‘Every error exaggerated the impact of change’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.
In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.
Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.
The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2,500 scientists who produced the report.
The report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 when evidence suggests that they will survive for another 300 years. It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.
The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.
Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
He said that the IPCC should employ graduate science students to check the sources of each claim made in its next report, due in 2013. “Graduate students would love to be involved and they could really dig into the references and see if they really do support what is being said.”
He said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.
“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”
Dr Pachauri has not responded to questions put to him by The Times, despite sending a text message saying that he would do so.
Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.
He said that the scheme to create what he called a “Wikipedia for climate change” was at an early stage but the intention was to establish an online network of climate science research available to anyone with access to the internet and subject to permanent peer review by other scientists.
He said that the project would allow scientists to “synthesise all of the observational record in real-time, not every 5-7 years like the IPCC”.
He rejected concerns that the project would undermine the IPCC’s authority. “It would have to be done so it was complimentary and not a challenge to the IPCC,” he said.
A spokesman for Mr Gore’s office in Nashville, Tennessee, declined to comment on the project.
Meanwhile, a member of the inquiry team investigating allegations of misconduct by climate scientists has admitted that he holds strong views on climate change and that this contradicts a founding principle of the inquiry. Geoffrey Boulton, who was appointed last week by the inquiry chairman, Sir Muir Russell, said he believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Sir Muir issued a statement last week claiming that the inquiry members, who are investigating leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.
Professor Boulton told The Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Loft insulation: Australia's burning issue
An Australian government scheme to promote loft insulation is backfiring on the country's environment minister, former Midnight Oil singer Peter Garrett
Julian Glover
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 20.00 GMT
'How can we sleep when our beds are burning?" sang Peter Garrett in 1987, when he was vying with Michael Hutchence for the title of Australia's most famous rock star. Now, having joined the government as environment minister, the former singer with Midnight Oil has a very real fire to put out.
Garrett is a good man with an impossible task, trying to retain his street cred while doing all the boring but important things that junior environment ministers have to do, such as worrying about what people put in their loft space. He's behind a sensible scheme to encourage Aussies to insulate their homes. It's the sort of thing that British politicans back, too. Unfortunately, Garrett is now finding out the hard way what happens when the government pays cowboy builders to come round to your home.
Australians are used to finding scary things in their attics – funnel web spiders and tiger snakes, for instance – but not foil insulation that has been wired to the mains. Thanks to a federal government scheme, intended to cut energy use, thousands of homes may have been fitted with foil insulation that has been inadvertently nailed to nearby electrical wiring. Last week, one man died in a fire apparently caused by such an error.
Suddenly, insulation has lept from nowhere to the top of the political agenda, with the opposition calling on Garrett to resign. He is "inhabiting a different moral universe", says Tony Abbott, the leader of the Liberal party.
Since Abbott also not long ago described climate change as "total crap", some might ask whether it is Abbott, rather than Garrett, whose morals have gone askew. But at least he hasn't yet gone as far as his finance spokesman, who last week said insulation was nothing more than "the fluffy stuff that sits in the ceiling for rats and mice to urinate on". Those mice had better watch out when they pee.
Julian Glover
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 20.00 GMT
'How can we sleep when our beds are burning?" sang Peter Garrett in 1987, when he was vying with Michael Hutchence for the title of Australia's most famous rock star. Now, having joined the government as environment minister, the former singer with Midnight Oil has a very real fire to put out.
Garrett is a good man with an impossible task, trying to retain his street cred while doing all the boring but important things that junior environment ministers have to do, such as worrying about what people put in their loft space. He's behind a sensible scheme to encourage Aussies to insulate their homes. It's the sort of thing that British politicans back, too. Unfortunately, Garrett is now finding out the hard way what happens when the government pays cowboy builders to come round to your home.
Australians are used to finding scary things in their attics – funnel web spiders and tiger snakes, for instance – but not foil insulation that has been wired to the mains. Thanks to a federal government scheme, intended to cut energy use, thousands of homes may have been fitted with foil insulation that has been inadvertently nailed to nearby electrical wiring. Last week, one man died in a fire apparently caused by such an error.
Suddenly, insulation has lept from nowhere to the top of the political agenda, with the opposition calling on Garrett to resign. He is "inhabiting a different moral universe", says Tony Abbott, the leader of the Liberal party.
Since Abbott also not long ago described climate change as "total crap", some might ask whether it is Abbott, rather than Garrett, whose morals have gone askew. But at least he hasn't yet gone as far as his finance spokesman, who last week said insulation was nothing more than "the fluffy stuff that sits in the ceiling for rats and mice to urinate on". Those mice had better watch out when they pee.
Global collective action is the key to solving climate change
We cannot accept a 'climate apartheid', where the rich can buy their way out of the problem
John Sauven
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 February 2010
Ian Katz says "it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global [climate] deal will come from" (The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards, 9 February). With climate science under siege and climate politics in disarray he's absolutely right that "anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive". I believe that pressure will need to come from a new and much broader global grassroots movement. It will need cross-party political support and must engage the business community.
With Copenhagen behind us, it's time for a new discourse, one which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties, and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world. A debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values will play a central role.
We have to recognise that a global climate deal will be unlike any other previous international agreement. What we are seeking is a radical transformation of the global economy. If we view it as just another agreement that can be achieved with a bit of lobbying and mass mobilisation it won't work. The world generally needs to be shown that the transition to a low-carbon economy can really happen. And to achieve that requires real leadership from politicians and an unprecedented engagement with the public.
Katz suggests that the consequences (and causes) of the Copenhagen failings may take some time to divine. But it's clear that the policies presented by governments in Copenhagen failed to transcend short-term national interests for the greater global good.
In a carbon-constrained world it is going to be necessary to decouple human development from climate pollution. At Copenhagen world leaders could have signed an agreement that would have meant, in short, a radical transformation in the way we provide transport, energy, food, shelter, and other basic needs for all of the world's population. The opponents of action to tackle climate change talk about the costs. If we are to engage the public in the transition to a new economy we need to talk about the benefits, which will always outweigh the costs because of the catastrophic nature of climate change.
Katz says "there is a strong case for more radical reforms", but adds: "Those who want action on climate change will meanwhile have to accept a more incremental approach." Maybe. But we cannot accept a "climate apartheid", where only the rich can buy their way out of the problem. Gandhi taught us that peaceful movements can win, but you need a common cause and mass mobilisation. Climate change is a global public "bad". To solve it requires global collective action.
Perhaps a more global conscience is a distant dream. But dream we must. We have no alternative but to build a global grassroots movement, move politicians forward, and force large corporations and banks to change direction. Civil society needs to sharpen its teeth if it is to win the battle to save the climate.
John Sauven
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 February 2010
Ian Katz says "it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global [climate] deal will come from" (The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards, 9 February). With climate science under siege and climate politics in disarray he's absolutely right that "anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive". I believe that pressure will need to come from a new and much broader global grassroots movement. It will need cross-party political support and must engage the business community.
With Copenhagen behind us, it's time for a new discourse, one which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties, and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world. A debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values will play a central role.
We have to recognise that a global climate deal will be unlike any other previous international agreement. What we are seeking is a radical transformation of the global economy. If we view it as just another agreement that can be achieved with a bit of lobbying and mass mobilisation it won't work. The world generally needs to be shown that the transition to a low-carbon economy can really happen. And to achieve that requires real leadership from politicians and an unprecedented engagement with the public.
Katz suggests that the consequences (and causes) of the Copenhagen failings may take some time to divine. But it's clear that the policies presented by governments in Copenhagen failed to transcend short-term national interests for the greater global good.
In a carbon-constrained world it is going to be necessary to decouple human development from climate pollution. At Copenhagen world leaders could have signed an agreement that would have meant, in short, a radical transformation in the way we provide transport, energy, food, shelter, and other basic needs for all of the world's population. The opponents of action to tackle climate change talk about the costs. If we are to engage the public in the transition to a new economy we need to talk about the benefits, which will always outweigh the costs because of the catastrophic nature of climate change.
Katz says "there is a strong case for more radical reforms", but adds: "Those who want action on climate change will meanwhile have to accept a more incremental approach." Maybe. But we cannot accept a "climate apartheid", where only the rich can buy their way out of the problem. Gandhi taught us that peaceful movements can win, but you need a common cause and mass mobilisation. Climate change is a global public "bad". To solve it requires global collective action.
Perhaps a more global conscience is a distant dream. But dream we must. We have no alternative but to build a global grassroots movement, move politicians forward, and force large corporations and banks to change direction. Civil society needs to sharpen its teeth if it is to win the battle to save the climate.
Big firms drop support for US climate bill
• BP America, Caterpillar and Conoco end support• Opponents claim climate law is dead in the water
Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 21.31 GMT
Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three major corporations – including BP America – dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation.
The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law.
They also undercut Obama's efforts to cast his climate and energy agenda as a pro-business, job-creation plan.
Only hours earlier, Obama and other cabinet officials had made a high-profile announcement that $8.3bn (£5.3bn) was being awarded in loan guarantees for a company building the first new nuclear reactors in America in nearly 30 years.
But the loan decision in favour of Southern Company, which was framed by the White House as a kick-start for new nuclear plants, was upstaged by the departure of the big three firms from the climate partnership.
Officials from BP and ConocoPhillips said that the proposals before Congress for curbing greenhouse gas emissions did not do enough to recognise the importance of natural gas, and were too favourable to the coal industry.
The house of representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has stalled in the Senate.
"House climate legislation and Senate proposals to date have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalised versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions," said the ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive, Jim Mulva, in a statement. "We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort."
Opponents of climate change legislation said the departure of the big three companies had all but killed off Obama's last chances of pushing his agenda through Congress.
"Cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the US Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Obama this week is stepping up White House pressure on Congress with a series of events intended to show the job-creating potential of his green energy agenda.
His announcement at a Maryland job training centre of the new nuclear loan guarantees was a key part of the strategy.
"Even though we haven't broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," he said. "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." The guarantees would commit the US government to repaying Southern's loans if the company defaulted. They cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building two reactors at the company's Vogtle plant, east of Atlanta.
White House officials said today'syesterday's announcement reinforced Obama's pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America's use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.
Obama has also asked Congress to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.
The pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for the climate and energy bill. Expanding nuclear power, which supplies about 20% of the country's electricity, is one of the few elements of Obama's energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support. A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.
But the subsidies have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. "It's a heck of a lot of money," said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. "The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go."The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.
Obama acknowledged those controversies , saying: "There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs."
The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.
White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.
The loan guarantees are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.
Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of "at least half a dozen, probably more" loans for new nuclear reactor construction. "We have a lot of projects in the pipeline", he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.
The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. "If you lose control, it will not melt down," he said. "Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held."
Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. "We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget," he said.
Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 21.31 GMT
Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three major corporations – including BP America – dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation.
The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law.
They also undercut Obama's efforts to cast his climate and energy agenda as a pro-business, job-creation plan.
Only hours earlier, Obama and other cabinet officials had made a high-profile announcement that $8.3bn (£5.3bn) was being awarded in loan guarantees for a company building the first new nuclear reactors in America in nearly 30 years.
But the loan decision in favour of Southern Company, which was framed by the White House as a kick-start for new nuclear plants, was upstaged by the departure of the big three firms from the climate partnership.
Officials from BP and ConocoPhillips said that the proposals before Congress for curbing greenhouse gas emissions did not do enough to recognise the importance of natural gas, and were too favourable to the coal industry.
The house of representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has stalled in the Senate.
"House climate legislation and Senate proposals to date have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalised versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions," said the ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive, Jim Mulva, in a statement. "We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort."
Opponents of climate change legislation said the departure of the big three companies had all but killed off Obama's last chances of pushing his agenda through Congress.
"Cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the US Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Obama this week is stepping up White House pressure on Congress with a series of events intended to show the job-creating potential of his green energy agenda.
His announcement at a Maryland job training centre of the new nuclear loan guarantees was a key part of the strategy.
"Even though we haven't broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," he said. "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." The guarantees would commit the US government to repaying Southern's loans if the company defaulted. They cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building two reactors at the company's Vogtle plant, east of Atlanta.
White House officials said today'syesterday's announcement reinforced Obama's pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America's use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.
Obama has also asked Congress to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.
The pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for the climate and energy bill. Expanding nuclear power, which supplies about 20% of the country's electricity, is one of the few elements of Obama's energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support. A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.
But the subsidies have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. "It's a heck of a lot of money," said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. "The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go."The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.
Obama acknowledged those controversies , saying: "There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs."
The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.
White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.
The loan guarantees are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.
Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of "at least half a dozen, probably more" loans for new nuclear reactor construction. "We have a lot of projects in the pipeline", he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.
The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. "If you lose control, it will not melt down," he said. "Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held."
Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. "We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget," he said.
Tajikistan facing water shortages and climate extremes, report warns
Falling supplies due to rising temperatures and retreating glaciers could spark conflict between water-stressed countries in the region, says Oxfam
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 February 2010 06.00 GMT
It has been occupied by the Russians, the Mongols, the Turks, the Arabs and the Uzbeks, the Chinese, as well as Genghis Khan. But the ancient, mountainous state of Tajikistan, which has been at the crossroads of Asian civilisations for over a thousand years, is in danger of being overwhelmed by water shortages, rising temperatures and climate extremes.
A report released today by Oxfam details fast-rising temperatures, melting glaciers in the Pamir mountains, increased disease, drought, landslides and food shortages. Temperatures plummeted to -20C for more than a month in 2008-09 – unheard of in what is, in places, a subtropical region – and temperatures in the south of the country near Afghanistan have risen several degrees above normal, said the report.
About 20% of the country's 8,492 glaciers are in retreat and 30% more are likely to retreat or disappear by 2050, said Ilhomjon Rajabov, head of the state's climate change department. The largest glacier, Fedchenko, has lost 44 sq km, or 6% of its volume, in the last 34 years.
"It is indisputable that glaciers in Tajikistan are retreating. It is also indisputable that if glaciers continue to retreat, and the country experiences more extreme weather, countless people will be dealt an even harder blow. Nearly 1.5 million people are already food-insecure and that figure will likely rise if climate change is not addressed. There could even be a dangerous ripple effect across Central Asia, with countries throughout the region potentially wrestling over dwindling water resources in coming decades," said Andy Baker, Oxfam Tajikistan's country director.
Scientists and farmers have also observed significant changes in air temperatures, said Oxfam. There has been an increase in the number of days where temperatures have exceeded 40C in the past 50 years, a decline in thunderstorms and hailstorms and mean temperatures have increased in places 1.2C in 65 years – well above the global average which is around 0.8C in the past century.
The implications of climate change stretch well beyond Tajikistan's borders, said Oxfam. Because its glaciers and mountains supply much of the water for the Aral Sea and and the vast, water-hungry, cotton-growing areas of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, there is a danger climate change will increase tensions between already water-stressed countries.
The report cites a World Bank study which said: "The consequences of climate change ... would contribute to political destabilisation and trigger migration [in Central Asia]. As warming progresses, it is likely to intensify national and international conflicts over scarce resources."
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 February 2010 06.00 GMT
It has been occupied by the Russians, the Mongols, the Turks, the Arabs and the Uzbeks, the Chinese, as well as Genghis Khan. But the ancient, mountainous state of Tajikistan, which has been at the crossroads of Asian civilisations for over a thousand years, is in danger of being overwhelmed by water shortages, rising temperatures and climate extremes.
A report released today by Oxfam details fast-rising temperatures, melting glaciers in the Pamir mountains, increased disease, drought, landslides and food shortages. Temperatures plummeted to -20C for more than a month in 2008-09 – unheard of in what is, in places, a subtropical region – and temperatures in the south of the country near Afghanistan have risen several degrees above normal, said the report.
About 20% of the country's 8,492 glaciers are in retreat and 30% more are likely to retreat or disappear by 2050, said Ilhomjon Rajabov, head of the state's climate change department. The largest glacier, Fedchenko, has lost 44 sq km, or 6% of its volume, in the last 34 years.
"It is indisputable that glaciers in Tajikistan are retreating. It is also indisputable that if glaciers continue to retreat, and the country experiences more extreme weather, countless people will be dealt an even harder blow. Nearly 1.5 million people are already food-insecure and that figure will likely rise if climate change is not addressed. There could even be a dangerous ripple effect across Central Asia, with countries throughout the region potentially wrestling over dwindling water resources in coming decades," said Andy Baker, Oxfam Tajikistan's country director.
Scientists and farmers have also observed significant changes in air temperatures, said Oxfam. There has been an increase in the number of days where temperatures have exceeded 40C in the past 50 years, a decline in thunderstorms and hailstorms and mean temperatures have increased in places 1.2C in 65 years – well above the global average which is around 0.8C in the past century.
The implications of climate change stretch well beyond Tajikistan's borders, said Oxfam. Because its glaciers and mountains supply much of the water for the Aral Sea and and the vast, water-hungry, cotton-growing areas of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, there is a danger climate change will increase tensions between already water-stressed countries.
The report cites a World Bank study which said: "The consequences of climate change ... would contribute to political destabilisation and trigger migration [in Central Asia]. As warming progresses, it is likely to intensify national and international conflicts over scarce resources."
BA yet to gain official approval for biojet fuel from food scraps
East London factory could create up to 1,200 jobs and produce 16m gallons of green fuel a year
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 20.07 GMT
The biojet fuel British Airways is planning to produce in its new plant in London has not yet been certified for use by the UK authorities, the airline has admitted to the Guardian.
BA said today that it would build what is believed to be Europe's first plant to manufacture "biojet fuel" using food scraps and other waste in an attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.
But the airline admitted that the Ministry of Defence body, DStan, which regulates aviation fuel in Britain, has yet to grant approval. Officials want further tests to make sure aircraft safety and performance are not compromised by engines running on biojet fuel, rather than conventional 100% crude oil-based kerosene.
BA said it was confident that the new fuel would be certified in Britain by the time the plant is built in 2014. Even if this does not happen, airlines in the UK would still be able to use it because US safety authorities last year gave the fuel the green light, the airline insisted.
Some experts believe that planes will only be able to use limited amounts of biofuels compared to cars. Most biofuels have a lower energy content than conventional fossil fuels, making them less suitable for aircraft which require a high operational performance at all times and because of the extremely cold temperatures in which airline engines must operate. The airline trade body, Iata, has a target for 10% of jet fuel to come from sources other than crude by 2017, but this includes coal as well as biomass materials.
Howard Wheeldon at brokerage BGC Partners, said: "As we see it now, the potential in aviation is more limited. Clearly there is a long way to go but biofuels could well be one of the future ways that airlines cut emissions. This announcement is one further step forward."
Airlines have to date only carried out a few test flights using biofuels. In the US, there is only one plant producing jet fuel from biomass similar to the one planned by BA. Safety authorities there allow planes to run on a maximum 50% blend of the green fuel mixed with kerosene. A BA spokesman said he was confident that the US – with the UK following soon afterwards – would move to allow aircraft to operate on 100% biojet fuel, but could not say when this would happen.
BA will build the plant, creating up to 1,200 jobs, in a joint venture with biofuel producer Solena and is looking at four sites in east London. The airline said the plant, when operating at full capacity, would convert 500,000 tonnes of waste a year into 16m gallons of green jet fuel. It claimed this would be more than twice the amount required to make all of its flights at London City Airport carbon neutral.
The waste would come from food scraps and other household material like grass and tree cuttings, agricultural and industrial waste. The airline said it would not buy palm oil – a core ingredient for much of the biofuel used in cars, the cultivation of which has accelerated deforestation.
The airline also took into account the greenhouse gas emissions saved by not sending material to landfill, which produces harmful methane. It said it was still talking to biomass suppliers.
But Friends of the Earth said more land would be taken up to grow crops and trees for biofuels in planes, pushing out food production. Kenneth Richter said: "What happens in five years if this kind of feedstock becomes too expensive or scarce?
"Many things colloquially called 'waste' are often valuable resources for other processes. There are far better ways to use the limited amounts of waste wood available, for example in biomass plants, than in jet fuel. There is already a lot of competition for arable land for food production and to make biofuels for road transport."
Sir Richard Branson has pledged to invest $3bn over a decade into a new company, Virgin Fuels, to develop biofuels.
Yesterday, BA shares closed up more than 5% after it gained tentative approval from US regulatory authorities for its tie-up with American Airlines.
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 20.07 GMT
The biojet fuel British Airways is planning to produce in its new plant in London has not yet been certified for use by the UK authorities, the airline has admitted to the Guardian.
BA said today that it would build what is believed to be Europe's first plant to manufacture "biojet fuel" using food scraps and other waste in an attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.
But the airline admitted that the Ministry of Defence body, DStan, which regulates aviation fuel in Britain, has yet to grant approval. Officials want further tests to make sure aircraft safety and performance are not compromised by engines running on biojet fuel, rather than conventional 100% crude oil-based kerosene.
BA said it was confident that the new fuel would be certified in Britain by the time the plant is built in 2014. Even if this does not happen, airlines in the UK would still be able to use it because US safety authorities last year gave the fuel the green light, the airline insisted.
Some experts believe that planes will only be able to use limited amounts of biofuels compared to cars. Most biofuels have a lower energy content than conventional fossil fuels, making them less suitable for aircraft which require a high operational performance at all times and because of the extremely cold temperatures in which airline engines must operate. The airline trade body, Iata, has a target for 10% of jet fuel to come from sources other than crude by 2017, but this includes coal as well as biomass materials.
Howard Wheeldon at brokerage BGC Partners, said: "As we see it now, the potential in aviation is more limited. Clearly there is a long way to go but biofuels could well be one of the future ways that airlines cut emissions. This announcement is one further step forward."
Airlines have to date only carried out a few test flights using biofuels. In the US, there is only one plant producing jet fuel from biomass similar to the one planned by BA. Safety authorities there allow planes to run on a maximum 50% blend of the green fuel mixed with kerosene. A BA spokesman said he was confident that the US – with the UK following soon afterwards – would move to allow aircraft to operate on 100% biojet fuel, but could not say when this would happen.
BA will build the plant, creating up to 1,200 jobs, in a joint venture with biofuel producer Solena and is looking at four sites in east London. The airline said the plant, when operating at full capacity, would convert 500,000 tonnes of waste a year into 16m gallons of green jet fuel. It claimed this would be more than twice the amount required to make all of its flights at London City Airport carbon neutral.
The waste would come from food scraps and other household material like grass and tree cuttings, agricultural and industrial waste. The airline said it would not buy palm oil – a core ingredient for much of the biofuel used in cars, the cultivation of which has accelerated deforestation.
The airline also took into account the greenhouse gas emissions saved by not sending material to landfill, which produces harmful methane. It said it was still talking to biomass suppliers.
But Friends of the Earth said more land would be taken up to grow crops and trees for biofuels in planes, pushing out food production. Kenneth Richter said: "What happens in five years if this kind of feedstock becomes too expensive or scarce?
"Many things colloquially called 'waste' are often valuable resources for other processes. There are far better ways to use the limited amounts of waste wood available, for example in biomass plants, than in jet fuel. There is already a lot of competition for arable land for food production and to make biofuels for road transport."
Sir Richard Branson has pledged to invest $3bn over a decade into a new company, Virgin Fuels, to develop biofuels.
Yesterday, BA shares closed up more than 5% after it gained tentative approval from US regulatory authorities for its tie-up with American Airlines.
Barack Obama gives green light to new wave of nuclear reactors
US president announces $8.3bn in loan guarantees for construction of first nuclear reactors in almost 30 years
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 18.20 GMT
Barack Obama pressed the start button on the first new construction of nuclear reactors in a generation today, announcing $8.3bn in loan guarantees for the company building two.
Obama, in a visit to a job training centre in Maryland, said the loan guarantees to the energy giant, Southern Company, would help launch the first wave of construction of new reactors in nearly 30 years as well as advance his energy and climate agenda.
"Even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," he said. "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."
The loans would commit the US government to repaying Southern's loans if the company defaults. The guarantees cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building the two new reactors at the company's Vogtle plant, which is east of Atlanta.
White House officials said today's announcement reinforced Obama's pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America's use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.
Obama has also asked Congress in his budget request to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.
Obama's pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for a climate and energy bill that has stalled in the Senate. Expanding America's reliance on nuclear power – which currently supplies about 20% of electricity – is one of the few elements of Obama's energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support.
A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.
But the subsidies for the nuclear industry have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. "It's a heck of a lot of money," said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. "The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go."
The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.
Obama acknowledged those controversies today, saying: "There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs."
The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.
White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.
The loan guarantees announced today are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.
Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of "at least half a dozen, probably more" loans for new nuclear reactor construction. "We have a lot of projects in the pipeline", he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.
The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. "If you lose control, it will not melt down," he said. "Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held."
Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. "We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget," he said.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 18.20 GMT
Barack Obama pressed the start button on the first new construction of nuclear reactors in a generation today, announcing $8.3bn in loan guarantees for the company building two.
Obama, in a visit to a job training centre in Maryland, said the loan guarantees to the energy giant, Southern Company, would help launch the first wave of construction of new reactors in nearly 30 years as well as advance his energy and climate agenda.
"Even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," he said. "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."
The loans would commit the US government to repaying Southern's loans if the company defaults. The guarantees cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building the two new reactors at the company's Vogtle plant, which is east of Atlanta.
White House officials said today's announcement reinforced Obama's pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America's use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.
Obama has also asked Congress in his budget request to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.
Obama's pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for a climate and energy bill that has stalled in the Senate. Expanding America's reliance on nuclear power – which currently supplies about 20% of electricity – is one of the few elements of Obama's energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support.
A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.
But the subsidies for the nuclear industry have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. "It's a heck of a lot of money," said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. "The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go."
The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.
Obama acknowledged those controversies today, saying: "There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs."
The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.
White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.
The loan guarantees announced today are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.
Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of "at least half a dozen, probably more" loans for new nuclear reactor construction. "We have a lot of projects in the pipeline", he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.
The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. "If you lose control, it will not melt down," he said. "Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held."
Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. "We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget," he said.
Scientists dispute climate sceptic's claim that US weather data is useless
Ex-weatherman Anthony Watts says many US weather stations produce unreliable data because they are located next to artificial heat – but a scientific analysis suggests that, if anything, such stations underestimate warming
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 16.22 GMT
It appeared to have shaken the credibility of one of the most important global warming data sets in the world. A blog-inspired campaign by amateur climate sceptics seemed to show that numerous weather stations across the US were so poorly located they could not be relied upon.
But a new scientific analysis, using data from the sceptics, has shown that, if anything, the poorly located stations underestimate warming, rather than exaggerating it.
The US temperature record uses data from thousands of weather stations spread around the country. Their accuracy was called into question following a campaign by climate sceptic Anthony Watts, an ex-weatherman who runs the influential blog WattsUpWithThat.
He set up a site called surfacestations.org for readers to post photos of poorly located weather stations, particularly in places that could be influenced by artificial heat, such as air conditioning units or car parks. The photos were compiled into a book published by the right-wing thinktank the Heartland Institute. In it, Watts wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."
But scientists at the National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) in North Carolina have analysed the weather station data to see what difference poor location actually makes. Watts had ranked the stations by his estimation of the quality of their location, so Dr Matthew Menne and colleagues compared the results from high- and low-ranked stations. They described their results as "counterintuitive" – poorly located stations were actually more likely to be cooler than those in better locations. This is probably because the poorly located stations are more likely to use more up-to-date measuring equipment called Maximum-Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), which has a slight "cool" bias that is already well documented.
"NCDC has spent more than 25 years developing methods to correct for biases such as those introduced by the MMTS switch, and published numerous articles documenting these methods and their reliability in the peer-reviewed scientific literature," said Dr Scott Hausman, NCDC's deputy director. "These methods have proven time and again to be robust at removing these biases and providing a true climate signal in regional to global temperatures, and we are highly confident in our results."
He said the NCDC had invited Watts to collaborate on the paper, which appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research last month, but he declined.
Watts challenged this account. He said the NCDC director, Dr Tom Karl, wrote to him in September to offer a "joint scientific inquiry". Watts said he responded nearly two months later to accept the invitation but never received a reply. "The appearance of the Menne et al paper was a bit of a surprise," he said. "By not bothering to reply to our letter about an offer he initiated, and by not giving me any review process opportunity, [Karl] extends professional discourtesy to my own volunteers and my team's work."
He argued that the analysis in the paper is flawed because it only uses preliminary data from 43% of the stations surveyed. But Hausman said he did not believe this would affect the results. "We tested the sensitivity of our results to this and found the differences to be insignificant," he said.
Watts said he is now producing an analysis using data from 87% of the stations.
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 16.22 GMT
It appeared to have shaken the credibility of one of the most important global warming data sets in the world. A blog-inspired campaign by amateur climate sceptics seemed to show that numerous weather stations across the US were so poorly located they could not be relied upon.
But a new scientific analysis, using data from the sceptics, has shown that, if anything, the poorly located stations underestimate warming, rather than exaggerating it.
The US temperature record uses data from thousands of weather stations spread around the country. Their accuracy was called into question following a campaign by climate sceptic Anthony Watts, an ex-weatherman who runs the influential blog WattsUpWithThat.
He set up a site called surfacestations.org for readers to post photos of poorly located weather stations, particularly in places that could be influenced by artificial heat, such as air conditioning units or car parks. The photos were compiled into a book published by the right-wing thinktank the Heartland Institute. In it, Watts wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."
But scientists at the National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) in North Carolina have analysed the weather station data to see what difference poor location actually makes. Watts had ranked the stations by his estimation of the quality of their location, so Dr Matthew Menne and colleagues compared the results from high- and low-ranked stations. They described their results as "counterintuitive" – poorly located stations were actually more likely to be cooler than those in better locations. This is probably because the poorly located stations are more likely to use more up-to-date measuring equipment called Maximum-Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), which has a slight "cool" bias that is already well documented.
"NCDC has spent more than 25 years developing methods to correct for biases such as those introduced by the MMTS switch, and published numerous articles documenting these methods and their reliability in the peer-reviewed scientific literature," said Dr Scott Hausman, NCDC's deputy director. "These methods have proven time and again to be robust at removing these biases and providing a true climate signal in regional to global temperatures, and we are highly confident in our results."
He said the NCDC had invited Watts to collaborate on the paper, which appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research last month, but he declined.
Watts challenged this account. He said the NCDC director, Dr Tom Karl, wrote to him in September to offer a "joint scientific inquiry". Watts said he responded nearly two months later to accept the invitation but never received a reply. "The appearance of the Menne et al paper was a bit of a surprise," he said. "By not bothering to reply to our letter about an offer he initiated, and by not giving me any review process opportunity, [Karl] extends professional discourtesy to my own volunteers and my team's work."
He argued that the analysis in the paper is flawed because it only uses preliminary data from 43% of the stations surveyed. But Hausman said he did not believe this would affect the results. "We tested the sensitivity of our results to this and found the differences to be insignificant," he said.
Watts said he is now producing an analysis using data from 87% of the stations.
Algae to solve the Pentagon's jet fuel problem
US scientists believe they will soon be able to use algae to produce biofuel for the same cost as fossil fuels
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 February 2010 16.04 GMT
The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.
The claim, which comes from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation's single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.
Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer. "Everyone is well aware that a lot of things were started in the military," McQuiston said.
The work is part of a broader Pentagon effort to reduce the military's thirst for oil, which runs at between 60 and 75 million barrels of oil a year. Much of that is used to keep the US Air Force in flight. Commercial airlines – such as Continental and Virgin Atlantic – have also been looking at the viability of an algae-based jet fuel, as has the Chinese government.
"Darpa has achieved the base goal to date," she said. "Oil from algae is projected at $2 per gallon, headed towards $1 per gallon."
McQuiston said a larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, would come on line in 2011 and she was hopeful the costs would drop still further – ensuring that the algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. She said the projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm.
McQuiston's projections took several industry insiders by surprise. "It's a little farther out in time," said Mary Rosenthal, director of the Algal Biomass Association. "I am not saying it is going to happen in the next three months, but it could happen in the next two years."
But the possibilities have set off a scramble to discover the cheapest way of mass-producing an algae-based fuel. Even Exxon – which once notoriously dismissed biofuels as moonshine – invested $600m in research last July.
Unlike corn-based ethanol, algal farms do not threaten food supplies. Some strains are being grown on household waste and in brackish water. Algae draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when growing; when the derived fuel is burned, the same CO2 is released, making the fuel theoretically zero-carbon, although processing and transporting the fuel requires some energy.
The industry received a further boost earlier this month, when the Environmental Protection Agency declared that algae-based diesel reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50% compared with conventional diesel. The Obama administration had earlier awarded $80m in research grants to a new generation of algae and biomass fuels.
For Darpa, the support for algae is part of a broader mission for the US military to obtain half of its fuel from renewable energy sources by 2016. That time line meant that the Pentagon needed to develop technologies to make its hardware "fuel agnostic", capable that is of running on any energy source including methane and propane.
The US Air Force wants its entire fleet of jet fighters and transport aircraft to test-fly a 50-50 blend of petroleum-based fuel and other sources – including algae – by next year.
The switch is partly driven by cost, but military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq are also anxious to create a lighter, more fuel-efficient force that is less dependent on supply convoys, which are vulnerable to attack from insurgents. Give the military the capability of creating jet fuel in the field, and you would eliminate that danger, McQuiston said. "In Afghanistan, if you could be able to create jet fuel from indigenous sources and rely on that, you'd not only be able to source energy for the military, but you'd also be able to leave an infrastructure that would be more sustainable."
McQuiston said the agency was also looking at how to make dramatic improvements in the photo-voltaic cells that collect solar energy. She said making PV 50% more efficient would create a future when even the smallest devices, such as mobile phones, would be powered by their own solar cells.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 February 2010 16.04 GMT
The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.
The claim, which comes from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation's single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.
Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer. "Everyone is well aware that a lot of things were started in the military," McQuiston said.
The work is part of a broader Pentagon effort to reduce the military's thirst for oil, which runs at between 60 and 75 million barrels of oil a year. Much of that is used to keep the US Air Force in flight. Commercial airlines – such as Continental and Virgin Atlantic – have also been looking at the viability of an algae-based jet fuel, as has the Chinese government.
"Darpa has achieved the base goal to date," she said. "Oil from algae is projected at $2 per gallon, headed towards $1 per gallon."
McQuiston said a larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, would come on line in 2011 and she was hopeful the costs would drop still further – ensuring that the algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. She said the projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm.
McQuiston's projections took several industry insiders by surprise. "It's a little farther out in time," said Mary Rosenthal, director of the Algal Biomass Association. "I am not saying it is going to happen in the next three months, but it could happen in the next two years."
But the possibilities have set off a scramble to discover the cheapest way of mass-producing an algae-based fuel. Even Exxon – which once notoriously dismissed biofuels as moonshine – invested $600m in research last July.
Unlike corn-based ethanol, algal farms do not threaten food supplies. Some strains are being grown on household waste and in brackish water. Algae draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when growing; when the derived fuel is burned, the same CO2 is released, making the fuel theoretically zero-carbon, although processing and transporting the fuel requires some energy.
The industry received a further boost earlier this month, when the Environmental Protection Agency declared that algae-based diesel reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50% compared with conventional diesel. The Obama administration had earlier awarded $80m in research grants to a new generation of algae and biomass fuels.
For Darpa, the support for algae is part of a broader mission for the US military to obtain half of its fuel from renewable energy sources by 2016. That time line meant that the Pentagon needed to develop technologies to make its hardware "fuel agnostic", capable that is of running on any energy source including methane and propane.
The US Air Force wants its entire fleet of jet fighters and transport aircraft to test-fly a 50-50 blend of petroleum-based fuel and other sources – including algae – by next year.
The switch is partly driven by cost, but military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq are also anxious to create a lighter, more fuel-efficient force that is less dependent on supply convoys, which are vulnerable to attack from insurgents. Give the military the capability of creating jet fuel in the field, and you would eliminate that danger, McQuiston said. "In Afghanistan, if you could be able to create jet fuel from indigenous sources and rely on that, you'd not only be able to source energy for the military, but you'd also be able to leave an infrastructure that would be more sustainable."
McQuiston said the agency was also looking at how to make dramatic improvements in the photo-voltaic cells that collect solar energy. She said making PV 50% more efficient would create a future when even the smallest devices, such as mobile phones, would be powered by their own solar cells.
Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists'
The US's most Republican state passes bill disputing science of climate change, claiming emissions are 'essentially harmless'• The full story of the hacked climate emails• Climate scientists admit fresh error
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 February 2010 18.20 GMT
Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.
But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.
The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".
In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.
By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, cooler heads apparently prevailed. The bill dropped the word "conspiracy", and described climate science as "questionable" rather than "flawed".
However, it insisted – against all evidence – that the hockey stick graph of changing temperatures was discredited. It also called on the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".
As Noel explained: "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 February 2010 18.20 GMT
Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.
But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.
The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".
In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.
By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, cooler heads apparently prevailed. The bill dropped the word "conspiracy", and described climate science as "questionable" rather than "flawed".
However, it insisted – against all evidence – that the hockey stick graph of changing temperatures was discredited. It also called on the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".
As Noel explained: "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
