Underwater vents allow scientists to assess the acidic effect of carbon dioxide on ocean life
Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 21 February 2010
Huge vents covering the sea-floor – among the strangest and most spectacular sights in nature – pour carbon dioxide and other gases into the deep waters of the oceans.
Last week, as researchers reported that they had now discovered more than 50,000 underwater volcanic springs, they also revealed a new use for them – as laboratories for measuring the impact of ocean acidification on marine life.
The seas are slowly being made more acidic by the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from factories and cars being pumped into the atmosphere and then dissolved in the sea. The likely impact of this acidification worries scientists, because they have found that predicting the exact course of future damage is a tricky process.
That is where the undersea vents come in, says Dr Jason Hall-Spencer of the University of Plymouth. "Seawater around these vents becomes much more acidic than normal seawater because of the carbon dioxide that is being bubbled into it," he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego, California, last week. "Indeed, it reaches a level that we believe will be matched by the acidity of oceans in three or four decades. That is why they are so important."
As part of his research, Hall-Spencer has scuba-dived into waters around vents and used submersibles to study those in deeper waters. In both cases the impact was dramatic, he told the conference.
"The sea floor is often very colourful. There are corals, pink algae and sea urchins. But I have found that these are wiped out when the water becomes more acidic and are replaced by sea grasses and foreign, invasive algae.
"There is a complete ecological flip. The seabed loses all its richness and variety. And that is what is likely to happen in the next few decades across the world's oceans."
Hall-Spencer also noted that in acidic seawater a type of algae known as coralline algae – which act as the glue holding coral reefs together – are destroyed.
"When coralline algae are destroyed, coral reefs fall apart," he said. "So we can see that coral islands like the Maldives face a particularly worrying future. Rising sea levels threaten to drown them, while acidic waters will cause them to disintegrate.
"It is a very worrying combination."
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
In Japan, Even a Used Prius Shines
By MIHO INADA And MARIKO SANCHANTA
TOKYO—As Toyota Motor Corp.'s best-selling Prius gets caught up in the auto maker's broader quality issues, it can still count on one solid base of support: Japanese drivers who want one now.
It is too early to tell how the brake-system issues Toyota disclosed earlier this month in some Priuses will affect sales of the gasoline-electric hybrid in Japan, where it is the top-selling car. Sales topped 22,300 in Toyota's home country last month, according to the Japan Automobile Dealers Association.
But dealers report demand remains strong for used models of the 2010-model Prius, which is at the center of brake concerns that prompted Toyota to recall more than 400,000 Prius and other hybrid models. That's because car buyers can drive a used Prius off the lot immediately instead of enduring the wait of up to 4½ months for delivery of a new one.
Tokyo-based Gulliver International Co., one of Japan's biggest used-car trading firms, said used 2010-model Priuses continue to sell at prices that are 5% to 10% higher than the same model sold new.
The average price for a used Prius S, one of the basic Prius models released last May, is around 2.4 million yen, or about $26,300, the firm says. The sticker price for a new version of the same model is 2.2 million yen.
Some used models in popular colors such as pearl, black and silver are quoted at even higher prices, between 2.5 million yen and 2.8 million yen, on Gulliver's Web site.
"There are people who decided not to buy Prius out of safety concerns, but everyone is not like that. Some go for a used one so they can drive it immediately," said Shoichi Suzuki, head of research at Gulliver.
Japan Plant Service, a used-car dealer in Hachioji city outside central Tokyo, sells about five second-hand Priuses a month, which account for half of the company's monthly business. Hiroyuki Endo, a employee there, said the pace of 2010 Prius sales hasn't slowed. The company has sold two Priuses so far this month.
Unlike in the U.S., where sales of most Toyota models, including the Prius, have fallen, "It seems customers do not mind. Prius remains the most popular car for our business," said Mr. Endo.
Sellers of the used Priuses are required to make sure the necessary repairs to the braking system are made.
Japanese consumers pay close attention to product sales rankings. When something reaches the No. 1 spot, be it be cars, cosmetics or beverages, a buying frenzy sometimes follows.
The Prius delivery time has been reduced from its peak of eight months. Still, Toyota said Feb. 5 that customers who ordered a Prius after Feb. 3 wouldn't have their vehicle delivered until late June.
Netz Toyota Yokohama, an independent dealer with 31 outlets outside Tokyo, has received four cancellations out of about 100 new Priuses that have been ordered but haven't yet been shipped. The customers who canceled cited the safety issue, said company spokesman Takeshi Kitagawa.
But, he added, "While cancellation is not zero, confusion is much less than we expected. We thought customers would be much more upset given the widespread media reports."
At Exfeel Corp., an independent used-car dealer in the commuter town of Chiba, president Taro Yoshikawa sold some used Priuses this week to other used-vehicle dealers at prices higher than those for brand new ones, indicating that dealers assume that they can still sell Prius at premium prices for some time.
"The popularity of Prius is still strong and I don't anticipate the price [for the used ones] would drop dramatically," he said. "Its popularity is persistent."
Write to Miho Inada at miho.inada@wsj.com and Mariko Sanchanta at mariko.sanchanta@wsj.com
TOKYO—As Toyota Motor Corp.'s best-selling Prius gets caught up in the auto maker's broader quality issues, it can still count on one solid base of support: Japanese drivers who want one now.
It is too early to tell how the brake-system issues Toyota disclosed earlier this month in some Priuses will affect sales of the gasoline-electric hybrid in Japan, where it is the top-selling car. Sales topped 22,300 in Toyota's home country last month, according to the Japan Automobile Dealers Association.
But dealers report demand remains strong for used models of the 2010-model Prius, which is at the center of brake concerns that prompted Toyota to recall more than 400,000 Prius and other hybrid models. That's because car buyers can drive a used Prius off the lot immediately instead of enduring the wait of up to 4½ months for delivery of a new one.
Tokyo-based Gulliver International Co., one of Japan's biggest used-car trading firms, said used 2010-model Priuses continue to sell at prices that are 5% to 10% higher than the same model sold new.
The average price for a used Prius S, one of the basic Prius models released last May, is around 2.4 million yen, or about $26,300, the firm says. The sticker price for a new version of the same model is 2.2 million yen.
Some used models in popular colors such as pearl, black and silver are quoted at even higher prices, between 2.5 million yen and 2.8 million yen, on Gulliver's Web site.
"There are people who decided not to buy Prius out of safety concerns, but everyone is not like that. Some go for a used one so they can drive it immediately," said Shoichi Suzuki, head of research at Gulliver.
Japan Plant Service, a used-car dealer in Hachioji city outside central Tokyo, sells about five second-hand Priuses a month, which account for half of the company's monthly business. Hiroyuki Endo, a employee there, said the pace of 2010 Prius sales hasn't slowed. The company has sold two Priuses so far this month.
Unlike in the U.S., where sales of most Toyota models, including the Prius, have fallen, "It seems customers do not mind. Prius remains the most popular car for our business," said Mr. Endo.
Sellers of the used Priuses are required to make sure the necessary repairs to the braking system are made.
Japanese consumers pay close attention to product sales rankings. When something reaches the No. 1 spot, be it be cars, cosmetics or beverages, a buying frenzy sometimes follows.
The Prius delivery time has been reduced from its peak of eight months. Still, Toyota said Feb. 5 that customers who ordered a Prius after Feb. 3 wouldn't have their vehicle delivered until late June.
Netz Toyota Yokohama, an independent dealer with 31 outlets outside Tokyo, has received four cancellations out of about 100 new Priuses that have been ordered but haven't yet been shipped. The customers who canceled cited the safety issue, said company spokesman Takeshi Kitagawa.
But, he added, "While cancellation is not zero, confusion is much less than we expected. We thought customers would be much more upset given the widespread media reports."
At Exfeel Corp., an independent used-car dealer in the commuter town of Chiba, president Taro Yoshikawa sold some used Priuses this week to other used-vehicle dealers at prices higher than those for brand new ones, indicating that dealers assume that they can still sell Prius at premium prices for some time.
"The popularity of Prius is still strong and I don't anticipate the price [for the used ones] would drop dramatically," he said. "Its popularity is persistent."
Write to Miho Inada at miho.inada@wsj.com and Mariko Sanchanta at mariko.sanchanta@wsj.com
A green future for Teesside
With proper levels of investment and government support, offshore windfarms could fill economic gaps in the north-east
Ed Cox
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 February 2010 17.00 GMT
In October 1346, English forces from across the north of England rode into Durham to take up positions against the Scottish army of King David II. They arrived just in time to take up the better ground and in the ensuing Battle of Neville's Cross they saw off the invaders and captured their king. This week the cabinet is meeting close by the scene of the battle, but it remains to be seen whether the arrival of the cavalry will see off the economic forces currently hammering the north-east.
The cabinet meeting in Durham is certainly timely, for just down the road the final steel will be poured at Teesside Cast Products bringing to a close 150 years of steelmaking. The process – known as chasing the salamander – involves emptying the last dregs from the smelt before mothballing the plant and any remaining hopes of a last-minute takeover.
The perceived need for this cabinet meeting is symbolic of a parliamentary system that has so distanced the executive from the day-to-day life of steelworkers that such gestures count for a great deal. (Roll-on powers for local authorities to drive their own economic development). Ministers will seize upon the opportunity to beat their breasts about the Corus closure and reiterate promises of a £60m investment package to bring new jobs to the area: new, green jobs in offshore wind-farming.
The argument for green jobs is persuasive. As unemployment continues to rise and the economy stumbles out of recession, the need to create new jobs and new markets is pressing. At the same time, the imperative to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases means that we need to rethink how the UK economy will be structured. But three issues must be addressed if the "green new deal" is to become a reality.
First, the UK must seize some competitive advantage. Taking offshore wind-farming alone, a recent Institute for Public Policy report argues that anything between 20,000 and 70,000 jobs could be created in the sector. But with the significant majority of job growth predicted to be in turbine and component manufacture, unless the UK can attract a turbine manufacturer to its shores it is likely to lose out to Denmark, Spain or Germany with their better-developed wind markets. Not only do we need to secure the domestic market through reforms to the renewables obligation and investment in the national grid infrastructure, but a combination of tax incentives and loan guarantees might also be required.
Second, we need to do the maths. Even the best estimates suggest that for every four jobs lost at Corus, only one will be created in offshore wind locally. Analysis for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that in 2007-08 there were only 445,000 UK jobs in the entire green sector (including the low-carbon support and supply chain), and with growth projected at just 5% per annum we have to look more widely not just at new green jobs but at the greening of existing industry.
Third, we need to build up our skills base. We simply don't have enough engineers and skilled technicians to fill emerging opportunities. Offshore wind industries will look to attract offshore oil and gas talent before they turn to retraining Corus workers. A demand-led skills strategy is going to be too little, too late; a more proactive, long-term plan is needed urgently.
Records have it that despite being outnumbered as a result of fighting wars on many fronts, the English army prevailed in 1346 by pooling the best forces from across the northern regions and seeking the better ground. The cabinet should dwell on this lesson, for victory at the Battle of Neville's Cross led to many decades of peace and prosperity in England's north-east.
Ed Cox
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 February 2010 17.00 GMT
In October 1346, English forces from across the north of England rode into Durham to take up positions against the Scottish army of King David II. They arrived just in time to take up the better ground and in the ensuing Battle of Neville's Cross they saw off the invaders and captured their king. This week the cabinet is meeting close by the scene of the battle, but it remains to be seen whether the arrival of the cavalry will see off the economic forces currently hammering the north-east.
The cabinet meeting in Durham is certainly timely, for just down the road the final steel will be poured at Teesside Cast Products bringing to a close 150 years of steelmaking. The process – known as chasing the salamander – involves emptying the last dregs from the smelt before mothballing the plant and any remaining hopes of a last-minute takeover.
The perceived need for this cabinet meeting is symbolic of a parliamentary system that has so distanced the executive from the day-to-day life of steelworkers that such gestures count for a great deal. (Roll-on powers for local authorities to drive their own economic development). Ministers will seize upon the opportunity to beat their breasts about the Corus closure and reiterate promises of a £60m investment package to bring new jobs to the area: new, green jobs in offshore wind-farming.
The argument for green jobs is persuasive. As unemployment continues to rise and the economy stumbles out of recession, the need to create new jobs and new markets is pressing. At the same time, the imperative to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases means that we need to rethink how the UK economy will be structured. But three issues must be addressed if the "green new deal" is to become a reality.
First, the UK must seize some competitive advantage. Taking offshore wind-farming alone, a recent Institute for Public Policy report argues that anything between 20,000 and 70,000 jobs could be created in the sector. But with the significant majority of job growth predicted to be in turbine and component manufacture, unless the UK can attract a turbine manufacturer to its shores it is likely to lose out to Denmark, Spain or Germany with their better-developed wind markets. Not only do we need to secure the domestic market through reforms to the renewables obligation and investment in the national grid infrastructure, but a combination of tax incentives and loan guarantees might also be required.
Second, we need to do the maths. Even the best estimates suggest that for every four jobs lost at Corus, only one will be created in offshore wind locally. Analysis for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that in 2007-08 there were only 445,000 UK jobs in the entire green sector (including the low-carbon support and supply chain), and with growth projected at just 5% per annum we have to look more widely not just at new green jobs but at the greening of existing industry.
Third, we need to build up our skills base. We simply don't have enough engineers and skilled technicians to fill emerging opportunities. Offshore wind industries will look to attract offshore oil and gas talent before they turn to retraining Corus workers. A demand-led skills strategy is going to be too little, too late; a more proactive, long-term plan is needed urgently.
Records have it that despite being outnumbered as a result of fighting wars on many fronts, the English army prevailed in 1346 by pooling the best forces from across the northern regions and seeking the better ground. The cabinet should dwell on this lesson, for victory at the Battle of Neville's Cross led to many decades of peace and prosperity in England's north-east.
MPA, NTU launch Maritime Clean Energy Research Programme
Posted: 18 February 2010 1821 hrs
SINGAPORE: Research funding of up to S$15 million will be available over five years under a newly launched "Maritime Clean Energy Research Programme". The programme, jointly launched by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU), aims to help the development of green technologies in shipping and port management. Research will be conducted through the Centre for Maritime Energy Research, a new centre under the Energy Research Institute at NTU. The first Call for proposals for the research grant opened on Thursday.
SINGAPORE: Research funding of up to S$15 million will be available over five years under a newly launched "Maritime Clean Energy Research Programme". The programme, jointly launched by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU), aims to help the development of green technologies in shipping and port management. Research will be conducted through the Centre for Maritime Energy Research, a new centre under the Energy Research Institute at NTU. The first Call for proposals for the research grant opened on Thursday.
Clipper confirms plans for wind turbine factory
Manufacturing of wind turbines set to return to England, with factory in Newcastle making world's largest blades
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 February 2010 17.27 GMT
Manufacturing of wind turbines is set to return to England after Clipper Windpower finally confirmed plans for a factory in the north-east, providing a much-needed boost to a region that has suffered badly from the recession.
The American company said it would invest in a testing facility at Walker, on the banks of the Tyne near Newcastle, for what it claims are the world's largest turbine blades.
Each of Windpower's "Britannia" turbines would be able to generate up to 10MW of electricity, enough for 10,000 homes. If the blades work properly, Clipper will make up to 75 of them a year, employing up to 500 people by 2020.
Gordon Brown and the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, visited the site today. The government recently announced it was helping to fund the project.
Clipper has been planning the scheme for some time, but it had been delayed while it negotiated the sale of a 49% stake in itself to UTC for $270m (£172m), which was completed in December.
The company hopes the turbines will be used in the giant offshore wind projects for which the Crown Estate recently awarded operating licences. The turbines will be manufactured in a new factory being built in Walker by Shepherd Offshore, the business run by former Newcastle United chairman Freddie Shepherd.
Brown said: "The essential work of tackling climate change brings with it new ways of doing things, which in turn brings with it new jobs. Today's announcement is clear evidence of new, green industries being firmly established in the UK."
"The UK is a global leader in offshore wind power and the north-east is at the forefront in providing the skills, expertise and enterprise to capitalise on this rapidly expanding market, which has the potential to create thousands of green jobs."
Shepherd, whose business has risen to prominence in the wake of the decline of the shipbuilding industry, said: "This industry will build on our proud history, our skills and our ambition. We are determined that we will create here the very best location for the international offshore wind industry."
Danish firm Vestas closed its turbine plant on the Isle of Wight last year, blaming a slowdown in orders worldwide and "nimby" objectors to onshore projects in the UK. Skykon in Scotland is currently the only factory making components for the wind industry in the UK.
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 February 2010 17.27 GMT
Manufacturing of wind turbines is set to return to England after Clipper Windpower finally confirmed plans for a factory in the north-east, providing a much-needed boost to a region that has suffered badly from the recession.
The American company said it would invest in a testing facility at Walker, on the banks of the Tyne near Newcastle, for what it claims are the world's largest turbine blades.
Each of Windpower's "Britannia" turbines would be able to generate up to 10MW of electricity, enough for 10,000 homes. If the blades work properly, Clipper will make up to 75 of them a year, employing up to 500 people by 2020.
Gordon Brown and the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, visited the site today. The government recently announced it was helping to fund the project.
Clipper has been planning the scheme for some time, but it had been delayed while it negotiated the sale of a 49% stake in itself to UTC for $270m (£172m), which was completed in December.
The company hopes the turbines will be used in the giant offshore wind projects for which the Crown Estate recently awarded operating licences. The turbines will be manufactured in a new factory being built in Walker by Shepherd Offshore, the business run by former Newcastle United chairman Freddie Shepherd.
Brown said: "The essential work of tackling climate change brings with it new ways of doing things, which in turn brings with it new jobs. Today's announcement is clear evidence of new, green industries being firmly established in the UK."
"The UK is a global leader in offshore wind power and the north-east is at the forefront in providing the skills, expertise and enterprise to capitalise on this rapidly expanding market, which has the potential to create thousands of green jobs."
Shepherd, whose business has risen to prominence in the wake of the decline of the shipbuilding industry, said: "This industry will build on our proud history, our skills and our ambition. We are determined that we will create here the very best location for the international offshore wind industry."
Danish firm Vestas closed its turbine plant on the Isle of Wight last year, blaming a slowdown in orders worldwide and "nimby" objectors to onshore projects in the UK. Skykon in Scotland is currently the only factory making components for the wind industry in the UK.
Friday, 19 February 2010
World's top firms cause $2.2tn of environmental damage, report estimates
Report for the UN into the activities of the world's 3,000 biggest companies estimates one-third of profits would be lost if firms were forced to pay for use, loss and damage of environment•
Juliette Jowit
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 February 2010 18.19 GMT
The cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world's biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, a major unpublished study for the United Nations has found.
The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.
Later this year, another huge UN study - dubbed the "Stern for nature" after the influential report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern - will attempt to put a price on such global environmental damage, and suggest ways to prevent it. The report, led by economist Pavan Sukhdev, is likely to argue for abolition of billions of dollars of subsidies to harmful industries like agriculture, energy and transport, tougher regulations and more taxes on companies that cause the damage.
Ahead of changes which would have a profound effect - not just on companies' profits but also their customers and pension funds and other investors - the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment initiative and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly ordered a report into the activities of the 3,000 biggest public companies in the world, which includes household names from the UK's FTSE 100 and other major stockmarkets.
The study, conducted by London-based consultancy Trucost and due to be published this summer, found the estimated combined damage was worth US$2.2 trillion (£1.4tn) in 2008 - a figure bigger than the national economies of all but seven countries in the world that year.
The figure equates to 6-7% of the companies' combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits, though some businesses would be much harder hit than others.
"What we're talking about is a completely new paradigm," said Richard Mattison, Trucost's chief operating officer and leader of the report team. "Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them."
The biggest single impact on the $2.2tn estimate, accounting for more than half of the total, was emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. Other major "costs" were local air pollution such as particulates, and the damage caused by the over-use and pollution of freshwater.
The true figure is likely to be even higher because the $2.2tn does not include damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, such as energy used to power appliances or waste; the "social impacts" such as the migration of people driven out of affected areas, or the long-term effects of any damage other than that from climate change. The final report will also include a higher total estimate which includes those long-term effects of problems such as toxic waste.
Trucost did not want to comment before the final report on which sectors incurred the highest "costs" of environmental damage, but they are likely to include power companies and heavy energy users like aluminium producers because of the greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels. Heavy water users like food, drink and clothing companies are also likely to feature high up on the list.
Sukhdev said the heads of the major companies at this year's annual economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, were increasingly concerned about the impact on their business if they were stopped or forced to pay for the damage.
"It can make the difference between profit and loss," Sukhdev told the annual Earthwatch Oxford lecture last week. "That sense of foreboding is there with many, many [chief executives], and that potential is a good thing because it leads to solutions."
The aim of the study is to encourage and help investors lobby companies to reduce their environmental impact before concerned governments act to restrict them through taxes or regulations, said Mattison.
"It's going to be a significant proportion of a lot of companies' profit margins," Mattison told the Guardian. "Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle. We should be seeking ways to fix the system, rather than waiting for the economy to adapt. Continued inefficient use of natural resources will cause significant impacts on [national economies] overall, and a massive problem for governments to fix."
Another major concern is the risk that companies simply run out of resources they need to operate, said Andrea Moffat, of the US-based investor lobby group Ceres, whose members include more than 80 funds with assets worth more than US$8tn. An example was the estimated loss of 20,000 jobs and $1bn last year for agricultural companies because of water shortages in California, said Moffat.
Juliette Jowit
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 February 2010 18.19 GMT
The cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world's biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, a major unpublished study for the United Nations has found.
The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.
Later this year, another huge UN study - dubbed the "Stern for nature" after the influential report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern - will attempt to put a price on such global environmental damage, and suggest ways to prevent it. The report, led by economist Pavan Sukhdev, is likely to argue for abolition of billions of dollars of subsidies to harmful industries like agriculture, energy and transport, tougher regulations and more taxes on companies that cause the damage.
Ahead of changes which would have a profound effect - not just on companies' profits but also their customers and pension funds and other investors - the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment initiative and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly ordered a report into the activities of the 3,000 biggest public companies in the world, which includes household names from the UK's FTSE 100 and other major stockmarkets.
The study, conducted by London-based consultancy Trucost and due to be published this summer, found the estimated combined damage was worth US$2.2 trillion (£1.4tn) in 2008 - a figure bigger than the national economies of all but seven countries in the world that year.
The figure equates to 6-7% of the companies' combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits, though some businesses would be much harder hit than others.
"What we're talking about is a completely new paradigm," said Richard Mattison, Trucost's chief operating officer and leader of the report team. "Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them."
The biggest single impact on the $2.2tn estimate, accounting for more than half of the total, was emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. Other major "costs" were local air pollution such as particulates, and the damage caused by the over-use and pollution of freshwater.
The true figure is likely to be even higher because the $2.2tn does not include damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, such as energy used to power appliances or waste; the "social impacts" such as the migration of people driven out of affected areas, or the long-term effects of any damage other than that from climate change. The final report will also include a higher total estimate which includes those long-term effects of problems such as toxic waste.
Trucost did not want to comment before the final report on which sectors incurred the highest "costs" of environmental damage, but they are likely to include power companies and heavy energy users like aluminium producers because of the greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels. Heavy water users like food, drink and clothing companies are also likely to feature high up on the list.
Sukhdev said the heads of the major companies at this year's annual economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, were increasingly concerned about the impact on their business if they were stopped or forced to pay for the damage.
"It can make the difference between profit and loss," Sukhdev told the annual Earthwatch Oxford lecture last week. "That sense of foreboding is there with many, many [chief executives], and that potential is a good thing because it leads to solutions."
The aim of the study is to encourage and help investors lobby companies to reduce their environmental impact before concerned governments act to restrict them through taxes or regulations, said Mattison.
"It's going to be a significant proportion of a lot of companies' profit margins," Mattison told the Guardian. "Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle. We should be seeking ways to fix the system, rather than waiting for the economy to adapt. Continued inefficient use of natural resources will cause significant impacts on [national economies] overall, and a massive problem for governments to fix."
Another major concern is the risk that companies simply run out of resources they need to operate, said Andrea Moffat, of the US-based investor lobby group Ceres, whose members include more than 80 funds with assets worth more than US$8tn. An example was the estimated loss of 20,000 jobs and $1bn last year for agricultural companies because of water shortages in California, said Moffat.
Drax power plant suspends plan to replace coal with greener fuel
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Britain’s biggest power station has suspended its plan to replace coal with greener fuel, leaving the Government little chance of meeting its target for renewable energy.
Drax, in North Yorkshire, which produces enough electricity for six million homes, is withdrawing a pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 3.5 million tonnes a year, or 17.5 per cent.
The power station, which is the country’s largest single source of CO2, has invested £80 million in a processing unit for wood, straw and other plant-based fuels, known as biomass. The unit is designed to produce more renewable electricity than 600 wind turbines, but will operate at only a fraction of its capacity because Drax says it is cheaper to continue to burn coal.
Drax is also one of dozens of companies delaying investments in new biomass power stations because of uncertainty over the Government’s policy on long-term subsidies. Hundreds of farmers growing biomass crops may now struggle to sell their produce.
Drax’s decision will make it almost impossible for the Government to meet its commitment to increase the proportion of electricity from renewable sources from 5.5 per cent to 30 per cent by 2020. Renewable energy is a key component of Britain’s legally binding targets to cut overall emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
In an interview with The Times, Dorothy Thompson, Drax’s chief executive, blamed the Government for failing to give sufficient subsidy to biomass to make it competitive with coal.
Drax has bought two million tonnes of biomass, but Ms Thompson said that it was considering selling it overseas because it no longer made economic sense to burn it in its six boilers.
Ms Thompson said: “We are not confident that the [subsidy] regime for what is one of the cheapest forms of renewable energy will support operat- ing the biomass unit at full load. The UK is missing out massively on the potential for renewable energy from biomass. We want to run in a lowcarbon way but policy is against us.”
She accused the Department of Energy and Climate Change of lacking the skills to develop a successful biomass policy and focusing too heavily on expensive and unreliable wind turbines. “I think they simply have not put enough expertise into biomass. Wind is not a silver bullet; its benefits have been overstated.”
Ms Thompson said that the Government was holding back biomass by offering it only a quarter of the subsidy given to offshore wind farms and capping the amount of crops that can be burnt in coal-fired power stations.
She said that it was cheaper for Drax to pay for emissions permits to burn coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, than to switch to biomass.
Each megawatt hour of electricity costs Drax £31 to produce from coal and £40 from biomass.
Ms Thompson said that Drax would also be unable to proceed with its £2 billion plan for three new biomass power plants unless the Government offered longer-term support. “We do not believe we can create a credible investment case for our shareholders if there is complete regulatory uncertainty. This is a very serious issue because renewable energy through biomass is a key component for delivering the 2020 target.”
The Renewable Energy Association said that plans for more than 50 biomass projects, totalling £13 billion of investment, had been suspended because of uncertainty over policy. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Energy Minister, said this month that the subsidy regime for biomass needed to be reviewed. Wind farm developers are guaranteed fixed subsidies for 20 years, but biomass investors could have the subsidy cut after four years.
Britain’s biggest power station has suspended its plan to replace coal with greener fuel, leaving the Government little chance of meeting its target for renewable energy.
Drax, in North Yorkshire, which produces enough electricity for six million homes, is withdrawing a pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 3.5 million tonnes a year, or 17.5 per cent.
The power station, which is the country’s largest single source of CO2, has invested £80 million in a processing unit for wood, straw and other plant-based fuels, known as biomass. The unit is designed to produce more renewable electricity than 600 wind turbines, but will operate at only a fraction of its capacity because Drax says it is cheaper to continue to burn coal.
Drax is also one of dozens of companies delaying investments in new biomass power stations because of uncertainty over the Government’s policy on long-term subsidies. Hundreds of farmers growing biomass crops may now struggle to sell their produce.
Drax’s decision will make it almost impossible for the Government to meet its commitment to increase the proportion of electricity from renewable sources from 5.5 per cent to 30 per cent by 2020. Renewable energy is a key component of Britain’s legally binding targets to cut overall emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
In an interview with The Times, Dorothy Thompson, Drax’s chief executive, blamed the Government for failing to give sufficient subsidy to biomass to make it competitive with coal.
Drax has bought two million tonnes of biomass, but Ms Thompson said that it was considering selling it overseas because it no longer made economic sense to burn it in its six boilers.
Ms Thompson said: “We are not confident that the [subsidy] regime for what is one of the cheapest forms of renewable energy will support operat- ing the biomass unit at full load. The UK is missing out massively on the potential for renewable energy from biomass. We want to run in a lowcarbon way but policy is against us.”
She accused the Department of Energy and Climate Change of lacking the skills to develop a successful biomass policy and focusing too heavily on expensive and unreliable wind turbines. “I think they simply have not put enough expertise into biomass. Wind is not a silver bullet; its benefits have been overstated.”
Ms Thompson said that the Government was holding back biomass by offering it only a quarter of the subsidy given to offshore wind farms and capping the amount of crops that can be burnt in coal-fired power stations.
She said that it was cheaper for Drax to pay for emissions permits to burn coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, than to switch to biomass.
Each megawatt hour of electricity costs Drax £31 to produce from coal and £40 from biomass.
Ms Thompson said that Drax would also be unable to proceed with its £2 billion plan for three new biomass power plants unless the Government offered longer-term support. “We do not believe we can create a credible investment case for our shareholders if there is complete regulatory uncertainty. This is a very serious issue because renewable energy through biomass is a key component for delivering the 2020 target.”
The Renewable Energy Association said that plans for more than 50 biomass projects, totalling £13 billion of investment, had been suspended because of uncertainty over policy. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Energy Minister, said this month that the subsidy regime for biomass needed to be reviewed. Wind farm developers are guaranteed fixed subsidies for 20 years, but biomass investors could have the subsidy cut after four years.
CDP sends out carbon questionnaires to 4,500 firms
London, 18 February:
More than 4,500 companies have been sent questionnaires about their greenhouse gas emissions and climate strategies this year by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This is up from 3,700 companies questioned last year.
The number of institutional investors signed up to this year’s CDP request has also increased, to 534 with $64 trillion in assets under management, from 475 investors in 2009, at that time managing around $55 trillion.
Signing up to the request for information this year for the first time were Wells Fargo, BNY Mellon and the Industrial Bank of Korea, among others.
For 10 years, the CDP has asked constituents of the FT500 – the world’s largest listed companies – to disclose investment-related information about climate change. It has gradually increased its reach.
The CDP this year wrote for the first time to companies in Turkey, Peru, Morocco, Egypt and Israel.
The largest global companies reporting to the CDP will be given a performance score on actions they have taken to address climate change, such as setting emission reduction targets, achieved and expected reductions, governance structures and getting their data externally verified.
For the first time, the results will be published in a performance leadership index, expected to be released in September this year.
The CDP has also upgraded its system for reporting this year, introducing online tools developed with Accenture, Microsoft and SAP. Henk de Bruin, head of corporate sustainability at electronics firm Philips, which piloted the upgraded tools, said they “enable greater analysis of the CDP data to benchmark against peers and other sectors and geographies”.
More than 4,500 companies have been sent questionnaires about their greenhouse gas emissions and climate strategies this year by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This is up from 3,700 companies questioned last year.
The number of institutional investors signed up to this year’s CDP request has also increased, to 534 with $64 trillion in assets under management, from 475 investors in 2009, at that time managing around $55 trillion.
Signing up to the request for information this year for the first time were Wells Fargo, BNY Mellon and the Industrial Bank of Korea, among others.
For 10 years, the CDP has asked constituents of the FT500 – the world’s largest listed companies – to disclose investment-related information about climate change. It has gradually increased its reach.
The CDP this year wrote for the first time to companies in Turkey, Peru, Morocco, Egypt and Israel.
The largest global companies reporting to the CDP will be given a performance score on actions they have taken to address climate change, such as setting emission reduction targets, achieved and expected reductions, governance structures and getting their data externally verified.
For the first time, the results will be published in a performance leadership index, expected to be released in September this year.
The CDP has also upgraded its system for reporting this year, introducing online tools developed with Accenture, Microsoft and SAP. Henk de Bruin, head of corporate sustainability at electronics firm Philips, which piloted the upgraded tools, said they “enable greater analysis of the CDP data to benchmark against peers and other sectors and geographies”.
Companies not satisfying thirst for water reporting
London, 18 February:
One hundred water-dependent firms have been chastised by investors for weak disclosure of their exposure to water risks.
The best score in a survey by investor coalition Ceres of global listed companies in water-intensive sectors such as chemicals, electric power and mining was earned by UK drinks firm Diageo – but it managed to garner only 43 out of a possible 100 points.
Eighty of the companies scored less than 30 points.
Ceres’ president Mindy Lubber said: “Most companies provide basic disclosure on overall water use and water scarcity concerns, but their focus and attention so far is not nearly at the level needed given the enormity of this growing global challenge.”
No companies disclosed “comprehensive” data on water use and reporting of water risks in their supply chains was particularly poor, Ceres found, although Danone, SABMiller and Unilever did provide estimates of the water use embedded in their supply chains. “For example, Danone reports the water footprint for its milk and water divisions at each stage of the product lifecycle, including raw material production, processing, packaging and logistics,” Ceres said.
The report chided companies for using “vague, boilerplate language” about water risks in their annual reports or financial filings. “They fail to reference specific at-risk operations or supply chains and lack any attempt to quantify or monetise risk,” it said.
Likewise, Ceres, which published the report with US financial services firm UBS and data provider Bloomberg, found some companies disclosing risks in their sustainability report, but leaving the information out of financial reports, “a finding that indicates an ongoing lack of integration between voluntary reports and regulated financial filings”.
Only 21 of the companies disclosed a quantified goal to reduce their water use, the report found, while only three – Diageo, chemicals firm DuPont and Swiss mining company Xstrata – set reduction targets differentiated by the level of water stress at specific facilities.
Just 14 provided data on water use broken down to regional or site-specific levels. Ceres said: “Because water risk is geographically dependent, this absence of context makes it nearly impossible for investors and analysts to assess corporate exposure to water scarcity, or to understand if corporate actions to mitigate risk are either appropriate or effective.”
“This report makes clear that companies are not providing investors with the kind of information they need to understand the risks and opportunities posed by water scarcity,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of the California State Teachers Retirement System, the second largest public pension fund in the US with $134 billion under management.
One hundred water-dependent firms have been chastised by investors for weak disclosure of their exposure to water risks.
The best score in a survey by investor coalition Ceres of global listed companies in water-intensive sectors such as chemicals, electric power and mining was earned by UK drinks firm Diageo – but it managed to garner only 43 out of a possible 100 points.
Eighty of the companies scored less than 30 points.
Ceres’ president Mindy Lubber said: “Most companies provide basic disclosure on overall water use and water scarcity concerns, but their focus and attention so far is not nearly at the level needed given the enormity of this growing global challenge.”
No companies disclosed “comprehensive” data on water use and reporting of water risks in their supply chains was particularly poor, Ceres found, although Danone, SABMiller and Unilever did provide estimates of the water use embedded in their supply chains. “For example, Danone reports the water footprint for its milk and water divisions at each stage of the product lifecycle, including raw material production, processing, packaging and logistics,” Ceres said.
The report chided companies for using “vague, boilerplate language” about water risks in their annual reports or financial filings. “They fail to reference specific at-risk operations or supply chains and lack any attempt to quantify or monetise risk,” it said.
Likewise, Ceres, which published the report with US financial services firm UBS and data provider Bloomberg, found some companies disclosing risks in their sustainability report, but leaving the information out of financial reports, “a finding that indicates an ongoing lack of integration between voluntary reports and regulated financial filings”.
Only 21 of the companies disclosed a quantified goal to reduce their water use, the report found, while only three – Diageo, chemicals firm DuPont and Swiss mining company Xstrata – set reduction targets differentiated by the level of water stress at specific facilities.
Just 14 provided data on water use broken down to regional or site-specific levels. Ceres said: “Because water risk is geographically dependent, this absence of context makes it nearly impossible for investors and analysts to assess corporate exposure to water scarcity, or to understand if corporate actions to mitigate risk are either appropriate or effective.”
“This report makes clear that companies are not providing investors with the kind of information they need to understand the risks and opportunities posed by water scarcity,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of the California State Teachers Retirement System, the second largest public pension fund in the US with $134 billion under management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
