By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
Published: July 20 2008 18:41
Beijing’s normally smog-shrouded skyline was clearly visible on Sunday as the government’s last-minute Olympic pollution controls went into effect across the city and nearby districts.
For the next two months, car drivers will be allowed to use their vehicles only on alternate days – depending on whether their registration plate ends in an odd or even number – in an attempt to reduce Beijing’s notorious congestion and air pollution.
Work on the city’s tallest building, the China World Trade Tower III, was suspended on Sunday as a construction ban went into effect, and numerous polluting factories in wide areas surrounding the Chinese capital shut temporarily or reduced output in order to help clear the air during next month’s games.
“The air is very good today, but it rained a bit last night and at lunchtime, which might have something to do with it,” Feng Caihua, a Beijing resident, said on Sunday.
Officials said the traffic restrictions should take nearly half of the city’s 3.3m cars off the road and reduce exhaust emissions by 63 per cent during the Olympic period.
About 10,000 cameras and other monitoring devices have been installed to catch drivers who flout the odd-even number-plate restrictions. Offenders will be fined Rmb100 ($14, €9, £7).
Concerns over the shocking levels of air pollution in Beijing have led a number of national teams to train elsewhere. Haile Gebrselassie, the leading Ethiopian runner, has withdrawn from the marathon because he fears the grime will exacerbate his asthma.
The government says it has spent more than Rmb120bn to improve the city’s air quality, and has been trying to promote the games as the first-ever “green Olympics”. But China has had a hard time convincing the world of its green credentials in a year when some environmentalists estimate that the country overtook the US as the world’s biggest carbon emitter.
At the weekend, the city unveiled three new underground railway lines, and officials have promised to put 2,000 more buses on the road to help transport the estimated 4m extra commuters who will switch to public transport on the days they cannot use their cars.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Monday, 21 July 2008
Olympic Athletes Wearing Masks Could Cause China to Lose Face
U.S. Committee Developed a Model in Secret; Jarrod Shoemaker Ponders the Dork Factor
By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS and STEPHANIE KANGJuly 21, 2008;
U.S. triathlete Jarrod Shoemaker has a decision to make at the opening ceremony of the Olympics next month in Beijing: Should he strap on a mask?
Chinese officials insist the notorious Beijing air will be cleaner by August, making such contraptions unnecessary. Concerned about the pollution, the U.S. Olympic Committee is distributing a high-tech mask, developed in secrecy, to its more than 600 Olympians. If athletes deploy it, they risk insulting the hosts. Then there's the geek factor.
"I probably will want to wear it," says the 26-year-old Mr. Shoemaker, who plans to have his mask on nearly all the time he's in Beijing when not competing. "Whether I will be allowed to is a different issue."
Though the practice is less common today, Chinese for years have worn masks to protect their lungs from the country's heavy dust and pollution. But foreigners wearing them during the Games this summer -- particularly at the opening ceremony broadcast to billions of television viewers around the world? That's a different matter.
HEALTH BLOG
• Q&A: Will Masks Help Olympic Athletes in Beijing?
Having foreigners cover their faces at the Olympics could mean a loss of face for the Chinese. "When you're walking around with a mask on, you're basically saying, 'You guys stink,' " says Scott Schnitzspahn, performance director of the U.S. triathlon team.
The details of the mask, which the U.S. Olympic Committee, or USOC, spent more than two years developing, remain hush-hush. That contrasts with the USOC's usual openness, typified by its willingness to share its training complex in Colorado Springs, Colo., with teams from around the world.
'Top Secret'
"Some of our strategies and equipment are, quite honestly, 'top secret,' and we are hesitant to lay all our cards on the table for our competitors to mimic," explained Randy Wilber, the USOC's sport physiologist who oversaw the mask project, in an email.
Beijing residents and visitors wonder what makes up the murky haze that has shrouded the Olympic city. Andy Jordan reports from Beijing. (July 18)
The issue is highly charged for Chinese officials, who say recent measures, such as limiting vehicular traffic and shutting down factories, will make the Beijing air more than suitable for Olympic competition next month. Over the weekend, Beijing enjoyed unusually clear weather, as the city entered the final stretch of its crash effort to clean up the skies. (Please see related article.)
"When people come to this environment and get acclimated, they'll see they won't need" a mask, says Jeff Ruffolo, senior adviser to the Beijing Olympic Committee.
Mr. Shoemaker remains unconvinced.
The poor air quality during other triathlons in China that he has competed in made his lungs feel like someone was standing on his chest, he says. So last fall, when he arrived at a triathlon outside Beijing, he opted for a mask.
Competitors teased him, telling him he looked ridiculous. Mr. Shoemaker himself worried about offending his Chinese hosts, who insisted there was nothing wrong with the air.
"I definitely got some comments, like, 'Come on, that's a little much,' " he says.
Still, he wore the surgeon-style mask for nearly his entire four days in China before and after competing. He took it off just seconds before his event. In the end, Mr. Shoemaker had the last laugh: He finished first among the Americans, by 12 seconds, qualifying him for the U.S. Olympic team now headed for Beijing.
Getty Images
Cyclists wear masks while riding in Beijing last week. Beijing authorities have insisted air quality in the Chinese capital has improved enough to meet its Olympic targets.
"There is the uncool factor," says Mr. Schnitzspahn, the triathlon team official. "But it's not so uncool once you're on the team."
American athletes who have received the new USOC mask say they were instructed not to share details about it. Some have disclosed that it contains a carbon-filter insert and comes in different colors, including black and taupe.
The secrecy has irked some. "If we have something that will help these kids from developing bronchial problems, why not share that with the rest of the world?" says Frank Filiberto, the head doctor for the U.S. boxing team.
He saw firsthand the effects of the Beijing air on his boxers during a test event last November, he says. On a scheduled five-mile run one morning, the boxers were coughing. Five of the 11 boxers came down with bronchitis, and three required medical treatment, he says. The coaches decided to keep the boxers in their hotel for the rest of the week, where they trained in the hallways.
Many play down the need to wear masks, arguing that everyone will be coping with the same conditions. The International Olympic Committee has promised to postpone events should the pollution get too thick. Some point out that pollution fears before the 1984 Games in Los Angeles turned out to be unfounded.
"There's always somebody b- about something," says former U.S. Olympic swimmer Gary Hall Jr. "In Athens, athletes pulled out because they thought there were going to be terrorists -- they missed out."
At the moment, there is no stated policy on mask-wearing at the opening ceremony or during competition. Olympic officials believe it's up to the international federation of each sport to determine whether to allow masks during events.
The British Olympic Association has developed a mask that could actually be worn during competition, unlike the U.S. mask. Respro Ltd., a self-described maker of "urban survival equipment" in London, says it has supplied the British team with a device called the Sportsta. It is made of neoprene and features state-of-the-art valves.
'Totally Useless'
This past spring, Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee, took a stand on the issue -- sort of. "I recommend athletes not to wear masks because our experts say they are not efficient," Mr. Rogge said. "They can do whatever they want, but I'm telling them it's totally useless."
Matthew Reed, a member of the U.S. triathlon team, says that seeing Olympic athletes suffering from polluted air on the world stage might not be all bad: It could embarrass China into embracing stronger environmental measures. "It's just disgusting what they've done to that part of the world," says the 32-year-old Mr. Reed, who grew up in New Zealand.
At a soccer match last year in Beijing, foreign players on the sideline wore masks, prompting several Chinese fans to tell them they were insulting and unnecessary, according to an American Olympic official who witnessed the episode.
Kara Goucher, a runner on the U.S. Olympic track team who says she will likely wear a mask between events, knows what it's like to get stares. She started wearing a mask two months ago on flights to protect against catching a cold. "People ask if I'm sick and I have to be like 'No, I'm doing this to protect myself from you!' "
Tourists at the Games this summer will have to balance sensitivity to their Chinese hosts with how they feel about health and personal appearance. "It depends on how 'Michael Jackson' you want to get," says Scott Grody, chief operating officer of Fugazy International Travel/American Express, in Boca Raton, Fla.
But the big mask moment could well be the opening ceremony on Aug. 8.
Mr. Shoemaker, the triathlete who intends to wear his mask at the ceremony, says he might consider taking it off when TV cameras zoom in on the U.S. delegation.
For friends watching at home, he says, "I want to make sure they see the big smile on my face."
--Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article.
Write to Christopher Rhoads at christopher.rhoads@wsj.com and Stephanie Kang at stephanie.kang@wsj.com
By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS and STEPHANIE KANGJuly 21, 2008;
U.S. triathlete Jarrod Shoemaker has a decision to make at the opening ceremony of the Olympics next month in Beijing: Should he strap on a mask?
Chinese officials insist the notorious Beijing air will be cleaner by August, making such contraptions unnecessary. Concerned about the pollution, the U.S. Olympic Committee is distributing a high-tech mask, developed in secrecy, to its more than 600 Olympians. If athletes deploy it, they risk insulting the hosts. Then there's the geek factor.
"I probably will want to wear it," says the 26-year-old Mr. Shoemaker, who plans to have his mask on nearly all the time he's in Beijing when not competing. "Whether I will be allowed to is a different issue."
Though the practice is less common today, Chinese for years have worn masks to protect their lungs from the country's heavy dust and pollution. But foreigners wearing them during the Games this summer -- particularly at the opening ceremony broadcast to billions of television viewers around the world? That's a different matter.
HEALTH BLOG
• Q&A: Will Masks Help Olympic Athletes in Beijing?
Having foreigners cover their faces at the Olympics could mean a loss of face for the Chinese. "When you're walking around with a mask on, you're basically saying, 'You guys stink,' " says Scott Schnitzspahn, performance director of the U.S. triathlon team.
The details of the mask, which the U.S. Olympic Committee, or USOC, spent more than two years developing, remain hush-hush. That contrasts with the USOC's usual openness, typified by its willingness to share its training complex in Colorado Springs, Colo., with teams from around the world.
'Top Secret'
"Some of our strategies and equipment are, quite honestly, 'top secret,' and we are hesitant to lay all our cards on the table for our competitors to mimic," explained Randy Wilber, the USOC's sport physiologist who oversaw the mask project, in an email.
Beijing residents and visitors wonder what makes up the murky haze that has shrouded the Olympic city. Andy Jordan reports from Beijing. (July 18)
The issue is highly charged for Chinese officials, who say recent measures, such as limiting vehicular traffic and shutting down factories, will make the Beijing air more than suitable for Olympic competition next month. Over the weekend, Beijing enjoyed unusually clear weather, as the city entered the final stretch of its crash effort to clean up the skies. (Please see related article.)
"When people come to this environment and get acclimated, they'll see they won't need" a mask, says Jeff Ruffolo, senior adviser to the Beijing Olympic Committee.
Mr. Shoemaker remains unconvinced.
The poor air quality during other triathlons in China that he has competed in made his lungs feel like someone was standing on his chest, he says. So last fall, when he arrived at a triathlon outside Beijing, he opted for a mask.
Competitors teased him, telling him he looked ridiculous. Mr. Shoemaker himself worried about offending his Chinese hosts, who insisted there was nothing wrong with the air.
"I definitely got some comments, like, 'Come on, that's a little much,' " he says.
Still, he wore the surgeon-style mask for nearly his entire four days in China before and after competing. He took it off just seconds before his event. In the end, Mr. Shoemaker had the last laugh: He finished first among the Americans, by 12 seconds, qualifying him for the U.S. Olympic team now headed for Beijing.
Getty Images
Cyclists wear masks while riding in Beijing last week. Beijing authorities have insisted air quality in the Chinese capital has improved enough to meet its Olympic targets.
"There is the uncool factor," says Mr. Schnitzspahn, the triathlon team official. "But it's not so uncool once you're on the team."
American athletes who have received the new USOC mask say they were instructed not to share details about it. Some have disclosed that it contains a carbon-filter insert and comes in different colors, including black and taupe.
The secrecy has irked some. "If we have something that will help these kids from developing bronchial problems, why not share that with the rest of the world?" says Frank Filiberto, the head doctor for the U.S. boxing team.
He saw firsthand the effects of the Beijing air on his boxers during a test event last November, he says. On a scheduled five-mile run one morning, the boxers were coughing. Five of the 11 boxers came down with bronchitis, and three required medical treatment, he says. The coaches decided to keep the boxers in their hotel for the rest of the week, where they trained in the hallways.
Many play down the need to wear masks, arguing that everyone will be coping with the same conditions. The International Olympic Committee has promised to postpone events should the pollution get too thick. Some point out that pollution fears before the 1984 Games in Los Angeles turned out to be unfounded.
"There's always somebody b- about something," says former U.S. Olympic swimmer Gary Hall Jr. "In Athens, athletes pulled out because they thought there were going to be terrorists -- they missed out."
At the moment, there is no stated policy on mask-wearing at the opening ceremony or during competition. Olympic officials believe it's up to the international federation of each sport to determine whether to allow masks during events.
The British Olympic Association has developed a mask that could actually be worn during competition, unlike the U.S. mask. Respro Ltd., a self-described maker of "urban survival equipment" in London, says it has supplied the British team with a device called the Sportsta. It is made of neoprene and features state-of-the-art valves.
'Totally Useless'
This past spring, Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee, took a stand on the issue -- sort of. "I recommend athletes not to wear masks because our experts say they are not efficient," Mr. Rogge said. "They can do whatever they want, but I'm telling them it's totally useless."
Matthew Reed, a member of the U.S. triathlon team, says that seeing Olympic athletes suffering from polluted air on the world stage might not be all bad: It could embarrass China into embracing stronger environmental measures. "It's just disgusting what they've done to that part of the world," says the 32-year-old Mr. Reed, who grew up in New Zealand.
At a soccer match last year in Beijing, foreign players on the sideline wore masks, prompting several Chinese fans to tell them they were insulting and unnecessary, according to an American Olympic official who witnessed the episode.
Kara Goucher, a runner on the U.S. Olympic track team who says she will likely wear a mask between events, knows what it's like to get stares. She started wearing a mask two months ago on flights to protect against catching a cold. "People ask if I'm sick and I have to be like 'No, I'm doing this to protect myself from you!' "
Tourists at the Games this summer will have to balance sensitivity to their Chinese hosts with how they feel about health and personal appearance. "It depends on how 'Michael Jackson' you want to get," says Scott Grody, chief operating officer of Fugazy International Travel/American Express, in Boca Raton, Fla.
But the big mask moment could well be the opening ceremony on Aug. 8.
Mr. Shoemaker, the triathlete who intends to wear his mask at the ceremony, says he might consider taking it off when TV cameras zoom in on the U.S. delegation.
For friends watching at home, he says, "I want to make sure they see the big smile on my face."
--Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article.
Write to Christopher Rhoads at christopher.rhoads@wsj.com and Stephanie Kang at stephanie.kang@wsj.com
Modern Water aims to clean up by osmosis
By Alistair Dawber: Monday, 21 July 2008
As the world faces the incontrovertible truth of climate change, so politicians search for ways of protecting sources of water. In the UK, people could be forgiven for wondering why this is such a big issue in a country which is, after all, surrounded by the stuff. The problem, of course, is that sea water is as useful as a chocolate teapot unless the salt is extracted first. Indeed, President Kennedy was once quoted as saying: "If we could ever competitively, at a cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water, this would be in the long-range interests of humanity and would dwarf any other scientific accomplishment."
So, step up Modern Water. The company has commercialised what it calls "manipulated osmosis technology", a useful bit of science developed by the University of Surrey, which, they say, will make the desalination process cheaper, more efficient and more environmentally palatable. Manipulated osmosis technology, for those who have forgotten their high school plant biology lessons, works by sucking salt water through a membrane at low pressure, cutting the costs of the process compared with more traditional methods, which involve very high pressured treatment.
Commercially, Modern Water thinks it is on to a winner. When the group came to AIM last year, it said it would take two years to get its first project off the ground. In fact, its first venture, in Gibraltar, will start producing soon; it is also close to signing a deal in the Middle East.
Some of the statistics on global water usage are startling. Since 1950, the world's population has increased by 200 per cent, but water consumption is up 600 per cent, meaning that a massive 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. Modern Water says global spending on securing water sources in the next 10 years will reach $57bn (£28.5bn) and while the group is not yet producing revenues, it is certainly hoping to get its hands on a slice of that particular pie.
As the world faces the incontrovertible truth of climate change, so politicians search for ways of protecting sources of water. In the UK, people could be forgiven for wondering why this is such a big issue in a country which is, after all, surrounded by the stuff. The problem, of course, is that sea water is as useful as a chocolate teapot unless the salt is extracted first. Indeed, President Kennedy was once quoted as saying: "If we could ever competitively, at a cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water, this would be in the long-range interests of humanity and would dwarf any other scientific accomplishment."
So, step up Modern Water. The company has commercialised what it calls "manipulated osmosis technology", a useful bit of science developed by the University of Surrey, which, they say, will make the desalination process cheaper, more efficient and more environmentally palatable. Manipulated osmosis technology, for those who have forgotten their high school plant biology lessons, works by sucking salt water through a membrane at low pressure, cutting the costs of the process compared with more traditional methods, which involve very high pressured treatment.
Commercially, Modern Water thinks it is on to a winner. When the group came to AIM last year, it said it would take two years to get its first project off the ground. In fact, its first venture, in Gibraltar, will start producing soon; it is also close to signing a deal in the Middle East.
Some of the statistics on global water usage are startling. Since 1950, the world's population has increased by 200 per cent, but water consumption is up 600 per cent, meaning that a massive 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. Modern Water says global spending on securing water sources in the next 10 years will reach $57bn (£28.5bn) and while the group is not yet producing revenues, it is certainly hoping to get its hands on a slice of that particular pie.
'New Deal' to tackle economic and ecology problems
Published Date: 21 July 2008
By andrew woodcock
A PANEL of environmentalists and economic commentators today issued a call for a "Green New Deal" to help Britain respond to the current economic crisis while tackling global warming.
The Green New Deal Group proposed a package of massive investment in renewable energy plus action to rein in financial speculation and provide capital for low-carbon projects.The group – which includes two former directors of Friends of the Earth, a Green MEP and the former head of the Jubilee 2000 anti-debt campaign – released new analysis suggesting that the world has 100 months to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions before hitting a potential point of no return.Some 75 years after US president Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the Green New Deal Group warned that the credit crunch, rising energy prices and climate change were combining to create a threat to stability on a scale not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.They called for a new vision for a low-carbon energy system, a "carbon army" of workers for environmental reconstruction and an Oil Legacy Fund to deal with the effects of climate change and smooth the transition to a low-carbon economy, to be paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas profits. And prices of fossil fuels including gas and coal, and that of petrol, should be increased to reflect their environmental costs. The group also called for large financial institutions to be broken up and for the government to clamp down on corporate tax evasion and introduce tighter regulation to prevent a repeat of the credit crunch and speculative hikes in commodity prices.Tony Juniper, former director of Friends of the Earth and a member of the panel, said: "The credit, climate and oil crunches are all individually serious issues, but in combination their impact could be catastrophic for our economy and our way of life."Politicians from across the spectrum should signal their willingness to think differently."
By andrew woodcock
A PANEL of environmentalists and economic commentators today issued a call for a "Green New Deal" to help Britain respond to the current economic crisis while tackling global warming.
The Green New Deal Group proposed a package of massive investment in renewable energy plus action to rein in financial speculation and provide capital for low-carbon projects.The group – which includes two former directors of Friends of the Earth, a Green MEP and the former head of the Jubilee 2000 anti-debt campaign – released new analysis suggesting that the world has 100 months to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions before hitting a potential point of no return.Some 75 years after US president Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the Green New Deal Group warned that the credit crunch, rising energy prices and climate change were combining to create a threat to stability on a scale not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.They called for a new vision for a low-carbon energy system, a "carbon army" of workers for environmental reconstruction and an Oil Legacy Fund to deal with the effects of climate change and smooth the transition to a low-carbon economy, to be paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas profits. And prices of fossil fuels including gas and coal, and that of petrol, should be increased to reflect their environmental costs. The group also called for large financial institutions to be broken up and for the government to clamp down on corporate tax evasion and introduce tighter regulation to prevent a repeat of the credit crunch and speculative hikes in commodity prices.Tony Juniper, former director of Friends of the Earth and a member of the panel, said: "The credit, climate and oil crunches are all individually serious issues, but in combination their impact could be catastrophic for our economy and our way of life."Politicians from across the spectrum should signal their willingness to think differently."
Airlines attack EU aviation emissions levy
Dan Milmo
The Guardian,
Monday July 21, 2008
Imposing an emissions trading scheme on airlines flying through Europe has "no chance" of succeeding and could incite a trade war with the United States, the global trade body for commercial carriers has warned.
Giovanni Bisignani, chief executive of the International Air Transport Association (Iata), said that the European parliament's vote to include airlines in a carbon emissions trading scheme from 2012 would trigger a confrontation with non-EU countries. The US has threatened to challenge the scheme in the international court of justice because it would breach international aviation agreements.
"The scheme has no chance. It is difficult to imagine 136 countries agreeing with something that is illegal. Why are we wasting so much time instead of building a global, harmonised emissions trading scheme?" said Bisignani. The scheme would add at least €39.60 (£31.40) to the cost of a long-haul return flight and €9 to a short-haul return trip, according to European commission estimates - forecasts that airlines now say are too low.
Iata claims that acquiring carbon credits in order to enter this scheme would cost the industry $3.5bn (£1.75bn) in 2012 alone - equivalent to two-thirds of the global industry's profits last year. Under the terms of the scheme, all airlines flying to and from the EU will have to acquire carbon credits to account for the emissions generated by their flights.
An EU spokeswoman said the inclusion of airlines in the trading scheme was necessary to create "a level playing field" among carbon-dioxide emitting industries. The airline industry accounts for less than 2% of global emissions. Asked if the EU was confident that the scheme was legal under international law, she said: "We have no indication that the system will not work."
Bisignani said the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN body, should be given more time to draft a global trading scheme. That notion has been attacked by politicians, including the UK transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, who accused ICAO of failing to live up to its leadership role.
The Guardian,
Monday July 21, 2008
Imposing an emissions trading scheme on airlines flying through Europe has "no chance" of succeeding and could incite a trade war with the United States, the global trade body for commercial carriers has warned.
Giovanni Bisignani, chief executive of the International Air Transport Association (Iata), said that the European parliament's vote to include airlines in a carbon emissions trading scheme from 2012 would trigger a confrontation with non-EU countries. The US has threatened to challenge the scheme in the international court of justice because it would breach international aviation agreements.
"The scheme has no chance. It is difficult to imagine 136 countries agreeing with something that is illegal. Why are we wasting so much time instead of building a global, harmonised emissions trading scheme?" said Bisignani. The scheme would add at least €39.60 (£31.40) to the cost of a long-haul return flight and €9 to a short-haul return trip, according to European commission estimates - forecasts that airlines now say are too low.
Iata claims that acquiring carbon credits in order to enter this scheme would cost the industry $3.5bn (£1.75bn) in 2012 alone - equivalent to two-thirds of the global industry's profits last year. Under the terms of the scheme, all airlines flying to and from the EU will have to acquire carbon credits to account for the emissions generated by their flights.
An EU spokeswoman said the inclusion of airlines in the trading scheme was necessary to create "a level playing field" among carbon-dioxide emitting industries. The airline industry accounts for less than 2% of global emissions. Asked if the EU was confident that the scheme was legal under international law, she said: "We have no indication that the system will not work."
Bisignani said the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN body, should be given more time to draft a global trading scheme. That notion has been attacked by politicians, including the UK transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, who accused ICAO of failing to live up to its leadership role.
Global warming: green campaigners blamed for 4x4 attacks
Neil Hyde
The Observer,
Sunday July 20, 2008
Green campaigners are being blamed for vandalising a number of 4x4 cars in Marston, Oxford, on Thursday night. The owners of six vehicles found that tyres had been let down and warning letters plastered to the windscreens.
'Driving an SUV is an unacceptably selfish act in the face of this global emergency,' the notes state. 'Your destructive vehicle and scores of others across Oxford have been disabled as part of a wider struggle to avert a global emergency.'
A Land Rover Discovery, two Honda CRVs, a Mitsubishi Shogun, a Subaru and a Mitsubishi truck were attacked. 'To target 4x4s is unfair, given the fact that mine has a much smaller engine than bigger cars. But it is nothing more than an irritant,' said Daniel Lea, owner of one of the Hondas.'
The Observer,
Sunday July 20, 2008
Green campaigners are being blamed for vandalising a number of 4x4 cars in Marston, Oxford, on Thursday night. The owners of six vehicles found that tyres had been let down and warning letters plastered to the windscreens.
'Driving an SUV is an unacceptably selfish act in the face of this global emergency,' the notes state. 'Your destructive vehicle and scores of others across Oxford have been disabled as part of a wider struggle to avert a global emergency.'
A Land Rover Discovery, two Honda CRVs, a Mitsubishi Shogun, a Subaru and a Mitsubishi truck were attacked. 'To target 4x4s is unfair, given the fact that mine has a much smaller engine than bigger cars. But it is nothing more than an irritant,' said Daniel Lea, owner of one of the Hondas.'
Gore asks bloggers for help promoting energy challenge
By Katharine Q. Seelye
Published: July 20, 2008
AUSTIN, Texas: Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, was asked a question about energy here at a bloggers conference. She glanced at her BlackBerry, noting that she had an e-mail message from a friend on that very subject.
With that, the voice of former Vice President Al Gore boomed over the public address system, leaving a sea of quizzical looks and then gasps, cheers and a standing ovation as he strode onto the stage.
It produced the first electric moment at the conference, the Netroots Nation, an ever-widening group of progressive bloggers whose major interests - the war in Iraq, the environment and technology - mesh well with Gore's current pursuits. Indeed, many in the crowd who are supporting Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, were overheard saying they wished Gore was running for president.
As waves of cheers washed over the convention center, Gore said to Pelosi, "We ought to take that act on the road."
"We are on the road," she replied.
"Well, I feel right at home here, I'll tell you," he said.
Gore told a questioner that he would not accept a role in the next administration. The best use of his talent and experience, he said, is "to focus on trying to enlarge the political space" within which politicians can address the climate crisis.
"I have seen firsthand how important it is to have a base of support out in the country for the truly bold changes that have to be made now," he said, noting that was why he intended to devote his life to bringing about "a sea change in public opinion."
He repeated the challenge he issued to the country to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years. And he called on the bloggers to help achieve that goal, saying they were on the leading edge of reclaiming democracy for the grass roots.
As the morning began, Pelosi appeared on the stage with Gina Cooper, the moderator and organizer of the conference. The bloggers had submitted questions in advance and voted on them; the first was why Democratic leaders in the House were reluctant to take up impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Pelosi said the House was considering contempt resolutions against Karl Rove, the president's former top adviser.
Asked by Cooper whether, if Rove were found in contempt of Congress, he would be put "in that little jail cell that's in the basement of the House," the audience cheered. Pelosi replied that Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had told her, "Leave it up to me."
She was next asked about the wiretapping bill, detested by many progressives. She said the House version was better than the Senate's and blamed Senate Democrats for approving a version that "enabled the Republicans to send that bill to the House."
Cooper, who periodically interceded with pointed comments that were much appreciated by the audience, said later, "It sounds like your colleagues need to get with the program with the American people."
Asked whether Congress should bail out General Motors, Pelosi said: "I don't think that's going to happen," though she wanted to help pensioners and workers.
When Gore addressed the group, he noted first that the polar ice cap, which is about the size of the continental United States and has been in existence for three million years, had a 75-to-80 percent chance of melting in five years.
He also mentioned his energy challenge, which brought another standing ovation. He said he was trying to recruit "an army" of 10 million citizens to build political consensus across party lines for the energy challenge and directed the audience to wecansolveit.org, the Web site of his group, the Alliance for Climate Protection.
"I need your help," Gore said, a plea that bloggers heard repeatedly throughout their conference, which began Thursday and ended Sunday, as speaker after speaker for various causes took note of their increasing influence within society.
Gore promised them that the alliance would not turn partisan or take up some other agenda and that he was in it "for the long haul."
Pelosi was asked whether Congress would accept Gore's energy challenge. "It is absolutely possible to do so," she said.
She added that without Gore, "there would be no Netroots Nation; we would simply not have the technology."
As a reminder of the flap caused years ago - when he got tagged with having said he had "invented" the Internet, although he had not used that word and had, in fact, helped legislatively to create it - he smiled at Pelosi's comments and said, "I think I'll refrain from saying it."
Published: July 20, 2008
AUSTIN, Texas: Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, was asked a question about energy here at a bloggers conference. She glanced at her BlackBerry, noting that she had an e-mail message from a friend on that very subject.
With that, the voice of former Vice President Al Gore boomed over the public address system, leaving a sea of quizzical looks and then gasps, cheers and a standing ovation as he strode onto the stage.
It produced the first electric moment at the conference, the Netroots Nation, an ever-widening group of progressive bloggers whose major interests - the war in Iraq, the environment and technology - mesh well with Gore's current pursuits. Indeed, many in the crowd who are supporting Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, were overheard saying they wished Gore was running for president.
As waves of cheers washed over the convention center, Gore said to Pelosi, "We ought to take that act on the road."
"We are on the road," she replied.
"Well, I feel right at home here, I'll tell you," he said.
Gore told a questioner that he would not accept a role in the next administration. The best use of his talent and experience, he said, is "to focus on trying to enlarge the political space" within which politicians can address the climate crisis.
"I have seen firsthand how important it is to have a base of support out in the country for the truly bold changes that have to be made now," he said, noting that was why he intended to devote his life to bringing about "a sea change in public opinion."
He repeated the challenge he issued to the country to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years. And he called on the bloggers to help achieve that goal, saying they were on the leading edge of reclaiming democracy for the grass roots.
As the morning began, Pelosi appeared on the stage with Gina Cooper, the moderator and organizer of the conference. The bloggers had submitted questions in advance and voted on them; the first was why Democratic leaders in the House were reluctant to take up impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Pelosi said the House was considering contempt resolutions against Karl Rove, the president's former top adviser.
Asked by Cooper whether, if Rove were found in contempt of Congress, he would be put "in that little jail cell that's in the basement of the House," the audience cheered. Pelosi replied that Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had told her, "Leave it up to me."
She was next asked about the wiretapping bill, detested by many progressives. She said the House version was better than the Senate's and blamed Senate Democrats for approving a version that "enabled the Republicans to send that bill to the House."
Cooper, who periodically interceded with pointed comments that were much appreciated by the audience, said later, "It sounds like your colleagues need to get with the program with the American people."
Asked whether Congress should bail out General Motors, Pelosi said: "I don't think that's going to happen," though she wanted to help pensioners and workers.
When Gore addressed the group, he noted first that the polar ice cap, which is about the size of the continental United States and has been in existence for three million years, had a 75-to-80 percent chance of melting in five years.
He also mentioned his energy challenge, which brought another standing ovation. He said he was trying to recruit "an army" of 10 million citizens to build political consensus across party lines for the energy challenge and directed the audience to wecansolveit.org, the Web site of his group, the Alliance for Climate Protection.
"I need your help," Gore said, a plea that bloggers heard repeatedly throughout their conference, which began Thursday and ended Sunday, as speaker after speaker for various causes took note of their increasing influence within society.
Gore promised them that the alliance would not turn partisan or take up some other agenda and that he was in it "for the long haul."
Pelosi was asked whether Congress would accept Gore's energy challenge. "It is absolutely possible to do so," she said.
She added that without Gore, "there would be no Netroots Nation; we would simply not have the technology."
As a reminder of the flap caused years ago - when he got tagged with having said he had "invented" the Internet, although he had not used that word and had, in fact, helped legislatively to create it - he smiled at Pelosi's comments and said, "I think I'll refrain from saying it."
There's more to the Tories' GEM idea than hot air after all
Ben Bland
Last Updated: 11:31pm BST 20/07/2008
When politicians meddle with markets their interventions are often unwelcome, unwarranted and unhelpful.
So when George Osborne, the Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor, said in March that he wanted to launch a "Green Environmental Market" (GEM), he received a sceptical reception from City financiers and insiders at the London Stock Exchange (as well as this column).
The view from the Square Mile was that, with around 50 clean technology companies already listed on Aim, there was really no need to establish a separate green market.
The key question was whether Mr Osborne and his boss David Cameron were genuinely interested in fostering the development of clean tech companies or had merely conjured up GEM in a bid to snatch a few headlines and boost their flagging green credentials.
While some expected GEM to go the same way as Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's suggestion that perpetrators of knife crime visit their victims in hospital (which was confined to the dustbin of failed spin), Mr Osborne may yet prove his critics wrong.
A working group set up by the Tories to discuss their idea has met at least three times since March and is making progress.
"People were sceptical of the initial proposals but there are enough experts on the committee to point the Tories in the right direction and it's looking more encouraging," said one City source.
The committee, which has been organised by Mr Osborne's shadow Treasury team, includes Marcus Stuttard, the LSE's deputy head of Aim, and several other well-established members of the Aim community.
The committee has encouraged the Tories to drop the idea of a separate green market and focus instead on creating a special segment on the LSE's existing markets for clean tech companies.
"What they're looking at now is something that will be more like Techmark [the LSE's main market grouping for technology companies] except that it will offer some tax incentives and will be for both Aim and main market companies," the source explained.
One option the committee is looking at involves bringing in similar tax incentives to those offered to people investing in venture capital trusts, who get income tax relief. However, any changes to the tax provisions are likely to require new legislation and will have to satisfy EU restrictions on state aid. The committee is also grappling with the challenge of how to nail down which companies qualify for inclusion in this green index.
With lucrative tax advantages potentially on offer, companies will be keen to be added to this grouping. Yet there is no clear criteria for defining green companies. While most people think of windfarm operators or fuel cell developers, a number of water companies and waste disposal groups like to describe themselves as "clean tech" businesses.
"It's still a work in progress and the devil will be in the detail but the framework looks quite encouraging," concluded one person close to the committee.
Last Updated: 11:31pm BST 20/07/2008
When politicians meddle with markets their interventions are often unwelcome, unwarranted and unhelpful.
So when George Osborne, the Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor, said in March that he wanted to launch a "Green Environmental Market" (GEM), he received a sceptical reception from City financiers and insiders at the London Stock Exchange (as well as this column).
The view from the Square Mile was that, with around 50 clean technology companies already listed on Aim, there was really no need to establish a separate green market.
The key question was whether Mr Osborne and his boss David Cameron were genuinely interested in fostering the development of clean tech companies or had merely conjured up GEM in a bid to snatch a few headlines and boost their flagging green credentials.
While some expected GEM to go the same way as Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's suggestion that perpetrators of knife crime visit their victims in hospital (which was confined to the dustbin of failed spin), Mr Osborne may yet prove his critics wrong.
A working group set up by the Tories to discuss their idea has met at least three times since March and is making progress.
"People were sceptical of the initial proposals but there are enough experts on the committee to point the Tories in the right direction and it's looking more encouraging," said one City source.
The committee, which has been organised by Mr Osborne's shadow Treasury team, includes Marcus Stuttard, the LSE's deputy head of Aim, and several other well-established members of the Aim community.
The committee has encouraged the Tories to drop the idea of a separate green market and focus instead on creating a special segment on the LSE's existing markets for clean tech companies.
"What they're looking at now is something that will be more like Techmark [the LSE's main market grouping for technology companies] except that it will offer some tax incentives and will be for both Aim and main market companies," the source explained.
One option the committee is looking at involves bringing in similar tax incentives to those offered to people investing in venture capital trusts, who get income tax relief. However, any changes to the tax provisions are likely to require new legislation and will have to satisfy EU restrictions on state aid. The committee is also grappling with the challenge of how to nail down which companies qualify for inclusion in this green index.
With lucrative tax advantages potentially on offer, companies will be keen to be added to this grouping. Yet there is no clear criteria for defining green companies. While most people think of windfarm operators or fuel cell developers, a number of water companies and waste disposal groups like to describe themselves as "clean tech" businesses.
"It's still a work in progress and the devil will be in the detail but the framework looks quite encouraging," concluded one person close to the committee.
There's more to the Tories' GEM idea than hot air after all
Ben Bland
Last Updated: 11:31pm BST 20/07/2008
When politicians meddle with markets their interventions are often unwelcome, unwarranted and unhelpful.
So when George Osborne, the Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor, said in March that he wanted to launch a "Green Environmental Market" (GEM), he received a sceptical reception from City financiers and insiders at the London Stock Exchange (as well as this column).
The view from the Square Mile was that, with around 50 clean technology companies already listed on Aim, there was really no need to establish a separate green market.
The key question was whether Mr Osborne and his boss David Cameron were genuinely interested in fostering the development of clean tech companies or had merely conjured up GEM in a bid to snatch a few headlines and boost their flagging green credentials.
While some expected GEM to go the same way as Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's suggestion that perpetrators of knife crime visit their victims in hospital (which was confined to the dustbin of failed spin), Mr Osborne may yet prove his critics wrong.
A working group set up by the Tories to discuss their idea has met at least three times since March and is making progress.
"People were sceptical of the initial proposals but there are enough experts on the committee to point the Tories in the right direction and it's looking more encouraging," said one City source.
The committee, which has been organised by Mr Osborne's shadow Treasury team, includes Marcus Stuttard, the LSE's deputy head of Aim, and several other well-established members of the Aim community.
The committee has encouraged the Tories to drop the idea of a separate green market and focus instead on creating a special segment on the LSE's existing markets for clean tech companies.
"What they're looking at now is something that will be more like Techmark [the LSE's main market grouping for technology companies] except that it will offer some tax incentives and will be for both Aim and main market companies," the source explained.
One option the committee is looking at involves bringing in similar tax incentives to those offered to people investing in venture capital trusts, who get income tax relief. However, any changes to the tax provisions are likely to require new legislation and will have to satisfy EU restrictions on state aid. The committee is also grappling with the challenge of how to nail down which companies qualify for inclusion in this green index.
With lucrative tax advantages potentially on offer, companies will be keen to be added to this grouping. Yet there is no clear criteria for defining green companies. While most people think of windfarm operators or fuel cell developers, a number of water companies and waste disposal groups like to describe themselves as "clean tech" businesses.
"It's still a work in progress and the devil will be in the detail but the framework looks quite encouraging," concluded one person close to the committee.
Last Updated: 11:31pm BST 20/07/2008
When politicians meddle with markets their interventions are often unwelcome, unwarranted and unhelpful.
So when George Osborne, the Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor, said in March that he wanted to launch a "Green Environmental Market" (GEM), he received a sceptical reception from City financiers and insiders at the London Stock Exchange (as well as this column).
The view from the Square Mile was that, with around 50 clean technology companies already listed on Aim, there was really no need to establish a separate green market.
The key question was whether Mr Osborne and his boss David Cameron were genuinely interested in fostering the development of clean tech companies or had merely conjured up GEM in a bid to snatch a few headlines and boost their flagging green credentials.
While some expected GEM to go the same way as Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's suggestion that perpetrators of knife crime visit their victims in hospital (which was confined to the dustbin of failed spin), Mr Osborne may yet prove his critics wrong.
A working group set up by the Tories to discuss their idea has met at least three times since March and is making progress.
"People were sceptical of the initial proposals but there are enough experts on the committee to point the Tories in the right direction and it's looking more encouraging," said one City source.
The committee, which has been organised by Mr Osborne's shadow Treasury team, includes Marcus Stuttard, the LSE's deputy head of Aim, and several other well-established members of the Aim community.
The committee has encouraged the Tories to drop the idea of a separate green market and focus instead on creating a special segment on the LSE's existing markets for clean tech companies.
"What they're looking at now is something that will be more like Techmark [the LSE's main market grouping for technology companies] except that it will offer some tax incentives and will be for both Aim and main market companies," the source explained.
One option the committee is looking at involves bringing in similar tax incentives to those offered to people investing in venture capital trusts, who get income tax relief. However, any changes to the tax provisions are likely to require new legislation and will have to satisfy EU restrictions on state aid. The committee is also grappling with the challenge of how to nail down which companies qualify for inclusion in this green index.
With lucrative tax advantages potentially on offer, companies will be keen to be added to this grouping. Yet there is no clear criteria for defining green companies. While most people think of windfarm operators or fuel cell developers, a number of water companies and waste disposal groups like to describe themselves as "clean tech" businesses.
"It's still a work in progress and the devil will be in the detail but the framework looks quite encouraging," concluded one person close to the committee.
Climate Report Cites Role of Cheney's Office
By SIOBHAN HUGHES: July 21, 2008;
WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials agreed that greenhouse gases could endanger the public and should be regulated under clean-air laws, but later reversed course amid opposition from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the oil industry, a congressional report said.
The report, by the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, offers a look at the breadth of Bush administration support for regulations before such plans abruptly stopped. The report draws heavily on an interview with a former Environmental Protection Agency official who had told Congress that Mr. Cheney's office tried to censor federal testimony on the danger of global warming. It is also based on confidential interviews with EPA staff and documents subpoenaed from the EPA.
"This is the dysfunctions and motivations of the Bush administration laid bare," Chairman Ed Markey (D., Mass.) said in a statement.
The White House rejected the committee's findings. "Chairman Markey's report is inaccurate to the point of being laughable," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
For months, Congress has been investigating a series of decisions by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, including stopping California from regulating motor-vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. Previous congressional reports showed that Mr. Johnson originally sided, at least in part, with EPA staff on several matters, including the idea that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public and should be regulated. But the latest report suggests that Mr. Cheney's office came to play a key role in interagency discussions.
Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney's office, disputed the report. "I don't accept their premise," she said. The latest report said the oil industry argued against regulatory action and had the support of Mr. Cheney's office. In the end, the report said, the Bush administration backed off regulation. "Frankly, that's ridiculous," Ms. Mitchell said.
Jason Burnett, a former EPA associate deputy administrator who played a key role in coordinating the agency's climate-change activities, told the House committee that people in Mr. Cheney's office and the White House Office of Management and Budget felt regulations would hurt President George W. Bush's legacy. Mr. Burnett didn't return a phone call seeking comment.
The report said F. Chase Hutto III, Mr. Cheney's energy adviser, argued against new regulations, along with unidentified individuals from Exxon Mobil Corp. and the American Petroleum Institute. It also said that Mr. Bush's deputy chief of staff, Joel Kaplan, and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez had originally endorsed an EPA finding that greenhouse-gas emissions endanger public welfare and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Earlier this month, those officials signed a letter saying that the Clean Air Act isn't an appropriate vehicle for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.
Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said that Mr. Bodman "has not reversed course" and that the department considers the Clean Air Act fundamentally ill-suited to effectively regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.
Brian Turmail, a spokesman for Ms. Peters, said that she "was involved in an intellectual process to explore whether the Clean Air Act was an appropriate vehicle for regulating fuel-economy standards. The decision was 'no.' You shouldn't confuse engaging in an intellectual exercise with supporting the idea."
A Commerce Department spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment. American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Karen Matusic said it isn't unusual for the group to meet with federal agencies "on areas of mutual concern," and that it has repeatedly said it doesn't believe the Clean Air Act is appropriate for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said he didn't know who made the company's case, but that "it's not a secret what our views are." He said Exxon believes the Clean Air Act isn't the appropriate way to regulate carbon emissions.
Write to Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials agreed that greenhouse gases could endanger the public and should be regulated under clean-air laws, but later reversed course amid opposition from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the oil industry, a congressional report said.
The report, by the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, offers a look at the breadth of Bush administration support for regulations before such plans abruptly stopped. The report draws heavily on an interview with a former Environmental Protection Agency official who had told Congress that Mr. Cheney's office tried to censor federal testimony on the danger of global warming. It is also based on confidential interviews with EPA staff and documents subpoenaed from the EPA.
"This is the dysfunctions and motivations of the Bush administration laid bare," Chairman Ed Markey (D., Mass.) said in a statement.
The White House rejected the committee's findings. "Chairman Markey's report is inaccurate to the point of being laughable," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
For months, Congress has been investigating a series of decisions by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, including stopping California from regulating motor-vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. Previous congressional reports showed that Mr. Johnson originally sided, at least in part, with EPA staff on several matters, including the idea that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public and should be regulated. But the latest report suggests that Mr. Cheney's office came to play a key role in interagency discussions.
Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney's office, disputed the report. "I don't accept their premise," she said. The latest report said the oil industry argued against regulatory action and had the support of Mr. Cheney's office. In the end, the report said, the Bush administration backed off regulation. "Frankly, that's ridiculous," Ms. Mitchell said.
Jason Burnett, a former EPA associate deputy administrator who played a key role in coordinating the agency's climate-change activities, told the House committee that people in Mr. Cheney's office and the White House Office of Management and Budget felt regulations would hurt President George W. Bush's legacy. Mr. Burnett didn't return a phone call seeking comment.
The report said F. Chase Hutto III, Mr. Cheney's energy adviser, argued against new regulations, along with unidentified individuals from Exxon Mobil Corp. and the American Petroleum Institute. It also said that Mr. Bush's deputy chief of staff, Joel Kaplan, and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez had originally endorsed an EPA finding that greenhouse-gas emissions endanger public welfare and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Earlier this month, those officials signed a letter saying that the Clean Air Act isn't an appropriate vehicle for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.
Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said that Mr. Bodman "has not reversed course" and that the department considers the Clean Air Act fundamentally ill-suited to effectively regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.
Brian Turmail, a spokesman for Ms. Peters, said that she "was involved in an intellectual process to explore whether the Clean Air Act was an appropriate vehicle for regulating fuel-economy standards. The decision was 'no.' You shouldn't confuse engaging in an intellectual exercise with supporting the idea."
A Commerce Department spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment. American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Karen Matusic said it isn't unusual for the group to meet with federal agencies "on areas of mutual concern," and that it has repeatedly said it doesn't believe the Clean Air Act is appropriate for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said he didn't know who made the company's case, but that "it's not a secret what our views are." He said Exxon believes the Clean Air Act isn't the appropriate way to regulate carbon emissions.
Write to Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
