Charles Clover
There we stood, in a quiet fold of the wooded hills above the Severn, waiting for the clatter of birds and the cries of excitement from the beaters. Fathers and sons, relatives and friends were united, some after many years, for the ritual of a family shoot in a magical landscape of white haze, bright sunlight and hard frost.
As I watched my teenage son raise his gun and bring down several pheasants, I suddenly understood why this time of year focuses the mind on renewal — both personal and public. Not so much because of the birds — which will be eaten in 10 days’ time — but because of the handing-on of a deep-rooted country tradition from one generation to the next.
On the public front, renewal is a political inevitability in an election year, of course, but there are still opportunities to be grasped in the dying days of this Labour administration — and not necessarily where people think they are. Gordon Brown, exhausted by, among other things, his efforts to make the epic bungle of Copenhagen a success, may not even be aware of this yet, but there is an opportunity to create a legacy as great as Yellowstone national park or the designation of the Serengeti as a wildlife reserve.
Unknown to most of its citizens, Britain happens to own the world’s largest coral atoll — the reefs that surround 55 tiny islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Only one island of the Chagos Archipelago is inhabited: Diego Garcia, the site of a US naval base. Now conservationists are saying there is a one-off opportunity to designate the Chagos and everything within its 200-mile limit as a marine reserve, creating in the process the largest marine conservation area in the world — bigger than the three areas in the Pacific that were declared national marine monuments by George W Bush just before he left office. The Chagos islands hold half of the remaining healthy coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, so this conservation area would be comparable to the Galapagos or the Great Barrier Reef. But there are difficulties to be overcome before the Foreign Office makes up its mind in April. One is the claim of the Chagossians — coconut farmers descended from Mauritian French stock, who were shamefully evicted by the military in the 1970s. The other is what to do about a tuna fishery that pays the Treasury about £1m a year.
If fishing were banned, it would undoubtedly cost several times that to police the waters around the islands . But this expenditure, which could come from private as well as public funds, would be relatively tiny compared with the enormous conservation gain. The creation of a reserve this large would double the size of the world’s marine protected areas overnight.
It just remains to be seen if Brown and David Miliband, the foreign secretary (who is keen), will pull it off. It is possible, of course, that the election will take place before they can. If so, the proposal would be likely to languish in David Cameron’s in-tray for years. Far higher in his tray will be the budgets to be balanced, the quangos to be axed and what his party sees as wrongs to be righted.
One of these symbolic wrongs, in Conservative eyes, is the fate of hunting. Cameron’s view, which many who understand the countryside will share, is that Labour’s Hunting Act is a bad piece of legislation which has pleased no one and made a mockery of the law.
There is talk of having a free vote on hunting in the Commons within a month of a new Conservative government coming to power, provided there are enough new members of the house. Despite this, I can’t see a new intake enthusiastically voting for abolition of the act without the promise one day of a law that better defines cruelty to animals — such as that proposed by Lord Donoughue and the Middle Way group. The intellectual failure of the Hunting Act, and the woolly-minded folk who voted for it, was that it failed to define the offence that is apparently so morally reprehensible. That is no simple task.
In the second half of 2010 the business of balancing the nation’s budget is likely to dominate the agenda, whoever gets elected. But there will be opportunities there, too. One is to end the misguided attempt to knock down perfectly good Victorian and Edwardian terraced housing in the industrial towns at public expense in the cause of “housing market renewal”. This pernicious, ideological aspect of Labour’s tenure has cost the public purse more than £1 billion to date, blighted large swathes of the Midlands and the north of England and caused misery for those — many of them among the most vulnerable — who were chucked out of their homes. Leaving renewal to the market is an easy option: the environment of our industrial towns can only gain.
All through next year we can expect attempts to revive the process of cutting the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which foundered in Copenhagen. If there is a prize to be grasped in Mexico at the end of 2010, it is likely to be for Cameron’s government. That is why Labour should give serious thought now to the Chagos proposal as a way of redeeming its tarnished environmental reputation.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Geese point the way to saving jet fuel
Planes flying in V formation are more efficient and produce less carbon dioxide, say scientists
Robin McKie, Science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 27 December 2009
Scientists have proposed an unusual method for cutting aircraft fuel consumption – they want to fly jumbo jets in formation like geese.
The prospect of flotillas of airliners soaring across the sky in V-shaped flocks, like migrating birds, is startling. Nevertheless, research by aviation experts has shown that it could lead to major reductions in aircraft fuel consumption.
The work follows research carried out almost 100 years ago by a German researcher, Carl Wieselsberger. In 1914, he published a paper in which he calculated that birds flying in V-formations use less energy to flap their wings than those on solo flights. Birds in flocks can therefore fly for longer periods than those travelling on their own.
Wieselsberger showed that when a bird flaps its wings it creates a current known as upwash; essentially, air lifts up and rises round the tips of the wings as they flap. Other birds, flying in the first one's wake, experience an updraft, allowing them to fly further.
This idea is supported by observations by French scientists who studied great white pelicans trained to fly behind an aircraft. The team – from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Villiers-en-Bois – strapped instruments and transmitters to individual birds. These revealed that the birds' heart rates went down when they were flying together, and also showed that they were able to glide more often when they flew in formation. "They fly in formation to save energy," said team leader Henri Weimerskirch.
Such experiments suggest that 25 large birds – such as pelicans or geese – flying in a V-shaped formation can travel 70% further than solo birds. Many of the great migratory journeys, some covering thousands of miles, made by birds would be impossible without the energy-saving effects of group flight, scientists say.
But aviation engineers have now taken these discoveries to their logical conclusion and have proposed that aircraft fly in V-shaped groups so they can benefit from similar energy-saving effects. This idea is the brainchild of researchers led by Professor Ilan Kroo, of Stanford University, California, who say airlines could make substantial cuts in the amount of aviation fuel they use.
In one calculation, the team envisaged three passenger jets leaving Los Angeles, Las Vegas and San Francisco airports en route to the east coast of the US. In the hypothetical exercise, the planes rendezvoused over Utah, then continued their journeys travelling in a V, with planes taking turns to lead the formation. The group found that the aircraft used 15% less fuel and produced less carbon dioxide when flying in formation compared with solo performances.
Such an approach could make significant inroads into the amount of carbon dioxide that is pumped into the atmosphere by planes. The aviation industry is expected to become a major emitter of greenhouse gases over the next two decades, and airline chiefs are desperately looking for ways to cut fuel consumption. Formation flights could be the answer, says Kroo and his team.
However, critics have pointed to problems. Safety could be compromised by craft flying in tight formation, while co-ordinating departure times and schedules could become a major headache. Kroo and his team say such difficulties can be overcome by more detailed work on their scheme.
Robin McKie, Science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 27 December 2009
Scientists have proposed an unusual method for cutting aircraft fuel consumption – they want to fly jumbo jets in formation like geese.
The prospect of flotillas of airliners soaring across the sky in V-shaped flocks, like migrating birds, is startling. Nevertheless, research by aviation experts has shown that it could lead to major reductions in aircraft fuel consumption.
The work follows research carried out almost 100 years ago by a German researcher, Carl Wieselsberger. In 1914, he published a paper in which he calculated that birds flying in V-formations use less energy to flap their wings than those on solo flights. Birds in flocks can therefore fly for longer periods than those travelling on their own.
Wieselsberger showed that when a bird flaps its wings it creates a current known as upwash; essentially, air lifts up and rises round the tips of the wings as they flap. Other birds, flying in the first one's wake, experience an updraft, allowing them to fly further.
This idea is supported by observations by French scientists who studied great white pelicans trained to fly behind an aircraft. The team – from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Villiers-en-Bois – strapped instruments and transmitters to individual birds. These revealed that the birds' heart rates went down when they were flying together, and also showed that they were able to glide more often when they flew in formation. "They fly in formation to save energy," said team leader Henri Weimerskirch.
Such experiments suggest that 25 large birds – such as pelicans or geese – flying in a V-shaped formation can travel 70% further than solo birds. Many of the great migratory journeys, some covering thousands of miles, made by birds would be impossible without the energy-saving effects of group flight, scientists say.
But aviation engineers have now taken these discoveries to their logical conclusion and have proposed that aircraft fly in V-shaped groups so they can benefit from similar energy-saving effects. This idea is the brainchild of researchers led by Professor Ilan Kroo, of Stanford University, California, who say airlines could make substantial cuts in the amount of aviation fuel they use.
In one calculation, the team envisaged three passenger jets leaving Los Angeles, Las Vegas and San Francisco airports en route to the east coast of the US. In the hypothetical exercise, the planes rendezvoused over Utah, then continued their journeys travelling in a V, with planes taking turns to lead the formation. The group found that the aircraft used 15% less fuel and produced less carbon dioxide when flying in formation compared with solo performances.
Such an approach could make significant inroads into the amount of carbon dioxide that is pumped into the atmosphere by planes. The aviation industry is expected to become a major emitter of greenhouse gases over the next two decades, and airline chiefs are desperately looking for ways to cut fuel consumption. Formation flights could be the answer, says Kroo and his team.
However, critics have pointed to problems. Safety could be compromised by craft flying in tight formation, while co-ordinating departure times and schedules could become a major headache. Kroo and his team say such difficulties can be overcome by more detailed work on their scheme.
Green tycoon Dale Vince’s eco supercar
Kevin Dowling
BRITAIN’s richest green entrepreneur, who built a £85m fortune on wind power, is to launch an eco supercar.
Dale Vince, 48, will make an attempt on the British electric land speed record of 137mph in February, paving the way for production of the car by the end of 2010.
Vince, the founder of Ecotricity, an energy supplier, named his racing car Nemesis, to presage the demise of the combustion engine. “It’s about turning the heads of ordinary motorists because we all love these fast cars even though we can’t afford them,” he said.
The Nemesis, built for £400,000 by a team of Formula One engineers, will be priced to compete with a Ferrari.
In tests, the Nemesis has reached 60mph in less than four seconds, and Vince says he is confident he will break the land speed record set in August 2000 by Don Wales, grandson of Malcolm Campbell and nephew of Donald Campbell, in Bluebird Electric.
The Nemesis runs for 150 miles between charges and can be powered in one hour from a special charger or eight hours from the mains supply.
This weekend Vince emerges at the top of a Green Rich List produced by Philip Beresford, who compiles The Sunday Times Rich List.
BRITAIN’s richest green entrepreneur, who built a £85m fortune on wind power, is to launch an eco supercar.
Dale Vince, 48, will make an attempt on the British electric land speed record of 137mph in February, paving the way for production of the car by the end of 2010.
Vince, the founder of Ecotricity, an energy supplier, named his racing car Nemesis, to presage the demise of the combustion engine. “It’s about turning the heads of ordinary motorists because we all love these fast cars even though we can’t afford them,” he said.
The Nemesis, built for £400,000 by a team of Formula One engineers, will be priced to compete with a Ferrari.
In tests, the Nemesis has reached 60mph in less than four seconds, and Vince says he is confident he will break the land speed record set in August 2000 by Don Wales, grandson of Malcolm Campbell and nephew of Donald Campbell, in Bluebird Electric.
The Nemesis runs for 150 miles between charges and can be powered in one hour from a special charger or eight hours from the mains supply.
This weekend Vince emerges at the top of a Green Rich List produced by Philip Beresford, who compiles The Sunday Times Rich List.
Green law may put US backers off data centre
Carbon reduction rules make it more costly to store data in new centres in the UK
Jane Bradley
EUROPE’S biggest planned data centre could miss out on an expected influx of business from America because of costly environmental laws, the Scottish team behind the project has warned.
David King, the director of the proposed £950m Lockerbie Data Centre, said a large number of blue chip companies in North America wanted to shift their data abroad to avoid government intrusion. They have said they will avoid Scotland because carbon reduction rules make it more costly to store data in new centres in the UK.
Many US companies moved their data to Canada after the 2001 Patriot Act gave the federal government access to any data stored on American soil.
However, Canada is to bring in similar legislation in the form of the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act and a reciprocal agreement with the US government, sparking a mass exodus of companies.
King said a trade visit to the US had revealed that companies looking to move their data storage overseas had ruled out Scotland because of higher costs caused by carbon reduction commitment legislation. The legislation is part of government plans to cut carbon emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
He said older data centres will be able to work within the laws, significantly reducing their carbon output from a much higher base. But new developments like the planned 250,000 sq ft site near Lockerbie are already built to be highly efficient.
“It is hard to improve on what we have already,” said King.
Jane Bradley
EUROPE’S biggest planned data centre could miss out on an expected influx of business from America because of costly environmental laws, the Scottish team behind the project has warned.
David King, the director of the proposed £950m Lockerbie Data Centre, said a large number of blue chip companies in North America wanted to shift their data abroad to avoid government intrusion. They have said they will avoid Scotland because carbon reduction rules make it more costly to store data in new centres in the UK.
Many US companies moved their data to Canada after the 2001 Patriot Act gave the federal government access to any data stored on American soil.
However, Canada is to bring in similar legislation in the form of the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act and a reciprocal agreement with the US government, sparking a mass exodus of companies.
King said a trade visit to the US had revealed that companies looking to move their data storage overseas had ruled out Scotland because of higher costs caused by carbon reduction commitment legislation. The legislation is part of government plans to cut carbon emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
He said older data centres will be able to work within the laws, significantly reducing their carbon output from a much higher base. But new developments like the planned 250,000 sq ft site near Lockerbie are already built to be highly efficient.
“It is hard to improve on what we have already,” said King.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Centrica feels wind in its sails after farm disposal
Peter Stiff: Market report
Skegness may be bracing, but perhaps it was that very quality that allowed Centrica to sell half a wind farm only five miles off the coast of the Lincolnshire seaside resort yesterday.
Shares in the British Gas owner rose 3.2p to 276.4p after it said that it had sold a 50 per cent stake in the 270-megawatt offshore wind farm to Dong Energy and Siemens Project Ventures for £50 million.
The two European groups will also reimburse Centrica for half of the development costs incurred to date. The total investment in the project is expected to be about £750 million, with Centrica’s share being £375 million. Construction of the wind farm is planned to start in 2010, with first power expected in the second half of 2012.
As a result of the deal, the project will use new wind turbines, which are said to be more powerful. Centrica will continue to lead the project and its British Gas business will take 75 per cent of the wind farm’s electricity production.
Dong, which is an experienced player in offshore wind projects, has also agreed to sell a 25.1 per cent stake in its 367MW Walney offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea to Scottish & Southern Energy, up 2p at £11.47, for £39 million.
Overall, the FTSE 100’s so-called Santa Claus Rally continued in earnest, with the blue-chip index briefly trading above its highest level in more than a year, before falling back in the afternoon after disappointing American new home sales data. It closed 43.72 points up at 5,372.38 after another day of weak volumes. The market will open for half a day today before closing for Christmas.
The mining sector was the biggest driver of the gains, responsible for eight of the index’s top ten risers, amid higher metal prices. Copper, for instance, rose nearly 2 per cent ahead of a strike in Chile, one of the world’s top miners of the metal. There was also speculation of increased demand from China and the United States.
Eurasian Natural Resources was the biggest gainer, climbing 33p to 901p. Xstrata rose 29½p to £10.71½ and Rio Tinto was up 80p at £32.96. Sentiment towards the sector was also buoyed after Glencore, the Swiss commodity trader, signalled that it was likely to seek an initial public offering that would value it at $35 billion.
Oil groups such as Royal Dutch Shell, up 29p to £18.97½, and BP, up 6.8p at 604.3p, also gained on the back of stronger oil prices, which rose after inventory data showed that crude oil stocks fell much more than expected last week. However, Tullow Oil fell 11p to £12.69, despite an upbeat drilling update.
BT Group was one of the biggest fallers, ending the day down 4.3p at 137½p, as the telecoms group traded without rights to its latest dividend.
In the FTSE 250, Premier Oil fell 11p to £10.79 after it plugged and abandoned a well in Vietnam after failing to find significant hydrocarbons.
BSS also slid, closing 2p down at 238p, after Goldman Sachs revised down its earnings estimates for next year and 2011, citing pressure on margins in its domestic and specialist division.
• New York: Disappointing data on new home sales kept shares largely flat on Wall Street. At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was 1.51 points up at 10,466.44.
Skegness may be bracing, but perhaps it was that very quality that allowed Centrica to sell half a wind farm only five miles off the coast of the Lincolnshire seaside resort yesterday.
Shares in the British Gas owner rose 3.2p to 276.4p after it said that it had sold a 50 per cent stake in the 270-megawatt offshore wind farm to Dong Energy and Siemens Project Ventures for £50 million.
The two European groups will also reimburse Centrica for half of the development costs incurred to date. The total investment in the project is expected to be about £750 million, with Centrica’s share being £375 million. Construction of the wind farm is planned to start in 2010, with first power expected in the second half of 2012.
As a result of the deal, the project will use new wind turbines, which are said to be more powerful. Centrica will continue to lead the project and its British Gas business will take 75 per cent of the wind farm’s electricity production.
Dong, which is an experienced player in offshore wind projects, has also agreed to sell a 25.1 per cent stake in its 367MW Walney offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea to Scottish & Southern Energy, up 2p at £11.47, for £39 million.
Overall, the FTSE 100’s so-called Santa Claus Rally continued in earnest, with the blue-chip index briefly trading above its highest level in more than a year, before falling back in the afternoon after disappointing American new home sales data. It closed 43.72 points up at 5,372.38 after another day of weak volumes. The market will open for half a day today before closing for Christmas.
The mining sector was the biggest driver of the gains, responsible for eight of the index’s top ten risers, amid higher metal prices. Copper, for instance, rose nearly 2 per cent ahead of a strike in Chile, one of the world’s top miners of the metal. There was also speculation of increased demand from China and the United States.
Eurasian Natural Resources was the biggest gainer, climbing 33p to 901p. Xstrata rose 29½p to £10.71½ and Rio Tinto was up 80p at £32.96. Sentiment towards the sector was also buoyed after Glencore, the Swiss commodity trader, signalled that it was likely to seek an initial public offering that would value it at $35 billion.
Oil groups such as Royal Dutch Shell, up 29p to £18.97½, and BP, up 6.8p at 604.3p, also gained on the back of stronger oil prices, which rose after inventory data showed that crude oil stocks fell much more than expected last week. However, Tullow Oil fell 11p to £12.69, despite an upbeat drilling update.
BT Group was one of the biggest fallers, ending the day down 4.3p at 137½p, as the telecoms group traded without rights to its latest dividend.
In the FTSE 250, Premier Oil fell 11p to £10.79 after it plugged and abandoned a well in Vietnam after failing to find significant hydrocarbons.
BSS also slid, closing 2p down at 238p, after Goldman Sachs revised down its earnings estimates for next year and 2011, citing pressure on margins in its domestic and specialist division.
• New York: Disappointing data on new home sales kept shares largely flat on Wall Street. At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was 1.51 points up at 10,466.44.
Pachauri: Copenhagen a Good Outcome
By SUNIL RAGHU
NEW DELHI --The climate change accord reached at the Copenhagen summit is a good outcome but is inadequate to combat global warming, the head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said Wednesday.
R.K. Pachauri--also the director general of India's The Energy and Resources Institute, or TERI -- told reporters that the accord "provides the foundation on which we can build upon for emission reduction."
However, the pact doesn't specify the level to which developed nations will have to cut their emissions by 2020, he said at a TERI event on the implications of the Copenhagen accord and sustainable development.
The two-week long United Nations climate change conference, which ended last week in the Danish capital, resulted in a U.S.-brokered agreement that sets a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius. The pact didn't spell out emission reduction goals for 2020 or 2050, which is key to limiting the rise in global temperatures.
"Global emissions must peak no later than 2015," said Mr. Pachauri, chairman of the UN panel which along with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore had won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for spreading awareness about climate change.
"If we deviate from the optimum path, then the human impact on climate change would be far too serious," he said, adding that the cost of not maintaining the two degree Celsius limit on the increase in Earth's temperature would be too high.
The agreement was struck at the last minute between the U.S. and developing countries China, Brazil, India and South Africa after several days of wrangling.
Mr. Pachauri said the emergence of the BASIC group--the term given to the four fast-growing developing nations--is one of the significant events of Copenhagen.
Despite some differences within the BASIC group on certain issues, developed nations will not be able to ignore these countries, Mr. Pachauri said.
"Whatever agreement happens in Mexico in 2010 will necessarily have to deal with the power of this group," he added.
The next climate change summit is scheduled to be held in Mexico City in December 2010.
Commenting on India's climate change stand, Mr. Pachauri said India must not give the impression of being selfish and must work together with small island nations and underdeveloped African countries.
He favored protecting the general provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 global-warming accord that doesn't require developing nations, including India and China, to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol also entitles poor countries to receive aid from rich nations to adopt clean energy technologies.
Mr. Pachauri said there was some apprehension during the Copengahen summit that developed countries were trying to pass on the burden of mitigating climate change to the developing nations.
He said a binding agreement to cut emissions would have been adequate to fight global warming, while developed countries should have committed the finances they are willing to part with.
Write to Sunil Raghu at Sunil.Raghu@dowjones.com
NEW DELHI --The climate change accord reached at the Copenhagen summit is a good outcome but is inadequate to combat global warming, the head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said Wednesday.
R.K. Pachauri--also the director general of India's The Energy and Resources Institute, or TERI -- told reporters that the accord "provides the foundation on which we can build upon for emission reduction."
However, the pact doesn't specify the level to which developed nations will have to cut their emissions by 2020, he said at a TERI event on the implications of the Copenhagen accord and sustainable development.
The two-week long United Nations climate change conference, which ended last week in the Danish capital, resulted in a U.S.-brokered agreement that sets a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius. The pact didn't spell out emission reduction goals for 2020 or 2050, which is key to limiting the rise in global temperatures.
"Global emissions must peak no later than 2015," said Mr. Pachauri, chairman of the UN panel which along with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore had won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for spreading awareness about climate change.
"If we deviate from the optimum path, then the human impact on climate change would be far too serious," he said, adding that the cost of not maintaining the two degree Celsius limit on the increase in Earth's temperature would be too high.
The agreement was struck at the last minute between the U.S. and developing countries China, Brazil, India and South Africa after several days of wrangling.
Mr. Pachauri said the emergence of the BASIC group--the term given to the four fast-growing developing nations--is one of the significant events of Copenhagen.
Despite some differences within the BASIC group on certain issues, developed nations will not be able to ignore these countries, Mr. Pachauri said.
"Whatever agreement happens in Mexico in 2010 will necessarily have to deal with the power of this group," he added.
The next climate change summit is scheduled to be held in Mexico City in December 2010.
Commenting on India's climate change stand, Mr. Pachauri said India must not give the impression of being selfish and must work together with small island nations and underdeveloped African countries.
He favored protecting the general provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 global-warming accord that doesn't require developing nations, including India and China, to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol also entitles poor countries to receive aid from rich nations to adopt clean energy technologies.
Mr. Pachauri said there was some apprehension during the Copengahen summit that developed countries were trying to pass on the burden of mitigating climate change to the developing nations.
He said a binding agreement to cut emissions would have been adequate to fight global warming, while developed countries should have committed the finances they are willing to part with.
Write to Sunil Raghu at Sunil.Raghu@dowjones.com
Plants and animals race for survival as climate change creeps across the globe
Lowland tropics, mangroves and deserts at greater risk than mountainous areas as global warming spreads, study finds
David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 December 2009 18.20 GMT
Global warming creeps across the world at a speed of a quarter of a mile each year, according to a new study that highlights the problems that rising temperatures pose to plants and animals. Species that can tolerate only a narrow range of temperatures will need to move as quickly if they are to survive. Wildlife in lowland tropics, mangroves and desert areas are at greater risk than species in mountainous areas, the study suggests.
"These are the conditions that will set the stage, whether species move or cope in place," said Chris Field, director of the department of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution in the US, who worked on the project. "Expressed as velocities, climate change projections connect directly to survival prospects for plants and animals."
The study, by scientists at the Carnegie Institution, Stanford University, the California Academy of Sciences, and the University of California, Berkeley, combined information on current and projected future climate to calculate a "temperature velocity" for different parts of the world.
They found that mountainous areas will have the lowest velocity of temperature change, meaning that animals will not need to move very far to stay in the temperature range of their natural habitat. However, much larger geographic displacements are required in flatter areas such as flooded grasslands, mangroves and deserts, in order for animals to keep pace with their climate zone. The researchers also found that most currently protected areas are not big enough to accommodate the displacements required.
Healy Hamilton, director of the centre for applied biodiversity informatics at the California Academy of Sciences, said: "One of the most powerful aspects of this data is that it allows us to evaluate how our current protected area network will perform as we attempt to conserve biodiversity in the face of global climate change."
He added: "When we look at residence times for protected areas, which we define as the amount of time it will take current climate conditions to move across and out of a given protected area, only 8% of our current protected areas have residence times of more than 100 years. If we want to improve these numbers, we need to both reduce our carbon emissions and work quickly towards expanding and connecting our global network of protected areas."
The study found that global warming would have the lowest velocities in tropical and subtropical coniferous forests, where it would move at about 80 metres a year, and montane grasslands and shrublands - a biome with grass and shrubs at high elevations - with a projected velocity of about 110 metres each year.
Global warming is expected to sweep more quickly across flatter areas, such as mangrove swamps and flooded grasslands and savannas, where it could have velocities above 1km a year. Across the world, the average velocity is 420 metres each year. The results are published in the journal Nature.
Wildlife in areas with low projected climate change velocities are not necessarily better protected, the scientists point out. Habitats such as broadleaf forests are often small and fragmented, which makes it harder for species to move.
The study examines the movement of climate zones, not species, the scientists stress, which means it is difficult to predict what the impacts may be on individual trees, insects and animals. Some are more tolerant to changing temperature than others, and the movement of species can be difficult to track. While trees are estimated to have spread northwards through a warming Europe after the end of the last ice age at a speed of about 1km per year, this could be down to dormant seeds reseeding the landscape, which would not be possible if species are forced to shift to new territories.
The scientists say that global warming will cause temperatures to change so rapidly that almost a third of the globe could see climate velocities higher than even the most optimistic estimates of plant migration speeds.
Some plants and animals may have to be physically moved by humans to help them cope, the scientists say, while protected areas must also be enlarged and joined together.
David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 December 2009 18.20 GMT
Global warming creeps across the world at a speed of a quarter of a mile each year, according to a new study that highlights the problems that rising temperatures pose to plants and animals. Species that can tolerate only a narrow range of temperatures will need to move as quickly if they are to survive. Wildlife in lowland tropics, mangroves and desert areas are at greater risk than species in mountainous areas, the study suggests.
"These are the conditions that will set the stage, whether species move or cope in place," said Chris Field, director of the department of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution in the US, who worked on the project. "Expressed as velocities, climate change projections connect directly to survival prospects for plants and animals."
The study, by scientists at the Carnegie Institution, Stanford University, the California Academy of Sciences, and the University of California, Berkeley, combined information on current and projected future climate to calculate a "temperature velocity" for different parts of the world.
They found that mountainous areas will have the lowest velocity of temperature change, meaning that animals will not need to move very far to stay in the temperature range of their natural habitat. However, much larger geographic displacements are required in flatter areas such as flooded grasslands, mangroves and deserts, in order for animals to keep pace with their climate zone. The researchers also found that most currently protected areas are not big enough to accommodate the displacements required.
Healy Hamilton, director of the centre for applied biodiversity informatics at the California Academy of Sciences, said: "One of the most powerful aspects of this data is that it allows us to evaluate how our current protected area network will perform as we attempt to conserve biodiversity in the face of global climate change."
He added: "When we look at residence times for protected areas, which we define as the amount of time it will take current climate conditions to move across and out of a given protected area, only 8% of our current protected areas have residence times of more than 100 years. If we want to improve these numbers, we need to both reduce our carbon emissions and work quickly towards expanding and connecting our global network of protected areas."
The study found that global warming would have the lowest velocities in tropical and subtropical coniferous forests, where it would move at about 80 metres a year, and montane grasslands and shrublands - a biome with grass and shrubs at high elevations - with a projected velocity of about 110 metres each year.
Global warming is expected to sweep more quickly across flatter areas, such as mangrove swamps and flooded grasslands and savannas, where it could have velocities above 1km a year. Across the world, the average velocity is 420 metres each year. The results are published in the journal Nature.
Wildlife in areas with low projected climate change velocities are not necessarily better protected, the scientists point out. Habitats such as broadleaf forests are often small and fragmented, which makes it harder for species to move.
The study examines the movement of climate zones, not species, the scientists stress, which means it is difficult to predict what the impacts may be on individual trees, insects and animals. Some are more tolerant to changing temperature than others, and the movement of species can be difficult to track. While trees are estimated to have spread northwards through a warming Europe after the end of the last ice age at a speed of about 1km per year, this could be down to dormant seeds reseeding the landscape, which would not be possible if species are forced to shift to new territories.
The scientists say that global warming will cause temperatures to change so rapidly that almost a third of the globe could see climate velocities higher than even the most optimistic estimates of plant migration speeds.
Some plants and animals may have to be physically moved by humans to help them cope, the scientists say, while protected areas must also be enlarged and joined together.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Copenhagen's Delay Fires Coal
By LIAM DENNING
In Copenhagen, world leaders debated climate change they didn't quite believe in enough to overcome political obstacles. What does their lack of agreement portend for the U.S. electricity sector?
More uncertainty is the short answer. When and how America will handle carbon emissions are variables affecting every power company's investment decisions and valuation.
Selling even a multi-lateral settlement to Americans was going to be difficult in the wake of the "Climategate" revelations throwing doubt on the science of global warming. Unilateral legislation ahead of next year's mid-term elections now looks all but impossible. Meanwhile, the alternative route of having the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon emissions as pollutants would likely provoke strong legal challenges.
Rob LaCount, a senior director at IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, reckons that as the window of opportunity for passing comprehensive legislation closes, a more piece-meal approach becomes likely.
The big losers from this continued uncertainty are companies with large, unregulated nuclear power portfolios, such as Exelon and Entergy. Nuclear plants, with their zero carbon emissions, represent an option on carbon. If carbon were to become embedded in the electricity price, as coal and natural gas-fired generators factored it into their costs, the benefit would flow to the nuclear generators' bottom lines. The more that day is deferred, the less tangible those extra cash-flows are.
Conversely, unregulated power producers burning coal benefit from this stay of execution. Not all benefit equally, however, with much depending on the regional market in which they operate. In the absence of a cost of carbon, coal-fired generators selling into wholesale markets where natural gas-fired plants set the marginal price of electricity tend to earn good profit margins per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
Carbon pricing would savage such margins—that's the idea, after all. In its absence, it might be time to reappraise Allegheny Energy, the worst-performing member of the S&P Utilities index this year. As Morgan Stanley points out, its unregulated generation portfolio is mainly coal-fired, operating where gas-fired competitors set electricity prices. At 11 times 2009 earnings versus a sector average of 13.4 times, Allegheny appears priced for change that Copenhagen did not deliver.
Write to Liam Denning at liam.denning@wsj.com
In Copenhagen, world leaders debated climate change they didn't quite believe in enough to overcome political obstacles. What does their lack of agreement portend for the U.S. electricity sector?
More uncertainty is the short answer. When and how America will handle carbon emissions are variables affecting every power company's investment decisions and valuation.
Selling even a multi-lateral settlement to Americans was going to be difficult in the wake of the "Climategate" revelations throwing doubt on the science of global warming. Unilateral legislation ahead of next year's mid-term elections now looks all but impossible. Meanwhile, the alternative route of having the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon emissions as pollutants would likely provoke strong legal challenges.
Rob LaCount, a senior director at IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, reckons that as the window of opportunity for passing comprehensive legislation closes, a more piece-meal approach becomes likely.
The big losers from this continued uncertainty are companies with large, unregulated nuclear power portfolios, such as Exelon and Entergy. Nuclear plants, with their zero carbon emissions, represent an option on carbon. If carbon were to become embedded in the electricity price, as coal and natural gas-fired generators factored it into their costs, the benefit would flow to the nuclear generators' bottom lines. The more that day is deferred, the less tangible those extra cash-flows are.
Conversely, unregulated power producers burning coal benefit from this stay of execution. Not all benefit equally, however, with much depending on the regional market in which they operate. In the absence of a cost of carbon, coal-fired generators selling into wholesale markets where natural gas-fired plants set the marginal price of electricity tend to earn good profit margins per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
Carbon pricing would savage such margins—that's the idea, after all. In its absence, it might be time to reappraise Allegheny Energy, the worst-performing member of the S&P Utilities index this year. As Morgan Stanley points out, its unregulated generation portfolio is mainly coal-fired, operating where gas-fired competitors set electricity prices. At 11 times 2009 earnings versus a sector average of 13.4 times, Allegheny appears priced for change that Copenhagen did not deliver.
Write to Liam Denning at liam.denning@wsj.com
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed
Mark Lynas
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 December 2009 19.54 GMT
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
Mark Lynas
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 December 2009 19.54 GMT
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
After Summit, 'Cleantech' Firms Reset Strategy
By SPENCER SWARTZ And JIM CARLTON
Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits to spur alternative-energy investments now are looking to national and local policies to get more wind turbines turning and nuclear-power plants humming, after the muddled outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit.
The failure of the United Nations gathering to produce an enforceable accord to cut fossil-fuel emissions leaves the U.S., Europe, China, India and other countries to pursue the energy policies they already had.
In many cases, those policies are aimed more at strategic goals, such as economic development or reducing dependence on Mideast oil, than at threats posed by global warming.
Still, some businesses say these policies could play a major role in fostering so-called clean technology, which includes non-fossil power sources, such as wind turbines, and related know-how, such as software that equips energy grids to cope with intermittent bursts of power from solar cells.
Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for General Electric Co., whose products include energy-efficient locomotives and wind turbines, says his company is "encouraged and optimistic" because of rising sales to nations like China. He said GE's cleantech revenues in China for the first nine months of 2009 totaled $660 million, up 50% from a year earlier.
Since 2002, venture-capital investments in cleantech world-wide have soared from about $1 billion to an estimated $5 billion to $6 billion this year, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco market-research firm. After experiencing one of its first back-to-back quarterly declines in March, venture funding for cleantech, much of it based in California's Silicon Valley, has resumed its climb.
In the U.S., the lack of a strong Copenhagen deal may set back some of these investments, already hurt by falling oil prices. But the Obama administration still plans to use the Environmental Protection Agency to clamp down on the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions, and the Energy Department remains committed to spending billions in public funds to jump-start alternative-energy technology.
On a smaller scale, California is pursuing a program to garner a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, more than double current levels. Most Northeastern states are expected to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, based on regional targets.
The adoption of renewable-energy standards, completed or under way in many states, should boost demand for technologies that make electrical grids more efficient, says Dan Adler, president of the nonprofit California Clean Energy Fund, set up by the state to help spur cleantech investment. Such efforts have fueled the growth of Silver Spring Networks Inc., a Redwood City, Calif., grid-technology provider, which has tripled its work force since 2008 to about 450.
"From our standpoint, we have been cheerleading Copenhagen," says Eric Dresselhuys, the company's executive vice president, "but it's not a direct impact on this business."
Many U.S. states will continue to shift toward lower-carbon fuels, says Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates investor-owned electric, gas and water utilities in the state. California is "not going to turn back," he says.
Officials at Iberdrola, the Spanish power company and the world's biggest renewable-energy company say they are evaluating investments based on local policies, such as renewable-energy standards in states like Texas.
Some businesses, worried about a patchwork of federal and state regulation, are still pushing for Congress to enact a nationwide system for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions. But the prospects for congressional action in the 2010 election year look dim.
China, spurred in part by its desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil, remains committed to a sweeping energy efficiency program that calls for cutting carbon intensity, a measure of emissions relative to the size of the economy, by 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2020. That means government support for alternative energies, and for Chinese companies in that field, is likely to continue to grow.
Gao Jifan, chief executive of Trina Solar Ltd., a Chinese maker of solar panels, says the continuous cost reductions being achieved by solar-panel producers are making the technology more affordable. "So the outlook for its development is unstoppable," he said in a statement.
In the European Union, companies still have to comply with laws that require member nations to reduce emissions collectively to 20% below their 1990 levels by 2020, despite the summit's lack of binding targets. .
"We just didn't get a good sense from the [Copenhagen] conference about the regulatory structures that might be in place and the general direction of where public policy is headed," says Andrew Turpin, spokesman for Centrica PLC, Britain's biggest energy provider, echoing complaints by other European energy investors about the gathering.
Getty Images —Rebecca Smith, Sue Feng and Keith Johnson contributed to this article.
Write to Spencer Swartz at spencer.swartz@dowjones.com and Jim Carlton at jim.carlton@wsj.com
Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits to spur alternative-energy investments now are looking to national and local policies to get more wind turbines turning and nuclear-power plants humming, after the muddled outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit.
The failure of the United Nations gathering to produce an enforceable accord to cut fossil-fuel emissions leaves the U.S., Europe, China, India and other countries to pursue the energy policies they already had.
In many cases, those policies are aimed more at strategic goals, such as economic development or reducing dependence on Mideast oil, than at threats posed by global warming.
Still, some businesses say these policies could play a major role in fostering so-called clean technology, which includes non-fossil power sources, such as wind turbines, and related know-how, such as software that equips energy grids to cope with intermittent bursts of power from solar cells.
Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for General Electric Co., whose products include energy-efficient locomotives and wind turbines, says his company is "encouraged and optimistic" because of rising sales to nations like China. He said GE's cleantech revenues in China for the first nine months of 2009 totaled $660 million, up 50% from a year earlier.
Since 2002, venture-capital investments in cleantech world-wide have soared from about $1 billion to an estimated $5 billion to $6 billion this year, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco market-research firm. After experiencing one of its first back-to-back quarterly declines in March, venture funding for cleantech, much of it based in California's Silicon Valley, has resumed its climb.
In the U.S., the lack of a strong Copenhagen deal may set back some of these investments, already hurt by falling oil prices. But the Obama administration still plans to use the Environmental Protection Agency to clamp down on the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions, and the Energy Department remains committed to spending billions in public funds to jump-start alternative-energy technology.
On a smaller scale, California is pursuing a program to garner a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, more than double current levels. Most Northeastern states are expected to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, based on regional targets.
The adoption of renewable-energy standards, completed or under way in many states, should boost demand for technologies that make electrical grids more efficient, says Dan Adler, president of the nonprofit California Clean Energy Fund, set up by the state to help spur cleantech investment. Such efforts have fueled the growth of Silver Spring Networks Inc., a Redwood City, Calif., grid-technology provider, which has tripled its work force since 2008 to about 450.
"From our standpoint, we have been cheerleading Copenhagen," says Eric Dresselhuys, the company's executive vice president, "but it's not a direct impact on this business."
Many U.S. states will continue to shift toward lower-carbon fuels, says Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates investor-owned electric, gas and water utilities in the state. California is "not going to turn back," he says.
Officials at Iberdrola, the Spanish power company and the world's biggest renewable-energy company say they are evaluating investments based on local policies, such as renewable-energy standards in states like Texas.
Some businesses, worried about a patchwork of federal and state regulation, are still pushing for Congress to enact a nationwide system for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions. But the prospects for congressional action in the 2010 election year look dim.
China, spurred in part by its desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil, remains committed to a sweeping energy efficiency program that calls for cutting carbon intensity, a measure of emissions relative to the size of the economy, by 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2020. That means government support for alternative energies, and for Chinese companies in that field, is likely to continue to grow.
Gao Jifan, chief executive of Trina Solar Ltd., a Chinese maker of solar panels, says the continuous cost reductions being achieved by solar-panel producers are making the technology more affordable. "So the outlook for its development is unstoppable," he said in a statement.
In the European Union, companies still have to comply with laws that require member nations to reduce emissions collectively to 20% below their 1990 levels by 2020, despite the summit's lack of binding targets. .
"We just didn't get a good sense from the [Copenhagen] conference about the regulatory structures that might be in place and the general direction of where public policy is headed," says Andrew Turpin, spokesman for Centrica PLC, Britain's biggest energy provider, echoing complaints by other European energy investors about the gathering.
Getty Images —Rebecca Smith, Sue Feng and Keith Johnson contributed to this article.
Write to Spencer Swartz at spencer.swartz@dowjones.com and Jim Carlton at jim.carlton@wsj.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
