By David Pilling in Toyako and Fiona Harvey in London
Published: July 8 2008 04:23
George W. Bush bowed to pressure from other world leaders on climate change on Tuesday, agreeing for the first time to a long-term target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The decision to set a goal of halving emissions by 2050, in line with scientific advice, at the Group of Eight meeting of industrialised nations in Japan, marked what is likely to be the US president’s final contribution to the climate change debate.
The G8 leaders agreed to “consider and adopt . . . the goal of achieving at least 50 per cent reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response”.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the agreement was “very positive in that it talks about an ambitious economy-wide goal”.
However, he warned that a long-term goal was insufficient without shorter term commitments too: “What I completely miss in this is any reference to what the G8 countries want their emissions to be in 2020.”
Yasuo Fukuda, prime minister of Japan, said leaders had been “able to overcome [their] differences to come to this agreement”.
José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, who was at the talks, said he was “very happy” with the deal, and Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, hailed it as “major progress”.
Mr Bush’s agreement, after more than a year of promising to commit to a long-term goal without proposing what that goal should be, moves the climate change debate forward significantly. If developing nations agree to the proposed halving of global emissions by mid-century – which is likely – then one of the most important components of an international accord to replace the Kyoto protocol will be close to settlement.
The UN is locked in negotiations, begun last December and scheduled to finish in late 2009, over the shape of an international agreement on climate change to succeed the Kyoto protocol when its main provisions expire in 2012.
Green campaigners poured scorn on the deal. Tom Sharman of ActionAid said: “They are passing the buck to China and India.”
Additional reporting by Krishna Guha and George Parker
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
The U.S. Keeps Its Global Commitments
July 8, 2008;
If you've ever been through a G-8 Summit, right about now you're probably feeling like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day." That's the one where he plays a man forced to live the same day over and over.
In much the same way, G-8 meetings follow a familiar script year after year. They begin with leaders issuing lofty statements on a checklist of "global challenges." They continue with TV footage of riot police struggling with the global protester brigade. And they finish with news stories quoting unnamed diplomats sighing that American obstinacy has just lost the world its last chance for some great advance on some issue vital for humanity.
The good news is that this week's summit in Japan may be the one in which we finally awake from the G-8 version of "Groundhog Day." And when we do, we will find that the president has now succeeded in baking into the G-8 process a time-honored Texas principle. It's called "put up or shut up."
That's not how it will read in the official G-8 communiqués, of course. Instead, these statements will speak diplomatically of "accountability." And this time, they will give us something we have never seen before: country-by-country breakdowns of how well nations are living up to their G-8 commitments.
What a revolutionary concept: Judging a nation's commitment to problem-solving by whether its money matches its mouth. The first reports come out today, and will track how well G-8 members live up to promises to tackle health scourges such as polio, HIV/AIDS and malaria. These reports should have a salutary effect on the public debate.
For while the rhetoric about Uncle Sam's global leadership tends to the harsh and negative, the record tells a different story. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. has taken the lead on issues from combating malaria to breaking down trade barriers that keep the crops of poor African farmers out of First World markets. No one else is even close.
Take HIV/AIDS. Before the president launched his Emergency Program for Aids Relief in 2003, only 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa afflicted with the disease were receiving treatment. Since then, the U.S. has helped deliver lifesaving treatment to nearly 1.5 million Africans – many of them women and children. To put this in perspective, the president's AIDS initiative is the largest commitment ever by any nation for an international health initiative dedicated to a single disease.
At last year's summit in Germany, the president called on members to stem the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. They responded by committing to spend billions of dollars on care for tens of millions, and treatment for five million. When the accountability reports are released, we'll know who is doing their part – and who is falling short.
The aim is to ensure that old promises are kept before new ones are made. Under the old dynamic, summits were characterized by haggling over this or that sentence in a document that few ever read and even fewer had any intention of living up to. The new way should help shift the emphasis away from pie-in-the-sky promises (which are easy to make) to on-the-ground delivery of real results (which takes hard work and follow-through).
The president has taken much the same approach on climate. For many years, the preferred M.O. – as illustrated by Kyoto – was long-term and theoretical. Rich countries agreed to mandatory reductions in their greenhouse emissions that if fully implemented would cost their economies untold billions of dollars. Meanwhile, countries like China and India – developing nations that are also major emitters – were let off the hook.
The president argued that there could be no real progress unless all major emitters were part of the deal. He also suggested that instead of trying to regulate ourselves into carbon Nirvana – which would succeed only in wrecking our economy – we would be far better off investing in cleaner and more efficient technologies. So guess what happened? Tomorrow the G-8 members will sit down with leaders of the developing world's major economies to look for a better way forward. And don't be surprised if by the end of this summit we have G-8 backing for another Bush initiative: a Clean Technology Fund to help developing countries move from older, dirtier and cheaper technologies to cleaner and more advanced versions that they otherwise could not afford.
On issue after issue, the president has pushed for global policies and reforms that are opening up new opportunities, bringing relief to the suffering, and introducing a measure of sanity to the debate on climate. Maybe one day we will all wake up to a world willing to give him some credit for it.
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
If you've ever been through a G-8 Summit, right about now you're probably feeling like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day." That's the one where he plays a man forced to live the same day over and over.
In much the same way, G-8 meetings follow a familiar script year after year. They begin with leaders issuing lofty statements on a checklist of "global challenges." They continue with TV footage of riot police struggling with the global protester brigade. And they finish with news stories quoting unnamed diplomats sighing that American obstinacy has just lost the world its last chance for some great advance on some issue vital for humanity.
The good news is that this week's summit in Japan may be the one in which we finally awake from the G-8 version of "Groundhog Day." And when we do, we will find that the president has now succeeded in baking into the G-8 process a time-honored Texas principle. It's called "put up or shut up."
That's not how it will read in the official G-8 communiqués, of course. Instead, these statements will speak diplomatically of "accountability." And this time, they will give us something we have never seen before: country-by-country breakdowns of how well nations are living up to their G-8 commitments.
What a revolutionary concept: Judging a nation's commitment to problem-solving by whether its money matches its mouth. The first reports come out today, and will track how well G-8 members live up to promises to tackle health scourges such as polio, HIV/AIDS and malaria. These reports should have a salutary effect on the public debate.
For while the rhetoric about Uncle Sam's global leadership tends to the harsh and negative, the record tells a different story. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. has taken the lead on issues from combating malaria to breaking down trade barriers that keep the crops of poor African farmers out of First World markets. No one else is even close.
Take HIV/AIDS. Before the president launched his Emergency Program for Aids Relief in 2003, only 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa afflicted with the disease were receiving treatment. Since then, the U.S. has helped deliver lifesaving treatment to nearly 1.5 million Africans – many of them women and children. To put this in perspective, the president's AIDS initiative is the largest commitment ever by any nation for an international health initiative dedicated to a single disease.
At last year's summit in Germany, the president called on members to stem the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. They responded by committing to spend billions of dollars on care for tens of millions, and treatment for five million. When the accountability reports are released, we'll know who is doing their part – and who is falling short.
The aim is to ensure that old promises are kept before new ones are made. Under the old dynamic, summits were characterized by haggling over this or that sentence in a document that few ever read and even fewer had any intention of living up to. The new way should help shift the emphasis away from pie-in-the-sky promises (which are easy to make) to on-the-ground delivery of real results (which takes hard work and follow-through).
The president has taken much the same approach on climate. For many years, the preferred M.O. – as illustrated by Kyoto – was long-term and theoretical. Rich countries agreed to mandatory reductions in their greenhouse emissions that if fully implemented would cost their economies untold billions of dollars. Meanwhile, countries like China and India – developing nations that are also major emitters – were let off the hook.
The president argued that there could be no real progress unless all major emitters were part of the deal. He also suggested that instead of trying to regulate ourselves into carbon Nirvana – which would succeed only in wrecking our economy – we would be far better off investing in cleaner and more efficient technologies. So guess what happened? Tomorrow the G-8 members will sit down with leaders of the developing world's major economies to look for a better way forward. And don't be surprised if by the end of this summit we have G-8 backing for another Bush initiative: a Clean Technology Fund to help developing countries move from older, dirtier and cheaper technologies to cleaner and more advanced versions that they otherwise could not afford.
On issue after issue, the president has pushed for global policies and reforms that are opening up new opportunities, bringing relief to the suffering, and introducing a measure of sanity to the debate on climate. Maybe one day we will all wake up to a world willing to give him some credit for it.
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
Queen and Charles join race to build government-sponsored ecotowns
· 5,000-home project from MoD and royal estate · Prince's foundation to advise on local input
James Meikle
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 9, 2008
The Queen and the Prince of Wales have joined the race to be part of the government's controversial ecotown scheme, with the crown estate acting as partner in a consortium that hopes to built a town of 5,000 houses near Nottingham.
Prince Charles's Foundation for the Built Environment has been asked to advise on the scheme's design and to try to ensure community involvement from the outset for the project.
The prince has been personally involved in the development of "more sustainable" communities. He set up the Poundbury development on Duchy of Cornwall land in Dorset a decade ago and is now helping develop a town with homes for 12,000 people at Sherford, near Plymouth, and a 4,000-home ecovillage near Neath, Wales. His foundation has also advised government bodies developing "urban extensions" to existing towns.
The crown estate, which manages a £7bn portfolio of the Queen's property and gives its revenue to the Treasury, has joined up with the MoD and the company Newton Nottingham LLP to develop property owned by the three around the former RAF base at Newton, near Bingham in Nottinghamshire.
The site replaces another previously selected, at nearby Kingston on Soar, the suitability of which was questioned by civil servants. The Guardian understands the government's housing department approached the landowners to see if they would put together an outline proposal.
Details remain sketchy at this stage because the partners in the scheme claim they want to involve the local community from the start. But the proposals include discounted public transport passes for residents, car-free areas and restricted parking zones, food and biomass fuel production, home-based offices, and business units for local graduates. Two or three primary schools are planned as well as "significant levels" of low-cost and social housing for rent.
Nick Harper, head of asset management and development for the crown, speaking for all the landowners, said: "We are keen to engage with residents and politicians to hear more about their ideas and aspirations and hope that our initial assessment will provide a sound platform on which an informed debate can be taken forward."
Hank Dittmar, chief executive of The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, said stand-alone towns had to meet several principles for true sustainability. "We would be looking for a genuine mix of types of homes, jobs and amenities, such that everyday needs could be met within a five-minute walk ... we're interested in evolving vernacular building traditions - by which we mean building methods and materials that are synonymous with a particular area - to meet 21st century challenges of post peak oil, climate change and population growth."
In the past fortnight three developers have dropped out of building ecotowns. Gallagher Estates, which is behind one of two overlapping bids to create an ecotown south of Bedford, became the latest developer to withdraw.
The Guardian revealed yesterday that a consortium behind an ecotown at Curborough, near Lichfield, Staffordshire, had quit, while East Lindsey district council, in Lincolnshire, last month pulled out from a list of 17 shortlisted bids for 15 sites. Now there are only 13 sites left from which the government intends to select five to 10 ecotown projects.
Tories, whose pledge is to scrap any ecotown plans not enjoying local support, claim the wheels are coming off the government's scheme as many of the bids have fallen short on green credentials.
James Meikle
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 9, 2008
The Queen and the Prince of Wales have joined the race to be part of the government's controversial ecotown scheme, with the crown estate acting as partner in a consortium that hopes to built a town of 5,000 houses near Nottingham.
Prince Charles's Foundation for the Built Environment has been asked to advise on the scheme's design and to try to ensure community involvement from the outset for the project.
The prince has been personally involved in the development of "more sustainable" communities. He set up the Poundbury development on Duchy of Cornwall land in Dorset a decade ago and is now helping develop a town with homes for 12,000 people at Sherford, near Plymouth, and a 4,000-home ecovillage near Neath, Wales. His foundation has also advised government bodies developing "urban extensions" to existing towns.
The crown estate, which manages a £7bn portfolio of the Queen's property and gives its revenue to the Treasury, has joined up with the MoD and the company Newton Nottingham LLP to develop property owned by the three around the former RAF base at Newton, near Bingham in Nottinghamshire.
The site replaces another previously selected, at nearby Kingston on Soar, the suitability of which was questioned by civil servants. The Guardian understands the government's housing department approached the landowners to see if they would put together an outline proposal.
Details remain sketchy at this stage because the partners in the scheme claim they want to involve the local community from the start. But the proposals include discounted public transport passes for residents, car-free areas and restricted parking zones, food and biomass fuel production, home-based offices, and business units for local graduates. Two or three primary schools are planned as well as "significant levels" of low-cost and social housing for rent.
Nick Harper, head of asset management and development for the crown, speaking for all the landowners, said: "We are keen to engage with residents and politicians to hear more about their ideas and aspirations and hope that our initial assessment will provide a sound platform on which an informed debate can be taken forward."
Hank Dittmar, chief executive of The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, said stand-alone towns had to meet several principles for true sustainability. "We would be looking for a genuine mix of types of homes, jobs and amenities, such that everyday needs could be met within a five-minute walk ... we're interested in evolving vernacular building traditions - by which we mean building methods and materials that are synonymous with a particular area - to meet 21st century challenges of post peak oil, climate change and population growth."
In the past fortnight three developers have dropped out of building ecotowns. Gallagher Estates, which is behind one of two overlapping bids to create an ecotown south of Bedford, became the latest developer to withdraw.
The Guardian revealed yesterday that a consortium behind an ecotown at Curborough, near Lichfield, Staffordshire, had quit, while East Lindsey district council, in Lincolnshire, last month pulled out from a list of 17 shortlisted bids for 15 sites. Now there are only 13 sites left from which the government intends to select five to 10 ecotown projects.
Tories, whose pledge is to scrap any ecotown plans not enjoying local support, claim the wheels are coming off the government's scheme as many of the bids have fallen short on green credentials.
Fertile ground for exploitation
Adding iron to the seabed to generate the growth of microscopic plants is the latest solution to dealing with CO2. But is it safe?
Chris Baker
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 9, 2008
"Give me half a tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age." The late American oceanographer John Martin's inflammatory comment - alluding to geological records that suggest there were high levels of iron in the ocean during the glaciations - was never likely to win prizes for making friends and influencing people.
Martin's "iron hypotheses", put forward in early 1990s, suggested seeding plankton-low areas of ocean in order to hotwire the so-called biological pump - a naturally occurring phenomenon that sequesters CO2 on the seabed.
His ocean fertilisation theory has never had an easy ride. Some researchers argue that it is an inefficient way of capturing and storing CO2; others say the technology could have disastrous consequences, such as damaging ecosystems, inadvertently releasing more potent greenhouse gasses such as methane, or stimulating the growth of toxic algae.
Scientists around the world began to test the idea, adding nutrients, usually iron, to the sea and watching what happened next. But it was not until fairly recently, when commercial companies began taking an interest in exploiting Martin's idea in order to make money from the carbon market, that the antennae of scientists and environment groups really began to twitch.
Carbon credits
Jim Thomas, researcher and writer at the Ottawa-based technology watchdog ETC Group, says: "It is the cheapest way of making carbon credits. Whether you mess up the oceans in the process does not matter to them as long as they can make money out of it."
The concerns recently prompted the UN's convention on biological diversity (CBD) to agree a moratorium on commercial ocean fertilisation, and on all but small-scale, scientifically controlled tests in coastal waters, at least until the technology is properly understood - already dubbed the first global attempt to police geo-engineering.
"Basically, it means nations around the world have agreed they are not going to permit large-scale ocean fertilisation to go ahead," Thomas says. "The work-round is to do small-scale, strictly scientific - not commercial - tests that are not for using or generating carbon credits."
The biological pump itself is quite elegant. Phytoplankton (microscopic marine plants) at or near the ocean's surface convert CO2 into organic matter and oxygen, and when they die carry small amounts carbon to the seabed, where it is stored in sediments for millions of years.
There is a physical pump too, where CO2 dissolves in the ocean at high latitudes, is carried to depth by sinking currents, and stays there for hundreds of years before returning to the surface. Exploiting the latter by piping liquid CO2 direct to the deep ocean has also been proposed, a different technology to ocean fertilisation but which has provoked many similar concerns.
Victor Smetacek, professor of biological oceanography at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, was chief scientist on the European iron fertilisation experiment - the most recent and most thorough of about a dozen major ocean fertilisation tests. Three tonnes of iron sulphate - made from powder you can buy at garden centres to treat lawns - was poured from the research vessel Polarstern into a 150 sq km eddy in the southern ocean.
A bloom of phytoplankton occurred almost immediately, as expected. What surprised the scientists was the discovery four weeks later of a vast amount of dead and dying matter from their manmade bloom, sinking extraordinarily quickly. It was something nobody had properly witnessed before, and, as Smetacek says, "one of nature's mechanisms to regulate CO2 in the atmosphere, and ultimately global climate". The results are so far unpublished but, according to Smetacek, a "significant amount" of carbon sank with the dying bloom.
He says: "There is no question our bloom behaved the way blooms are supposed to behave, they build up and then they sink. We found it sinking down the water column, and all the previous experiments did not find that. I am of the opinion that you cannot afford not to do it, iron fertilisation. On the other hand, the outstanding question is who is going to do it? Is somebody going to make a profit out of it? I think this is too important to be left to the mercy of the profit-makers."
In about a third of the oceans - the so-called paradoxical zones - the growth of phytoplankton is limited by lack of iron, a nutrient essential for life. Adding iron to a quarter of the world's seas, in areas where amounts of the mineral are low, would, according to ocean fertilisation's proponents, remove about 1bn tonnes of CO2 a year from the atmosphere - roughly 15% of what accumulates annually because of human activity.
"If you get it wrong on that scale, things could be a bit serious," says Chris Vivian, chair of the Scientific Group of the London Convention, which regulates dumping waste at sea and has issued its own "statement of concern" about ocean fertilisation. "If we wanted to have an impact, we would probably have to do something on that scale. And if it worked, we would have to do this continuously, year after year after year. It is a continuous activity, which is another concern."
Gung-ho fertilisation
The moratorium is not a legal instrument and cannot be enforced, although countries usually respect CBD decisions. Southern countries, whose seas have been the target for commercial trials, were the most vocal in favour of a moratorium, supported by European nations. Worryingly for some, the US, home to the most gung-ho commercial ocean fertilisation companies, is not a signatory to the convention.
According to Dr Margaret Leinen, the chief science of Climos - whose aim is to use sea power to fight climate change - the CBD requested that governments exercise the precautionary principle and ensure further tests are adequately controlled, rather than specify an outright suspension. "They did not impose a moratorium, they identified conditions that they thought should be met," she says. "We have no disagreements with this call for scientific justification, an analysis of risk, and regulatory control."
Small-scale is expected to be defined at about the size of those experiments already carried out: 100-200 sq km. San Francisco-based Climos, the leading commercial ocean fertilisation company, has proposed testing an area of 40,000 sq km. Already, some scientific organisations have criticised the prohibition of large-scale trials, arguing it puts too strict a restriction on research.
David Santillo, senior scientist at Greenpeace International's research laboratory in Exeter, says: "It would be like doing an experiment in a laboratory with no ceiling, no walls and no floor. If something goes wrong, there is very little they could do, even if they could discover something had gone wrong in the first place.
"What they have come up with in terms of the moratorium is quite reasonable.What they have said is that there should be no pursuit of this, except small-scale experiments . . . which stops some of the more aggressive commercial exploitation of this and lets some experiments proceed.
If Martin were still alive, he would probably retract his incendiary comment about an ice age. Many would not. For the latter, the moratorium on ocean fertilisation is an important first step towards trying to control geo-engineered, sometimes science fiction-like, attempts to solve the climate crisis.
Chris Baker
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 9, 2008
"Give me half a tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age." The late American oceanographer John Martin's inflammatory comment - alluding to geological records that suggest there were high levels of iron in the ocean during the glaciations - was never likely to win prizes for making friends and influencing people.
Martin's "iron hypotheses", put forward in early 1990s, suggested seeding plankton-low areas of ocean in order to hotwire the so-called biological pump - a naturally occurring phenomenon that sequesters CO2 on the seabed.
His ocean fertilisation theory has never had an easy ride. Some researchers argue that it is an inefficient way of capturing and storing CO2; others say the technology could have disastrous consequences, such as damaging ecosystems, inadvertently releasing more potent greenhouse gasses such as methane, or stimulating the growth of toxic algae.
Scientists around the world began to test the idea, adding nutrients, usually iron, to the sea and watching what happened next. But it was not until fairly recently, when commercial companies began taking an interest in exploiting Martin's idea in order to make money from the carbon market, that the antennae of scientists and environment groups really began to twitch.
Carbon credits
Jim Thomas, researcher and writer at the Ottawa-based technology watchdog ETC Group, says: "It is the cheapest way of making carbon credits. Whether you mess up the oceans in the process does not matter to them as long as they can make money out of it."
The concerns recently prompted the UN's convention on biological diversity (CBD) to agree a moratorium on commercial ocean fertilisation, and on all but small-scale, scientifically controlled tests in coastal waters, at least until the technology is properly understood - already dubbed the first global attempt to police geo-engineering.
"Basically, it means nations around the world have agreed they are not going to permit large-scale ocean fertilisation to go ahead," Thomas says. "The work-round is to do small-scale, strictly scientific - not commercial - tests that are not for using or generating carbon credits."
The biological pump itself is quite elegant. Phytoplankton (microscopic marine plants) at or near the ocean's surface convert CO2 into organic matter and oxygen, and when they die carry small amounts carbon to the seabed, where it is stored in sediments for millions of years.
There is a physical pump too, where CO2 dissolves in the ocean at high latitudes, is carried to depth by sinking currents, and stays there for hundreds of years before returning to the surface. Exploiting the latter by piping liquid CO2 direct to the deep ocean has also been proposed, a different technology to ocean fertilisation but which has provoked many similar concerns.
Victor Smetacek, professor of biological oceanography at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, was chief scientist on the European iron fertilisation experiment - the most recent and most thorough of about a dozen major ocean fertilisation tests. Three tonnes of iron sulphate - made from powder you can buy at garden centres to treat lawns - was poured from the research vessel Polarstern into a 150 sq km eddy in the southern ocean.
A bloom of phytoplankton occurred almost immediately, as expected. What surprised the scientists was the discovery four weeks later of a vast amount of dead and dying matter from their manmade bloom, sinking extraordinarily quickly. It was something nobody had properly witnessed before, and, as Smetacek says, "one of nature's mechanisms to regulate CO2 in the atmosphere, and ultimately global climate". The results are so far unpublished but, according to Smetacek, a "significant amount" of carbon sank with the dying bloom.
He says: "There is no question our bloom behaved the way blooms are supposed to behave, they build up and then they sink. We found it sinking down the water column, and all the previous experiments did not find that. I am of the opinion that you cannot afford not to do it, iron fertilisation. On the other hand, the outstanding question is who is going to do it? Is somebody going to make a profit out of it? I think this is too important to be left to the mercy of the profit-makers."
In about a third of the oceans - the so-called paradoxical zones - the growth of phytoplankton is limited by lack of iron, a nutrient essential for life. Adding iron to a quarter of the world's seas, in areas where amounts of the mineral are low, would, according to ocean fertilisation's proponents, remove about 1bn tonnes of CO2 a year from the atmosphere - roughly 15% of what accumulates annually because of human activity.
"If you get it wrong on that scale, things could be a bit serious," says Chris Vivian, chair of the Scientific Group of the London Convention, which regulates dumping waste at sea and has issued its own "statement of concern" about ocean fertilisation. "If we wanted to have an impact, we would probably have to do something on that scale. And if it worked, we would have to do this continuously, year after year after year. It is a continuous activity, which is another concern."
Gung-ho fertilisation
The moratorium is not a legal instrument and cannot be enforced, although countries usually respect CBD decisions. Southern countries, whose seas have been the target for commercial trials, were the most vocal in favour of a moratorium, supported by European nations. Worryingly for some, the US, home to the most gung-ho commercial ocean fertilisation companies, is not a signatory to the convention.
According to Dr Margaret Leinen, the chief science of Climos - whose aim is to use sea power to fight climate change - the CBD requested that governments exercise the precautionary principle and ensure further tests are adequately controlled, rather than specify an outright suspension. "They did not impose a moratorium, they identified conditions that they thought should be met," she says. "We have no disagreements with this call for scientific justification, an analysis of risk, and regulatory control."
Small-scale is expected to be defined at about the size of those experiments already carried out: 100-200 sq km. San Francisco-based Climos, the leading commercial ocean fertilisation company, has proposed testing an area of 40,000 sq km. Already, some scientific organisations have criticised the prohibition of large-scale trials, arguing it puts too strict a restriction on research.
David Santillo, senior scientist at Greenpeace International's research laboratory in Exeter, says: "It would be like doing an experiment in a laboratory with no ceiling, no walls and no floor. If something goes wrong, there is very little they could do, even if they could discover something had gone wrong in the first place.
"What they have come up with in terms of the moratorium is quite reasonable.What they have said is that there should be no pursuit of this, except small-scale experiments . . . which stops some of the more aggressive commercial exploitation of this and lets some experiments proceed.
If Martin were still alive, he would probably retract his incendiary comment about an ice age. Many would not. For the latter, the moratorium on ocean fertilisation is an important first step towards trying to control geo-engineered, sometimes science fiction-like, attempts to solve the climate crisis.
Pollution: Value of global carbon trading is already nearly double last year's figure at £30bn
Mark Milner, industrial editor
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 9, 2008
The value of carbon traded on the world's markets reached €38bn (£30bn) in the first half of this year, almost double the total for the whole of 2007, according to the market analysis and consulting group, Point Carbon.
The world's trade in CO2 was dominated by the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS), which has accounted for 70% of all trades so far this year and which will grow further after the inclusion of aviation emissions from 2012, according to the report.
The ETS, which covers a series of industrial sectors, sets limits on the amount of CO2 that companies covered by the scheme can emit. Any permits they do not use can be sold, while companies which overrun their allotment have to buy permits to cover the excess. In the first half of the year trades within the ETS hit €30bn, up 161% on the first six months of 2007, according to Point Carbon.
Initially the ETS came in for heavy criticism because allocations were perceived to be too high, allowing companies to meet their targets too easily. The European commission has since tightened the rules, with further changes in the pipeline.
Point Carbon said that although the ETS increased its share of the global market in carbon trades, other markets in the US, Canada and Australia were developing.
Endre Tvinnereim, a senior Point Carbon analyst, said despite its short comings, the Kyoto Protocol was driving the development of the global market.
"The market is no longer immature and precocious, but rather advancing, geographically and in terms of financial sophistication. Unlike other sectors hit by a global downturn this year, the carbon market is in rude health,"
Point Carbon said the increase in the value of carbon changing hands through the market was the result of a series of factors, including an increase in price from €13.36 a tonne in the first half of 2007, to €20.61 in the first six months of this year.
Overall 1.8bn tonnes were traded in the six months to the end of June and the total for the full year is forecast to reach 4.2bn tonnes. Last year traded carbon contracts amounted to 2.7bn tonnes, while in 2003 it was 28m tonnes.
Point Carbon argued that the American presidential election would usher in a new era of American engagement in international climate negotiations, with both presidential candidates supporting a national cap and trade system for CO2 emissions.
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 9, 2008
The value of carbon traded on the world's markets reached €38bn (£30bn) in the first half of this year, almost double the total for the whole of 2007, according to the market analysis and consulting group, Point Carbon.
The world's trade in CO2 was dominated by the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS), which has accounted for 70% of all trades so far this year and which will grow further after the inclusion of aviation emissions from 2012, according to the report.
The ETS, which covers a series of industrial sectors, sets limits on the amount of CO2 that companies covered by the scheme can emit. Any permits they do not use can be sold, while companies which overrun their allotment have to buy permits to cover the excess. In the first half of the year trades within the ETS hit €30bn, up 161% on the first six months of 2007, according to Point Carbon.
Initially the ETS came in for heavy criticism because allocations were perceived to be too high, allowing companies to meet their targets too easily. The European commission has since tightened the rules, with further changes in the pipeline.
Point Carbon said that although the ETS increased its share of the global market in carbon trades, other markets in the US, Canada and Australia were developing.
Endre Tvinnereim, a senior Point Carbon analyst, said despite its short comings, the Kyoto Protocol was driving the development of the global market.
"The market is no longer immature and precocious, but rather advancing, geographically and in terms of financial sophistication. Unlike other sectors hit by a global downturn this year, the carbon market is in rude health,"
Point Carbon said the increase in the value of carbon changing hands through the market was the result of a series of factors, including an increase in price from €13.36 a tonne in the first half of 2007, to €20.61 in the first six months of this year.
Overall 1.8bn tonnes were traded in the six months to the end of June and the total for the full year is forecast to reach 4.2bn tonnes. Last year traded carbon contracts amounted to 2.7bn tonnes, while in 2003 it was 28m tonnes.
Point Carbon argued that the American presidential election would usher in a new era of American engagement in international climate negotiations, with both presidential candidates supporting a national cap and trade system for CO2 emissions.
Alberta to capture CO2 with oil sands revenue
By Bernard Simon in Toronto
Published: July 9 2008 01:16
Alberta is to set aside C$4bn ($3.9bn, €2.5bn, £2bn) of its burgeoning oil and gas revenues for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The initiative, announced on Tuesday by Ed Stelmach, the Canadian province’s Conservative premier, is a response to increasingly vocal criticism of environmental damage caused by huge projects to exploit the bitumen-like oil sands deposits in north-eastern Alberta.
The C$4bn will be allocated to two funds. One will finance large projects to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from oil sands recovery sites, the plants that upgrade the bitumen into crude oil, and from coal-fired power stations.
The gas would be pumped deep into the earth where it can be trapped for millions of years.
The other fund will finance improved public transport in the province. The extra funds are likely to revive interest in a high-speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton, the province’s two main cities.
The government estimates that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by these initiatives would be the equivalent of taking 1m motor vehicles off the road. Mr Stelmach’s plan is also designed to deflect a recent movement in Canada towards carbon taxes.
The neighbouring province of British Columbia this month imposed a carbon tax and the Liberal party, the federal opposition, has made a carbon tax a central part of its policy platform with its proposed levy offset by personal and corporate income tax cuts.
Carbon capture and storage projects are under way in the UK, Norway, Denmark and Australia. In north America, a group of oil and gas producers has piped more than 7m tonnes of CO2 from North Dakota into a depleted oilfield near Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
The Alberta government on Tuesday said that porous sedimentary rock formations in the province beneath non-porous geology were well suited to secure, long-term storage of vast quantities of CO2.
The funds will come from this year’s budget surplus which, the province said, would be “significantly larger than predicted” owing to the surge in oil and natural gas royalties. The surplus was estimated at C$1.6bn in April’s budget.
The province has already repaid all its debt. It has the lowest corporate tax rate among Canada’s 10 provinces and is the only one without a retail sales tax.
Critics have accused the long-ruling Conservative government of overspending, thereby fuelling labour and raw material shortages as well as inflation. They have urged the government to save a higher proportion of its oil and gas revenues for the day when oil and gas prices drop.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: July 9 2008 01:16
Alberta is to set aside C$4bn ($3.9bn, €2.5bn, £2bn) of its burgeoning oil and gas revenues for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The initiative, announced on Tuesday by Ed Stelmach, the Canadian province’s Conservative premier, is a response to increasingly vocal criticism of environmental damage caused by huge projects to exploit the bitumen-like oil sands deposits in north-eastern Alberta.
The C$4bn will be allocated to two funds. One will finance large projects to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from oil sands recovery sites, the plants that upgrade the bitumen into crude oil, and from coal-fired power stations.
The gas would be pumped deep into the earth where it can be trapped for millions of years.
The other fund will finance improved public transport in the province. The extra funds are likely to revive interest in a high-speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton, the province’s two main cities.
The government estimates that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by these initiatives would be the equivalent of taking 1m motor vehicles off the road. Mr Stelmach’s plan is also designed to deflect a recent movement in Canada towards carbon taxes.
The neighbouring province of British Columbia this month imposed a carbon tax and the Liberal party, the federal opposition, has made a carbon tax a central part of its policy platform with its proposed levy offset by personal and corporate income tax cuts.
Carbon capture and storage projects are under way in the UK, Norway, Denmark and Australia. In north America, a group of oil and gas producers has piped more than 7m tonnes of CO2 from North Dakota into a depleted oilfield near Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
The Alberta government on Tuesday said that porous sedimentary rock formations in the province beneath non-porous geology were well suited to secure, long-term storage of vast quantities of CO2.
The funds will come from this year’s budget surplus which, the province said, would be “significantly larger than predicted” owing to the surge in oil and natural gas royalties. The surplus was estimated at C$1.6bn in April’s budget.
The province has already repaid all its debt. It has the lowest corporate tax rate among Canada’s 10 provinces and is the only one without a retail sales tax.
Critics have accused the long-ruling Conservative government of overspending, thereby fuelling labour and raw material shortages as well as inflation. They have urged the government to save a higher proportion of its oil and gas revenues for the day when oil and gas prices drop.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Airlines flying in and out of Europe must cut CO2 emissions from 2012
David Gow in Brussels
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday July 8, 2008
All airlines flying to and from the EU will be forced to cut their carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 under a compromise deal approved by MEPs today.
But the initial cut will be only 3% of average 2004-06 emission levels, rising to 5% in 2013, and airlines will be handed out 85% of their pollution permits for free. MEPs also dropped earlier plans for intra-EU flights to be affected from 2011.
Even so, angry airlines struggling with higher fuel prices warned that their inclusion within the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS), its flagship mechanism for fighting climate change, would bring extra costs, higher fares and no environmental benefit.
MEPs voted 640 to 30, with 30 abstentions, to endorse a heavily watered down version of proposals first launched by the European commission and due to be rubber-stamped by ministers within the next few weeks.
Their vote could trigger an escalation of a dispute with the US which could seek legal action over the inclusion of non-European airlines within the ETS. MEPs hope a new president in the White House will be more amenable to a global deal on the issue.
Hailing the vote, Stavros Dimas, EU environment commissioner, said greenhouse gas emissions from international air transport were increasing faster than from any other sector in the EU.
They account for only 3% of overall emissions but have grown by 87% since 1990 and could more than double on current trends by 2020. Dimas said someone flying from London to New York and back generates as much CO2 as the average EU citizen does by heating their home for a year.
He held out the threat to deepen the planned emission cuts for aviation and reduce the number of free permits from as early as 2013 under an ETS review he is now undertaking. But smaller airlines will be exempt and fast-growing start-ups will be given free permits.
Friends of the Earth Europe aviation campaigner Richard Dyer said the deal was "so weak it will have little impact on the rocketing growth in CO2 pollution from flying" and the EU should press for international aviation and shipping to be included in the next (post-2012) phase of the UN climate change treaty. He said airlines should bid for all their pollution permits.
Peter Liese, a German Christian Democrat MEP who helped broker the final compromise, said revenues generated from auctioned allowances should not disappear into the general state budget but be earmarked for funding green public transport through lower taxes and research into clean aircraft.
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday July 8, 2008
All airlines flying to and from the EU will be forced to cut their carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 under a compromise deal approved by MEPs today.
But the initial cut will be only 3% of average 2004-06 emission levels, rising to 5% in 2013, and airlines will be handed out 85% of their pollution permits for free. MEPs also dropped earlier plans for intra-EU flights to be affected from 2011.
Even so, angry airlines struggling with higher fuel prices warned that their inclusion within the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS), its flagship mechanism for fighting climate change, would bring extra costs, higher fares and no environmental benefit.
MEPs voted 640 to 30, with 30 abstentions, to endorse a heavily watered down version of proposals first launched by the European commission and due to be rubber-stamped by ministers within the next few weeks.
Their vote could trigger an escalation of a dispute with the US which could seek legal action over the inclusion of non-European airlines within the ETS. MEPs hope a new president in the White House will be more amenable to a global deal on the issue.
Hailing the vote, Stavros Dimas, EU environment commissioner, said greenhouse gas emissions from international air transport were increasing faster than from any other sector in the EU.
They account for only 3% of overall emissions but have grown by 87% since 1990 and could more than double on current trends by 2020. Dimas said someone flying from London to New York and back generates as much CO2 as the average EU citizen does by heating their home for a year.
He held out the threat to deepen the planned emission cuts for aviation and reduce the number of free permits from as early as 2013 under an ETS review he is now undertaking. But smaller airlines will be exempt and fast-growing start-ups will be given free permits.
Friends of the Earth Europe aviation campaigner Richard Dyer said the deal was "so weak it will have little impact on the rocketing growth in CO2 pollution from flying" and the EU should press for international aviation and shipping to be included in the next (post-2012) phase of the UN climate change treaty. He said airlines should bid for all their pollution permits.
Peter Liese, a German Christian Democrat MEP who helped broker the final compromise, said revenues generated from auctioned allowances should not disappear into the general state budget but be earmarked for funding green public transport through lower taxes and research into clean aircraft.
Fuel prices force airlines into action
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
Published: July 8, 2008
ROME: The airline industry is traditionally seen as a bad actor in the global emissions debate. Air travel is by far the fastest-growing source of global greenhouse gas emissions, still rising by about 5 percent a year.
Want to reduce your personal carbon footprint? A round-trip flight for a family of four from London to Los Angeles generates more carbon emissions than commuting by car for a year. It is, indeed, a worrisome and hard-to-resolve trajectory.
But it's summertime, people are flying, so here's a bit of light at the end of this tunnel: A recent report by the international economic research group Innovest describes how the airline industry is now "leading efforts to develop sustainable biofuels," and it points to some level of success.
"The prospects for this type of fuel are very long term, but in the midterm (next generation of airliners) biofuel and regular or synthetic fuel blends are likely, with potential for a dramatic reduction in emissions," the report said.
Given the price of oil, the industry's interest in finding alternatives to fossil fuels, of course, makes sense - the goal not being just greener aircraft but also the industry's survival. With oil prices doubling in the past year, fuel now accounts for 30 percent to 50 percent of airlines' costs.
If governments insist that airline ticket prices reflect the "cost" of airplane emissions into the atmosphere - as the EU plans - fares could skyrocket to a point where they were unaffordable. If the full costs of carbon emissions are factored into the equation, the price of a three-hour flight could rise by $756, the Innovest report said. With that, few airlines would manage to stay in business.
Necessity, then, is the mother of invention.
"If there ever was an incentive to create alternative fuels, $140-a-barrel oil is it," said Paul Charles, communications director of Virgin Atlantic, though he added that the "environmental issue is still the primary incentive."
Charles predicted that given the fast pace of current research, "it is likely that within five years you'll have commercial jets flying on algae - it will be as quick and dramatic as the shift to digital TV."
A number of airlines and aircraft makers are furiously exploring alternative fuels. Virgin led the pack, flying a jumbo jet from London to Amsterdam this year with one of its four tanks using biofuel, in this case made of a blend of coconut oil and nuts. Other airlines have followed.
This month, Rob Fyfe, the chief executive of Air New Zealand, committed to running its fleet on 10 percent biofuels by 2013. He further vowed to use only biofuels made from nonfood plants, focusing on importing fuel from jatropha plantations in Africa and India. Jatropha is a plant that grows in semiarid regions, and its oil can be converted into jet fuel.
Biofuels "present particularly exciting opportunities when placed against a backdrop of jet fuel prices that have recently been as high as $174 a barrel," Fyfe said.
Japan Airlines says it will run a flight partly on biofuel by next spring.
Sébastien Remy, who is in charge of Airbus's alternative fuel program, predicts that 25 percent of jet fuel will be derived from nonpetroleum sources by 2025. In the past few years, research has shown that jet engines today can run on properly refined biofuels, so no mechanical modifications are essential.
Industry experts are pinning their hope on oil from algae, because it is cheap and easily convertible into a fuel that can be used in a plane. Companies like Boeing and Chevron, as well as the U.S. military, are working on the technology.
A couple of years ago most airlines were combating climate change with public relations. And public relations is certainly still a problem. This past week, the British Advertising Standards Agency criticized EasyJet for claiming that its flights generated 22 percent less emissions than traditional airlines.
But sky-high fuel prices are moving polluters to genuine action. Fuel prices are the best friend the environment has these days. Are the airlines' efforts science fiction?
Electric cars and planes powered by algae fuel are technically possible if the research, money and will are there. So now with oil prices high and carbon taxes on the horizon, the industry should be able to find alternatives that will insure its survival, and spare the environment as well.
Published: July 8, 2008
ROME: The airline industry is traditionally seen as a bad actor in the global emissions debate. Air travel is by far the fastest-growing source of global greenhouse gas emissions, still rising by about 5 percent a year.
Want to reduce your personal carbon footprint? A round-trip flight for a family of four from London to Los Angeles generates more carbon emissions than commuting by car for a year. It is, indeed, a worrisome and hard-to-resolve trajectory.
But it's summertime, people are flying, so here's a bit of light at the end of this tunnel: A recent report by the international economic research group Innovest describes how the airline industry is now "leading efforts to develop sustainable biofuels," and it points to some level of success.
"The prospects for this type of fuel are very long term, but in the midterm (next generation of airliners) biofuel and regular or synthetic fuel blends are likely, with potential for a dramatic reduction in emissions," the report said.
Given the price of oil, the industry's interest in finding alternatives to fossil fuels, of course, makes sense - the goal not being just greener aircraft but also the industry's survival. With oil prices doubling in the past year, fuel now accounts for 30 percent to 50 percent of airlines' costs.
If governments insist that airline ticket prices reflect the "cost" of airplane emissions into the atmosphere - as the EU plans - fares could skyrocket to a point where they were unaffordable. If the full costs of carbon emissions are factored into the equation, the price of a three-hour flight could rise by $756, the Innovest report said. With that, few airlines would manage to stay in business.
Necessity, then, is the mother of invention.
"If there ever was an incentive to create alternative fuels, $140-a-barrel oil is it," said Paul Charles, communications director of Virgin Atlantic, though he added that the "environmental issue is still the primary incentive."
Charles predicted that given the fast pace of current research, "it is likely that within five years you'll have commercial jets flying on algae - it will be as quick and dramatic as the shift to digital TV."
A number of airlines and aircraft makers are furiously exploring alternative fuels. Virgin led the pack, flying a jumbo jet from London to Amsterdam this year with one of its four tanks using biofuel, in this case made of a blend of coconut oil and nuts. Other airlines have followed.
This month, Rob Fyfe, the chief executive of Air New Zealand, committed to running its fleet on 10 percent biofuels by 2013. He further vowed to use only biofuels made from nonfood plants, focusing on importing fuel from jatropha plantations in Africa and India. Jatropha is a plant that grows in semiarid regions, and its oil can be converted into jet fuel.
Biofuels "present particularly exciting opportunities when placed against a backdrop of jet fuel prices that have recently been as high as $174 a barrel," Fyfe said.
Japan Airlines says it will run a flight partly on biofuel by next spring.
Sébastien Remy, who is in charge of Airbus's alternative fuel program, predicts that 25 percent of jet fuel will be derived from nonpetroleum sources by 2025. In the past few years, research has shown that jet engines today can run on properly refined biofuels, so no mechanical modifications are essential.
Industry experts are pinning their hope on oil from algae, because it is cheap and easily convertible into a fuel that can be used in a plane. Companies like Boeing and Chevron, as well as the U.S. military, are working on the technology.
A couple of years ago most airlines were combating climate change with public relations. And public relations is certainly still a problem. This past week, the British Advertising Standards Agency criticized EasyJet for claiming that its flights generated 22 percent less emissions than traditional airlines.
But sky-high fuel prices are moving polluters to genuine action. Fuel prices are the best friend the environment has these days. Are the airlines' efforts science fiction?
Electric cars and planes powered by algae fuel are technically possible if the research, money and will are there. So now with oil prices high and carbon taxes on the horizon, the industry should be able to find alternatives that will insure its survival, and spare the environment as well.
MEPs vote to increase cost of European flights
By Paul Eccleston
Last Updated: 9:02PM BST 08/07/2008
A family of four could face paying almost £160 more for holiday flights after the European Parliament voted to impose pollution limits on the airline industry, it is claimed.
The European Commission said the decision was a big step in helping meet the EU's legal obligation under the Kyoto Climate Agreement to cut its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.
But it acknowledged this would mean a rise in fares.
"Fully passing on costs to customers would mean that by 2020 airline tickets for an average return journey could increase by 4.60 euros (£3.65) to 39.6 euros (£31.4) depending on the journey length," said the Commission's impact assessment report on the plan.
But Michael O'Leary boss of Europe's biggest budget airline Ryanair said it would add up to £39 to the cost of an airline ticket without providing any environmental benefits.
This would be equivalent to an extra £156 for return flights for a couple with two children.
The move, which for the first time will bring airlines within Europe's CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), also infuriated US officials and US-based airlines who said the EU had no right to force airlines using its airspace to abide by the ETS rules.
From January 1 2012 all airlines flying in and out of European Union countries or flying within the EU, will be subject to CO2 limits.
The biggest industrial polluters, mainly the big power companies, are already part of the ETS under which they are allocated emissions limits set for their sector. If they exceed their CO2 limit they have to buy extra permits to compensate for the pollution they cause. If they keep below their limit they are allowed to sell on their unused allowance.
But until now aviation has been kept out of the scheme. The industry accounts for only an estimated three per cent of total emissions they have grown by almost 90 per cent since 1990 and environmental groups have been pressing for them to be included.
Aircraft emissions will be capped at 97% of their average 2004-2006 level, decreasing to 95% from 2013, subject to review.
Airlines will receive 85% of their emission allowances for free in 2012, but the percentage could be reduced from 2013, again, subject to review closer to the time. The remaining 15% of allowances will be auctioned.
Some flights will be exempt from pollution limits - light aircraft (take-off weight under 5.7 tonnes), emergency services, Customs and military flights, UN-mandated humanitarian flights, research flights and all flights run by small airline companies producing "low" emissions (less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 a year).
But official royal and Government flights will be part of the scheme: the agreement makes clear that pollution limits will apply equally to air travel "performed exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of a reigning monarch and immediate family, heads of state, heads of government and government ministers, of an EU member state." Small jets favoured by businessmen and rocks stars are also included.
MEPs voted 640 to 30 for the scheme, which also includes none-EU airlines but it will have to be ratified by the 27 EU member states.
The European Regions Airline Association (ERA) said the cost of emissions trading for European airlines would be £5.6B in the first two years of the scheme and £72B over the 10 years to 2022.
"This legislation will impose massive additional costs on a transport industry that already has to bear unprecedented fuel costs." said ERA director general Mike Ambrose.
Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary, a bitter critic of environmental policies affecting the airline industry, said:
"It is extraordinary that a bunch of MEPs who swan around between Strasbourg and Brussels, enjoy huge expenses and flight benefits, would vote to increase taxation on Europe's consumers in a measure which won't have any effect at all on the environment, but will further damage European airlines at a time when oil is already 140 dollars a barrel.
"These clowns in the European Parliament seem determined to destroy the European airline industry with these discriminatory taxation penalties. When aviation accounts for less than 2% of Europe's Co2 emissions, and when airlines like Ryanair have invested heavily in new aircraft to reduce our emissions per passenger by 50%, there is no justification for this tax theft by the European Union."
The move was welcomed by the environment lobby but Friends of the Earth said emissions at 97% of 2004-2006 levels in 2012 would still leave CO2 output from aircraft 90% higher than 1990 levels while EU climate change commitments required an actual cut of 8% on 1990 levels.
And giving away 85% of the emissions trading "permits" for free would mean unjustified windfall profits for the airlines.
Liberal Democrat MEP and environment spokesman Chris Davies said MEPs had responded to the "spectacular" pace of air traffic growth, adding: "Air travel across Europe has never been so cheap as it is now, but the real price will be paid by future generations if we don't apply pressure to curb the rise in carbon emissions."
Last Updated: 9:02PM BST 08/07/2008
A family of four could face paying almost £160 more for holiday flights after the European Parliament voted to impose pollution limits on the airline industry, it is claimed.
The European Commission said the decision was a big step in helping meet the EU's legal obligation under the Kyoto Climate Agreement to cut its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.
But it acknowledged this would mean a rise in fares.
"Fully passing on costs to customers would mean that by 2020 airline tickets for an average return journey could increase by 4.60 euros (£3.65) to 39.6 euros (£31.4) depending on the journey length," said the Commission's impact assessment report on the plan.
But Michael O'Leary boss of Europe's biggest budget airline Ryanair said it would add up to £39 to the cost of an airline ticket without providing any environmental benefits.
This would be equivalent to an extra £156 for return flights for a couple with two children.
The move, which for the first time will bring airlines within Europe's CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), also infuriated US officials and US-based airlines who said the EU had no right to force airlines using its airspace to abide by the ETS rules.
From January 1 2012 all airlines flying in and out of European Union countries or flying within the EU, will be subject to CO2 limits.
The biggest industrial polluters, mainly the big power companies, are already part of the ETS under which they are allocated emissions limits set for their sector. If they exceed their CO2 limit they have to buy extra permits to compensate for the pollution they cause. If they keep below their limit they are allowed to sell on their unused allowance.
But until now aviation has been kept out of the scheme. The industry accounts for only an estimated three per cent of total emissions they have grown by almost 90 per cent since 1990 and environmental groups have been pressing for them to be included.
Aircraft emissions will be capped at 97% of their average 2004-2006 level, decreasing to 95% from 2013, subject to review.
Airlines will receive 85% of their emission allowances for free in 2012, but the percentage could be reduced from 2013, again, subject to review closer to the time. The remaining 15% of allowances will be auctioned.
Some flights will be exempt from pollution limits - light aircraft (take-off weight under 5.7 tonnes), emergency services, Customs and military flights, UN-mandated humanitarian flights, research flights and all flights run by small airline companies producing "low" emissions (less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 a year).
But official royal and Government flights will be part of the scheme: the agreement makes clear that pollution limits will apply equally to air travel "performed exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of a reigning monarch and immediate family, heads of state, heads of government and government ministers, of an EU member state." Small jets favoured by businessmen and rocks stars are also included.
MEPs voted 640 to 30 for the scheme, which also includes none-EU airlines but it will have to be ratified by the 27 EU member states.
The European Regions Airline Association (ERA) said the cost of emissions trading for European airlines would be £5.6B in the first two years of the scheme and £72B over the 10 years to 2022.
"This legislation will impose massive additional costs on a transport industry that already has to bear unprecedented fuel costs." said ERA director general Mike Ambrose.
Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary, a bitter critic of environmental policies affecting the airline industry, said:
"It is extraordinary that a bunch of MEPs who swan around between Strasbourg and Brussels, enjoy huge expenses and flight benefits, would vote to increase taxation on Europe's consumers in a measure which won't have any effect at all on the environment, but will further damage European airlines at a time when oil is already 140 dollars a barrel.
"These clowns in the European Parliament seem determined to destroy the European airline industry with these discriminatory taxation penalties. When aviation accounts for less than 2% of Europe's Co2 emissions, and when airlines like Ryanair have invested heavily in new aircraft to reduce our emissions per passenger by 50%, there is no justification for this tax theft by the European Union."
The move was welcomed by the environment lobby but Friends of the Earth said emissions at 97% of 2004-2006 levels in 2012 would still leave CO2 output from aircraft 90% higher than 1990 levels while EU climate change commitments required an actual cut of 8% on 1990 levels.
And giving away 85% of the emissions trading "permits" for free would mean unjustified windfall profits for the airlines.
Liberal Democrat MEP and environment spokesman Chris Davies said MEPs had responded to the "spectacular" pace of air traffic growth, adding: "Air travel across Europe has never been so cheap as it is now, but the real price will be paid by future generations if we don't apply pressure to curb the rise in carbon emissions."
Gordon Brown fears backbench revolt over climate change bill
By Urmee Khan and James Kirkup
Last Updated: 9:42PM BST 08/07/2008
Gordon Brown is facing another significant backbench revolt over his climate change policy, it has emerged.
More than 80 MPs are said to be backing an amendment to the Government's Climate Change Bill to make cuts to greenhouse gases far more drastic.
The Bill currently calls for a legally enforceable 60 per cent cut in UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
However, the rebel MPs say it should be raised to 80 per cent as the 60 per cent goal will not do enough to control global warming.
The Prime Minister has handed the issue to an independent Climate Change Committee, headed by former CBI chief Lord Adair Turner, who is not expected to report until December.
By then the Climate Change Bill is likely to have passed into law.
The rebels want the Government to either pre-empt Lord Turner's committee and put the 80 per cent goal in the bill now or persuade the peer to report earlier.
The Climate Change Bill completes its detailed committee stage on Tuesday.
The rebel amendment, backed by 85 Labour MPs, was debated a fortnight ago and defeated by the government-dominated committee.
However rebels say their amendment is a marker and are threatening to force a vote on the floor of the Commons at report stage in October or November, if the government does not act.
The amendment Bill is not likely to be debated until after the summer recess, and the Tories may abstain, sparing Mr Brown a defeat.
However there are fears within the government that the Tories could harden up their position and back the rebels target making a government defeat more likely.
Last Updated: 9:42PM BST 08/07/2008
Gordon Brown is facing another significant backbench revolt over his climate change policy, it has emerged.
More than 80 MPs are said to be backing an amendment to the Government's Climate Change Bill to make cuts to greenhouse gases far more drastic.
The Bill currently calls for a legally enforceable 60 per cent cut in UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
However, the rebel MPs say it should be raised to 80 per cent as the 60 per cent goal will not do enough to control global warming.
The Prime Minister has handed the issue to an independent Climate Change Committee, headed by former CBI chief Lord Adair Turner, who is not expected to report until December.
By then the Climate Change Bill is likely to have passed into law.
The rebels want the Government to either pre-empt Lord Turner's committee and put the 80 per cent goal in the bill now or persuade the peer to report earlier.
The Climate Change Bill completes its detailed committee stage on Tuesday.
The rebel amendment, backed by 85 Labour MPs, was debated a fortnight ago and defeated by the government-dominated committee.
However rebels say their amendment is a marker and are threatening to force a vote on the floor of the Commons at report stage in October or November, if the government does not act.
The amendment Bill is not likely to be debated until after the summer recess, and the Tories may abstain, sparing Mr Brown a defeat.
However there are fears within the government that the Tories could harden up their position and back the rebels target making a government defeat more likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
