers will provide shade and help to protect aquatic eco-systems.
Professor Sir David Read, chairman of the study, told The Times that one of the crucial findings of the report was the importance of woods in river catchment areas. “Trees intercept rainfall and retain water, and one of the problems we are seeing now in the Lake District is [that] there is nothing to stop the water running off the hills,” he said. “We must look again at the contribution of forestry in the uplands and returning them in the direction they once were before we deforested them.”
The professor, one of Britain’s leading plant scientists, accepted that new forests would be controversial in some areas and that it was important for communities to have their say in how areas embrace the challenges of climate change. “What we need is an integrated examination of land use across the UK so that a consensus can be reached on how we tackle our changed circumstances,” he said.
In order to achieve this sylvan future, however, the professor said that Britain must accept the introduction of non-native species to replace native trees. Iconic species such as the English oak and the beech could be destroyed by higher temperatures in the South of England and the Sitka spruce, the most commercial tree in Britain, is likely to be confined to the North and North West.
He said: “We have to think now what is going to replace them. It is possible that Pyrenean, downy or white oak will do better in future conditions, but we urgently need the trials now to test these species. We have got to find out now which species will be best for the environment. We can’t wait until 2050. We can’t be squeamish, as we have been in the past, about replacing native species with non-native species, though of course there would need to be proper safeguards and we would have to assess the potential for invasiveness.”
He suggested that the Sitka spruce grown in Britain, predominantly in Scotland, were from seeds from British Columbia, but that it would be prudent now to try strains that currently grow in the warmer climate of southern Oregon. His scenario envisages many new woodlands for the South of England that would not only capture carbon emissions but that would also be used as an energy crop to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
These woods would comprise willow and poplar, and more mixed deciduous forests of sycamore, ash and birch. The Scottish landscape would continue to be dominated by conifers, he suggested, while in Wales there would be a mixture of new broadleaf and conifer plantations.
Future rainfall patterns forecast most extreme weather on the west coast of Scotland, in the North West of England and the west coast of Wales, and therefore he believed that these areas should be considered a priority for new forests.
The assessment, thought to be the first national study of this kind in the world, is intended to trigger a new debate between the Government and landowners over future land use.
Professor Read said: “By increasing our tree cover we can lock up carbon directly. By using more wood for fuel and construction materials we can make savings by using less gas, oil and coal, and by substituting sustainably produced timber for less climate-friendly materials.
“While so many emission-reduction measures have negative connotations, tree planting can be a win, win, win solution: people love trees, we benefit from them in so many different ways, and now we know they could play a significant part in reducing the UK’s CO2 emissions.”
Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, said that the Government intended to work with communities and businesses to ensure that sufficient trees were planted to tackle climate change. He pledged to do more to increase forestry. “Forests and trees are an important part of the way we live and interact with our surroundings, and we cannot underestimate the role that trees will play in reducing our carbon emissions,” he said.
Many traditional forests have been restored. A century ago there was just over 5 per cent woodland, while today it is 12 per cent. Estimates for the maximum cover since the last Ice Age suggest Britain was once 80 per cent forest.
The creation of new forests and woodlands across the country will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent and protect communities at risk of flooding, according to a scientific study for the Forestry Commission.
Planting trees in 23,000 hectares a year for the next 40 years — about the size of Queen’s Balmoral estate, or a town the size of Kettering, Northamptonshire — would result in just an extra 4 per cent of land for trees, bringing a total of 16 per cent forest in Britain.
In flood plains and upland areas such as Cumbria, where extreme rainfall and flooding is already a reality, there is a need for new forestry to capture rainfall and lessen the flood risk. Trees in city and town centres would help to mitigate expected higher temperatures, while new woods along rivers will provide shade and help to protect aquatic eco-systems.
Professor Sir David Read, chairman of the study, told The Times that one of the crucial findings of the report was the importance of woods in river catchment areas. “Trees intercept rainfall and retain water, and one of the problems we are seeing now in the Lake District is [that] there is nothing to stop the water running off the hills,” he said. “We must look again at the contribution of forestry in the uplands and returning them in the direction they once were before we deforested them.”
The professor, one of Britain’s leading plant scientists, accepted that new forests would be controversial in some areas and that it was important for communities to have their say in how areas embrace the challenges of climate change. “What we need is an integrated examination of land use across the UK so that a consensus can be reached on how we tackle our changed circumstances,” he said.
In order to achieve this sylvan future, however, the professor said that Britain must accept the introduction of non-native species to replace native trees. Iconic species such as the English oak and the beech could be destroyed by higher temperatures in the South of England and the Sitka spruce, the most commercial tree in Britain, is likely to be confined to the North and North West.
He said: “We have to think now what is going to replace them. It is possible that Pyrenean, downy or white oak will do better in future conditions, but we urgently need the trials now to test these species. We have got to find out now which species will be best for the environment. We can’t wait until 2050. We can’t be squeamish, as we have been in the past, about replacing native species with non-native species, though of course there would need to be proper safeguards and we would have to assess the potential for invasiveness.”
He suggested that the Sitka spruce grown in Britain, predominantly in Scotland, were from seeds from British Columbia, but that it would be prudent now to try strains that currently grow in the warmer climate of southern Oregon. His scenario envisages many new woodlands for the South of England that would not only capture carbon emissions but that would also be used as an energy crop to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
These woods would comprise willow and poplar, and more mixed deciduous forests of sycamore, ash and birch. The Scottish landscape would continue to be dominated by conifers, he suggested, while in Wales there would be a mixture of new broadleaf and conifer plantations.
Future rainfall patterns forecast most extreme weather on the west coast of Scotland, in the North West of England and the west coast of Wales, and therefore he believed that these areas should be considered a priority for new forests.
The assessment, thought to be the first national study of this kind in the world, is intended to trigger a new debate between the Government and landowners over future land use.
Professor Read said: “By increasing our tree cover we can lock up carbon directly. By using more wood for fuel and construction materials we can make savings by using less gas, oil and coal, and by substituting sustainably produced timber for less climate-friendly materials.
“While so many emission-reduction measures have negative connotations, tree planting can be a win, win, win solution: people love trees, we benefit from them in so many different ways, and now we know they could play a significant part in reducing the UK’s CO2 emissions.”
Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, said that the Government intended to work with communities and businesses to ensure that sufficient trees were planted to tackle climate change. He pledged to do more to increase forestry. “Forests and trees are an important part of the way we live and interact with our surroundings, and we cannot underestimate the role that trees will play in reducing our carbon emissions,” he said.
Many traditional forests have been restored. A century ago there was just over 5 per cent woodland, while today it is 12 per cent. Estimates for the maximum cover since the last Ice Age suggest Britain was once 80 per cent forest.
Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims
Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia denies emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data
Leo Hickman and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 17.55 GMT
The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, said that the past week had "the worst few days of my professional life". He added that since the emails were leaked he had received personal threats which have now been passed on to the police to investigate.
In his first full interview since last week's theft, which saw hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between some of the leading climatologists over the past 13 years stolen from the university's servers, Jones defended himself against accusations by climate sceptics that the emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data.
"That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice," he said. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."
He confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine.
"The use of the term 'hiding the decline' was in an email written in haste," he said. "CRU has not sought to hide the decline." (The University of East Anglia has now posted a detailed explanation of why this phrase was used on its website)
Jones said the timing of the theft suggested it was intended to cause maximum embarrassment ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks next month: "One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks."
But he stressed that he has never wished to get drawn into the political debate about climate change, saying: "I'm a very apolitical person, I don't want to get involved in the politics, I'm much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I'm a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It's up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make."
He added that he had long been under pressure from climate sceptics to further explain his research: "From about 2001/2002 I was getting emails from a number of people involved in the climate sceptic community. Initially at the beginning I did try to respond to them in the hope I might convince them but I soon realised it was a forlorn hope and broke off communication. Some of the emails I sent them subsequently appeared and were discussed on various sceptic websites."
Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia's pro-vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls – including from the Guardian commentator George Monbiot – for Jones to resign: "We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his resignation. He is a valued and important scientist."
Davies said the university had now decided to conduct an independent review which will "address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed".
Yesterday, prominent members of both sides of the climate change debate, including the climate change sceptic Lord Lawson, had called for an independent review. Lawson said he believed this should be carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council, a government science funding body.
But a spokesperson for Nerc said it was not a matter for them. "Nerc believes this is a matter for the University of East Anglia - their Climatic Research Unit is not a Nerc unit - so it is for them to decide if they call for an enquiry and if so who should conduct it. Should there be an enquiry we would of course be happy to contribute, if asked."
A spokesperson for the journal Nature said, "In line with our standard policy, if clear evidence were to arise that anything we've published is in question then we'll look into any action that may need to be taken."
Leo Hickman and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 17.55 GMT
The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, said that the past week had "the worst few days of my professional life". He added that since the emails were leaked he had received personal threats which have now been passed on to the police to investigate.
In his first full interview since last week's theft, which saw hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between some of the leading climatologists over the past 13 years stolen from the university's servers, Jones defended himself against accusations by climate sceptics that the emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data.
"That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice," he said. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."
He confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine.
"The use of the term 'hiding the decline' was in an email written in haste," he said. "CRU has not sought to hide the decline." (The University of East Anglia has now posted a detailed explanation of why this phrase was used on its website)
Jones said the timing of the theft suggested it was intended to cause maximum embarrassment ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks next month: "One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks."
But he stressed that he has never wished to get drawn into the political debate about climate change, saying: "I'm a very apolitical person, I don't want to get involved in the politics, I'm much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I'm a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It's up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make."
He added that he had long been under pressure from climate sceptics to further explain his research: "From about 2001/2002 I was getting emails from a number of people involved in the climate sceptic community. Initially at the beginning I did try to respond to them in the hope I might convince them but I soon realised it was a forlorn hope and broke off communication. Some of the emails I sent them subsequently appeared and were discussed on various sceptic websites."
Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia's pro-vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls – including from the Guardian commentator George Monbiot – for Jones to resign: "We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his resignation. He is a valued and important scientist."
Davies said the university had now decided to conduct an independent review which will "address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed".
Yesterday, prominent members of both sides of the climate change debate, including the climate change sceptic Lord Lawson, had called for an independent review. Lawson said he believed this should be carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council, a government science funding body.
But a spokesperson for Nerc said it was not a matter for them. "Nerc believes this is a matter for the University of East Anglia - their Climatic Research Unit is not a Nerc unit - so it is for them to decide if they call for an enquiry and if so who should conduct it. Should there be an enquiry we would of course be happy to contribute, if asked."
A spokesperson for the journal Nature said, "In line with our standard policy, if clear evidence were to arise that anything we've published is in question then we'll look into any action that may need to be taken."
US and India pledge common action on climate change
Hopes of a strong deal at Copenhagen summit renewed as Obama and Singh commit to 'significant mitigation actions'
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent and Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 19.57 GMT
America and India today pledged common action to fight climate change and to build a new global clean energy economy, claiming the new "green partnership" between two of the world's biggest emitters would help produce a strong political deal at next month's summit in Copenhagen.
Barack Obama and visiting Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, both committed to "significant mitigation actions", ie reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
With today's understanding, three of the world's top emitters, China, America and India are now committed to action on emissions at Copenhagen, though they have yet to reveal the actual targets. But it does significantly boost the prospect that world leaders could commit to strong action at the UN summit, despite the rancourous atmosphere among their official negotiating teams at the last set of meetings in Barcelona this month.
"It takes us one step closer to a successful outcome in Copenhagen." Obama said. Today's pledge from Singh comes a day after the White House said Obama would commit to cutting emissions before the Copenhagen meeting gets underway. China's Hu Jintao committed to reducing the future growth rate of emissions during Obama's visit to Beijing a week ago.
India's new commitment is to take what the White House described today as "vigorous action to combat climate change" in return for assistance from industrialised countries for its shift from coal to cleaner energy sources. Singh made it clear there would be a price for India's cooperation. "We will do more if there is global support in terms of financial resources and technology transfer," he told the Council of Foreign Relations yesterday.
Some of that support came through today, with the announcement of a joint research centre, with US and Indian government funds, to help speed the development of more energy efficient technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. It is thought the US government will contribute $100m a year to the centre over the next five years.
"India was a latecomer to industrialisation and as such we have contributed very little to the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions that caused global warming, but we are determined to be part of the solution," Singh said.
Although India has resisted international pressure to commit to legally binding emissions targets in negotiations, the country has over the last year embarked on a series of new greener measures.
India's cabinet this week approved a plan to triple solar capacity to 20 gigawatts by 2022, and to give more incentives to the development of solar power.
The two countries directed their national labs to work together on expanding solar and wind energy potential. US officials have also been working with India to set up a local version of the Environmental Protection Agency, which could regulate industry and help assure supply of clean water and air.
In recent weeks, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea have all slapped down hard figures on the negotiating table. A specific target from China is expected soon and, under one scenario, China reveal it at a summit with the European Union on 30 November in Nanjing.
That would pave the way for Obama to announce the US targets soon after. But creating this domino effect requires a strong enough commitment by Beijing to convince wavering US senators that China was moving significantly beyond business as usual.
But several recent reports and recommendations on China's likely ambition have generated fears that the carbon target will actually mark a step back from its existing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, once more placing the talks in jeopardy.
"Some of the numbers being bandied around seem worryingly low given China's weight of economic growth. But we remain confident that China will ultimately offer us an emissions reduction target that represents a significant reduction from business as usual," said a European diplomat.
The closest the government in Beijing has come to announcing a goal was at the UN summit in September, when president Hu Jintao's promised to reduce the carbon intensity of China's economy by a "notable margin" between 2005 and 2020. But recent reports have suggested that China is considering a reduction in carbon intensity - emissions relative to economic growth - in the lower end of the range 40-50% in the period of 2005-2020.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent and Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 19.57 GMT
America and India today pledged common action to fight climate change and to build a new global clean energy economy, claiming the new "green partnership" between two of the world's biggest emitters would help produce a strong political deal at next month's summit in Copenhagen.
Barack Obama and visiting Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, both committed to "significant mitigation actions", ie reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
With today's understanding, three of the world's top emitters, China, America and India are now committed to action on emissions at Copenhagen, though they have yet to reveal the actual targets. But it does significantly boost the prospect that world leaders could commit to strong action at the UN summit, despite the rancourous atmosphere among their official negotiating teams at the last set of meetings in Barcelona this month.
"It takes us one step closer to a successful outcome in Copenhagen." Obama said. Today's pledge from Singh comes a day after the White House said Obama would commit to cutting emissions before the Copenhagen meeting gets underway. China's Hu Jintao committed to reducing the future growth rate of emissions during Obama's visit to Beijing a week ago.
India's new commitment is to take what the White House described today as "vigorous action to combat climate change" in return for assistance from industrialised countries for its shift from coal to cleaner energy sources. Singh made it clear there would be a price for India's cooperation. "We will do more if there is global support in terms of financial resources and technology transfer," he told the Council of Foreign Relations yesterday.
Some of that support came through today, with the announcement of a joint research centre, with US and Indian government funds, to help speed the development of more energy efficient technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. It is thought the US government will contribute $100m a year to the centre over the next five years.
"India was a latecomer to industrialisation and as such we have contributed very little to the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions that caused global warming, but we are determined to be part of the solution," Singh said.
Although India has resisted international pressure to commit to legally binding emissions targets in negotiations, the country has over the last year embarked on a series of new greener measures.
India's cabinet this week approved a plan to triple solar capacity to 20 gigawatts by 2022, and to give more incentives to the development of solar power.
The two countries directed their national labs to work together on expanding solar and wind energy potential. US officials have also been working with India to set up a local version of the Environmental Protection Agency, which could regulate industry and help assure supply of clean water and air.
In recent weeks, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea have all slapped down hard figures on the negotiating table. A specific target from China is expected soon and, under one scenario, China reveal it at a summit with the European Union on 30 November in Nanjing.
That would pave the way for Obama to announce the US targets soon after. But creating this domino effect requires a strong enough commitment by Beijing to convince wavering US senators that China was moving significantly beyond business as usual.
But several recent reports and recommendations on China's likely ambition have generated fears that the carbon target will actually mark a step back from its existing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, once more placing the talks in jeopardy.
"Some of the numbers being bandied around seem worryingly low given China's weight of economic growth. But we remain confident that China will ultimately offer us an emissions reduction target that represents a significant reduction from business as usual," said a European diplomat.
The closest the government in Beijing has come to announcing a goal was at the UN summit in September, when president Hu Jintao's promised to reduce the carbon intensity of China's economy by a "notable margin" between 2005 and 2020. But recent reports have suggested that China is considering a reduction in carbon intensity - emissions relative to economic growth - in the lower end of the range 40-50% in the period of 2005-2020.
Dispelling myths about India and climate change
Barack Obama and Manmohan Singh need to overcome the mistrust that has characterised recent US-India relations on climate change and energy.
From the World Resources Institute, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 13.53 GMT
Today, President Obama will host the first state visit of his presidency, rolling out the red carpet for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. Climate change will be high on the agenda for the leaders of the world's two biggest democracies. And the timing is auspicious, coming only two weeks before the start of the high stakes global climate summit in Copenhagen.
With some trying to dampen expectations that the world will seal a new climate agreement in the Danish capital, a US-India breakthrough on action to reduce greenhouse gases could provide the negotiations with much needed impetus.
But for this to happen, the two leaders need to overcome the mistrust that has characterized recent US-India relations on climate change and energy.
For Americans, this requires dispelling three damaging myths.
The first myth lumps India in with China as a global economic player and US competitor which does not need industrialized country support to switch to a low carbon economy. In fact, while India is not Chad, neither is it China. Within its borders, mostly in small villages, live a third of the world's poor. Some three hundred million Indians – more than the entire population of the United States - survive on less than a dollar a day. Four hundred million lack electricity. They are seeking to switch lights on, not turn them off. While a few rich Indians now boast the same carbon footprint as the average American, India's slum dwellers still vastly outnumber its middle class.
The second myth casts India as the rogue of the UN negotiations, refusing to curb its spiraling greenhouse gas emissions without rich country handouts. In fact, while India talks tough, its actions speak otherwise.
In recent years, New Delhi has deployed wind power incentives and high industrial energy prices to foster an impressive nationwide shift to clean technologies. Almost a tenth of India's installed electricity capacity now flows from renewable sources, according to India's Prayas Energy Group, compared with a paltry 3.8% for the United States. Not content with seeding a renewables revolution, India's government has implemented strong energy efficiency standards for new appliances and buildings and launched an efficiency-based "cap-and-trade" scheme involving 700 large industrial companies. Huge subsidies for solar technologies are also in the pipeline. What's more, India has made this investment in a low carbon economy despite using less energy than either the US or China to produce each dollar of GDP.
The third myth is that India is looking for massive cash handouts. In fact, it seeks assistance primarily in the form of a technology partnership and strategic climate and energy relationship with the United States, one which aligns with America's own interests.
Technology partnerships with US federal agencies and companies are a priority for India's leaders because they would help drive down the costs of clean technology and increase Indian capacity to respond effectively and sustainably to booming domestic energy demand. On the world stage, a high profile climate and energy relationship with the United States would also help India's quest to establish itself as a leading economic and diplomatic player. In addition, and understandably, India seeks some financial support in adapting to destructive climate impacts already underway.
What would the United States gain from such a partnership? Access to India's growing market for clean energy technologies, and the American jobs that such demand would generate; leverage to persuade India to embrace more aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to subject these actions to international verification; and improvements in U.S.-India relations that would benefit not just the two nations but the global community and its shared climate.
The United States, by aiding India, would also be keeping faith with the terms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which it signed. This requires developed countries to pay the "full incremental costs" for developing countries to implement emission reduction measures.
Building trust, and overcoming the damaging mud-slinging between Washington and New Delhi on who is the more recalcitrant on climate change, will take time.
But that time must be invested. President Obama and Prime Minister Singh can take a first important step this month, by announcing a high level partnership to develop new and affordable renewable energy technologies and promote energy efficiencies. Responding to climate change is a major test for humanity's ability to undertake swift and effective multilateral action. The world's two largest democratic nations need to lead the way, now, in solving this global challenge.
• Manish Bapna joined WRI as its executive vice president and managing director in June 2007. His interests and expertise are in international development with a particular focus on rural poverty and natural resources.
From the World Resources Institute, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 13.53 GMT
Today, President Obama will host the first state visit of his presidency, rolling out the red carpet for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. Climate change will be high on the agenda for the leaders of the world's two biggest democracies. And the timing is auspicious, coming only two weeks before the start of the high stakes global climate summit in Copenhagen.
With some trying to dampen expectations that the world will seal a new climate agreement in the Danish capital, a US-India breakthrough on action to reduce greenhouse gases could provide the negotiations with much needed impetus.
But for this to happen, the two leaders need to overcome the mistrust that has characterized recent US-India relations on climate change and energy.
For Americans, this requires dispelling three damaging myths.
The first myth lumps India in with China as a global economic player and US competitor which does not need industrialized country support to switch to a low carbon economy. In fact, while India is not Chad, neither is it China. Within its borders, mostly in small villages, live a third of the world's poor. Some three hundred million Indians – more than the entire population of the United States - survive on less than a dollar a day. Four hundred million lack electricity. They are seeking to switch lights on, not turn them off. While a few rich Indians now boast the same carbon footprint as the average American, India's slum dwellers still vastly outnumber its middle class.
The second myth casts India as the rogue of the UN negotiations, refusing to curb its spiraling greenhouse gas emissions without rich country handouts. In fact, while India talks tough, its actions speak otherwise.
In recent years, New Delhi has deployed wind power incentives and high industrial energy prices to foster an impressive nationwide shift to clean technologies. Almost a tenth of India's installed electricity capacity now flows from renewable sources, according to India's Prayas Energy Group, compared with a paltry 3.8% for the United States. Not content with seeding a renewables revolution, India's government has implemented strong energy efficiency standards for new appliances and buildings and launched an efficiency-based "cap-and-trade" scheme involving 700 large industrial companies. Huge subsidies for solar technologies are also in the pipeline. What's more, India has made this investment in a low carbon economy despite using less energy than either the US or China to produce each dollar of GDP.
The third myth is that India is looking for massive cash handouts. In fact, it seeks assistance primarily in the form of a technology partnership and strategic climate and energy relationship with the United States, one which aligns with America's own interests.
Technology partnerships with US federal agencies and companies are a priority for India's leaders because they would help drive down the costs of clean technology and increase Indian capacity to respond effectively and sustainably to booming domestic energy demand. On the world stage, a high profile climate and energy relationship with the United States would also help India's quest to establish itself as a leading economic and diplomatic player. In addition, and understandably, India seeks some financial support in adapting to destructive climate impacts already underway.
What would the United States gain from such a partnership? Access to India's growing market for clean energy technologies, and the American jobs that such demand would generate; leverage to persuade India to embrace more aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to subject these actions to international verification; and improvements in U.S.-India relations that would benefit not just the two nations but the global community and its shared climate.
The United States, by aiding India, would also be keeping faith with the terms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which it signed. This requires developed countries to pay the "full incremental costs" for developing countries to implement emission reduction measures.
Building trust, and overcoming the damaging mud-slinging between Washington and New Delhi on who is the more recalcitrant on climate change, will take time.
But that time must be invested. President Obama and Prime Minister Singh can take a first important step this month, by announcing a high level partnership to develop new and affordable renewable energy technologies and promote energy efficiencies. Responding to climate change is a major test for humanity's ability to undertake swift and effective multilateral action. The world's two largest democratic nations need to lead the way, now, in solving this global challenge.
• Manish Bapna joined WRI as its executive vice president and managing director in June 2007. His interests and expertise are in international development with a particular focus on rural poverty and natural resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
