The Associated Press
Published: August 11, 2008
DETROIT: Hybrid car owners are some of the most loyal in the U.S. market, with nearly half purchasing a vehicle of the same make when they buy another car, according to a study released Monday by an automotive data company.
Forty-seven percent of hybrid buyers buy a vehicle of the same make, compared with 35 percent of buyers overall, according to Experian Automotive, a division of global information provider Experian, whose North American headquarters are in Costa Mesa, California. Eighteen percent of hybrid car buyers even buy the same model, compared with 12 percent overall.
Scott Waldron, president of Experian Automotive, said the results show hybrid manufacturers have a clear advantage in attracting and maintaining customers. That's critical, since overall loyalty to car companies has been steadily slipping over the last decade. One percentage point in loyalty can transfer to thousands of sales, he said.
Toyota Prius owners were the most loyal to the vehicle model among hybrid buyers, with 25 percent returning to buy another Prius. Toyota Motor Corp.'s hybrid owners also were the most loyal when it came to staying with the Toyota make. Fifty-one percent chose another Toyota, compared with the Toyota make's overall loyalty rate of 44 percent.
Full-size pickup truck buyers remained the most loyal in terms of choosing a new vehicle from the same segment, even if it wasn't from the same manufacturer, according to the study. Thirty-three percent of pickup buyers chose another full-size pickup, while 25 percent of hybrid car buyers bought another hybrid. The average loyalty rate within a segment was 21 percent.
Today in Business with Reuters
Experian examined U.S. vehicle sales from January 2007 to March 2008 for the study. The company said hybrids are the fastest-growing segment on the market, up 130 percent from 2005 through the first six months of this year.
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
By George, there must be another expert ...
Is the environmental campaigner and fierce critic of capitalism George Monbiot the most feted columnist in Britain?
Last Tuesday, the decks were cleared at BBC2's Newsnight so that The Guardian's colossus could totter down Mount Olympus and inform us he had had a change of heart. It was the first item, and we were all agog.
In fact, George's announcement was not obviously earth-shattering. It seemed he had withdrawn his opposition to nuclear power stations. He did not love them, but he was no longer cut up about them. This shift in his views was nonetheless hailed by presenter Gavin Esler as a major development in contemporary thought.
The next morning George was given star-billing by Radio 4's Today programme, as he defended the green movement against the charge (pretty fair, I would have thought) made by Julie Burchill that it is predominantly middle-class, and lacks working-class support.
What is it about George? In a recent interview in this paper, Mark Damazer, controller of Radio 4, referred to the "Radio 4 rep company" – the usual suspects who crop up as guests across the schedule. Perhaps George has a sleeping bag at the BBC, and they keep the fridges stuffed with yoghurts and pulses lest he go hungry.
That reminds me of an experience I once had with George on the train back to Oxford. Or was it a dream? I can see him removing his socks, and putting his splendidly bony feet on the opposite seat. He laboriously reaches for various food containers full of rice and yoghurt, and munches his way through Slough and Reading.
I am perfectly willing to concede that George is a national treasure whose views deserve airing. But I wonder whether there aren't other environmentalists – or antis – who might occasionally be given a shot.
Last Tuesday, the decks were cleared at BBC2's Newsnight so that The Guardian's colossus could totter down Mount Olympus and inform us he had had a change of heart. It was the first item, and we were all agog.
In fact, George's announcement was not obviously earth-shattering. It seemed he had withdrawn his opposition to nuclear power stations. He did not love them, but he was no longer cut up about them. This shift in his views was nonetheless hailed by presenter Gavin Esler as a major development in contemporary thought.
The next morning George was given star-billing by Radio 4's Today programme, as he defended the green movement against the charge (pretty fair, I would have thought) made by Julie Burchill that it is predominantly middle-class, and lacks working-class support.
What is it about George? In a recent interview in this paper, Mark Damazer, controller of Radio 4, referred to the "Radio 4 rep company" – the usual suspects who crop up as guests across the schedule. Perhaps George has a sleeping bag at the BBC, and they keep the fridges stuffed with yoghurts and pulses lest he go hungry.
That reminds me of an experience I once had with George on the train back to Oxford. Or was it a dream? I can see him removing his socks, and putting his splendidly bony feet on the opposite seat. He laboriously reaches for various food containers full of rice and yoghurt, and munches his way through Slough and Reading.
I am perfectly willing to concede that George is a national treasure whose views deserve airing. But I wonder whether there aren't other environmentalists – or antis – who might occasionally be given a shot.
Giant U.S. retailers look to sun for energy savings
By Stephanie Rosenbloom
Published: August 11, 2008
Retailers are typically obsessed with what to put under their roofs, not on them. Yet the biggest store chains in the United States are coming to see their immense, flat roofs as an untapped resource.
In recent months, chains including Wal-Mart Stores, Kohl's, Safeway and Whole Foods Market have installed solar panels on roofs of their stores to generate electricity on a large scale. One reason they are racing is to beat a Dec. 31 deadline to gain tax advantages for these projects.
So far, most chains have outfitted fewer than 10 percent of their stores. Over the long run, assuming Congress renews a favorable tax provision and more states offer incentives, the chains promise a solar construction program that would ultimately put panels atop almost every big store in the country.
The trend, while not entirely new, is accelerating as the chains seize a chance to bolster their environmental credentials by cutting back on their use of electricity from coal.
"It's very clear that green energy is now front and center in the minds of the business sector," said Daniel Kammen, an energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. "Not only will you see panels on the roofs of your local stores, but I suspect very soon retailers will have stickers in their windows saying, 'This is a green energy store.' "
In the coming months, 85 Kohl's stores will get solar panels; 43 already have them. "We want to keep pushing as many as we possibly can," said Ken Bonning, executive vice president for logistics at Kohl's.
Macy's, which has solar panels atop 18 stores, plans to install them on another 40 by the end of this year. Safeway is aiming to put panels atop 23 stores. And other chains, including Whole Foods Market, BJ's Wholesale Club and REI, the purveyor of outdoor goods, are planning projects of their own.
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, has 17 stores and distribution centers with solar panels in operation or in the testing phase. It plans to add them soon to five more stores. People at the chain are considering a far larger program that would put panels and other renewable technologies at hundreds of stores.
"It's going to be the Wal-Marts of the world that will buy these things over acres and make a difference," said Roger Little, chairman and chief executive of the Spire Corporation, a Boston company that provides solar equipment.
Analysts are not sure how much power the rooftop projects could ultimately produce, but they say it could be enough to help shave total electricity demand. In many communities, stores are among the biggest energy users. Depending on location and weather, the solar panels generate 10 to 40 percent of the power a store needs.
If Wal-Mart eventually covered the roofs of all its Sam's Club and Wal-Mart locations with solar panels, figures from the company show that the resulting solar acreage would roughly equal the size of Manhattan, an island of 23 square miles.
Booming demand in recent years has driven up the price of solar panels, and analysts say it costs far more to generate electricity from solar energy than from coal.
Coal generation costs about 6 cents for a kilowatt hour, which is enough electricity to run a hair dryer for an hour. Natural gas generation costs about 9 cents a kilowatt hour, said Reese Tisdale, a senior analyst with the consulting firm Emerging Energy Research. In comparison, "best case" for power from solar panels is about 25 to 30 cents a kilowatt hour, he said.
But retailers believe that they can achieve economies of scale. With coal and electricity prices rising, they are also betting that solar power will become more competitive, especially if new policies addressing global warming limit the emissions from coal plants.
Retailers, hoping to create a bigger market and positioning themselves at the forefront of a national shift toward renewable energy, are encouraging one another to join the bandwagon.
"We're hoping that our purchases along with some other retailers will help bring the technology costs down," said Kathy Loftus, who is in charge of energy and other initiatives at Whole Foods Market.
Most of the efforts so far are in California, New Jersey and Connecticut, states that offer generous incentives. Executives say they would like to convert many more. How quickly they can do so depends on government policy because retailers rely on tax incentives to offset the cost.
Corporate officials describe a U.S. tax credit for renewable energy, one that Congress has let expire and then renewed several times, as particularly important. A congressional deadlock over offshore oil drilling has held up legislation that would renew the credit for next year.
"Every project that starts development has to be finished by Dec. 31 or you lose tax equity advantage, and nobody's willing to take that risk," said George Waidelich, vice president for energy operations at Safeway. "You're talking about millions of dollars."
Retailers are fast becoming energy experts. They are experimenting with traditional solar panels, a new type of thin solar panel and ground-mounted tracking systems that move with the sun.
They are also combining those systems with other rooftop technologies like skylights and solar water heaters.
"Solar has become part of the kit that we think about when we open a store," said Sharon Im-Lee, REI's energy manager.
American retailers are following the lead of stores in Europe, which are much further along. Store-roof projects are so numerous in parts of Germany that they can be spotted in satellite photos. Government subsidies there, however, have lasted for years.
"In Germany, there are none of the concerns you find in the United States about whether support will be around next year," said Jenny Chase, an energy analyst in London.
Retailers in the United States tend to buy their own solar-power systems, at $4 million to $6 million for a store the size of a Wal-Mart, or enter into an agreement with a utility company that pays the up-front costs and then gives the store a break on power bills — an approach that appeals to big chains.
"It really helps make it economical for the retailer," said Kim Saylors-Laster, Wal-Mart's vice president for energy.
Retailers are also looking at other ways to extend their use of renewable energy by testing technologies like wind turbines and reflective white roofs, which keep buildings cooler in warm weather.
Bernard Sosnick, an analyst with Gilford Securities who has examined Wal-Mart's plans, said the day might come when people can pull their electric cars up to a store and recharge them with power from the roof or even from wind turbines in the parking lot.
"It's not as over the horizon as it might seem," he said.
James Kanter contributed reporting.
Published: August 11, 2008
Retailers are typically obsessed with what to put under their roofs, not on them. Yet the biggest store chains in the United States are coming to see their immense, flat roofs as an untapped resource.
In recent months, chains including Wal-Mart Stores, Kohl's, Safeway and Whole Foods Market have installed solar panels on roofs of their stores to generate electricity on a large scale. One reason they are racing is to beat a Dec. 31 deadline to gain tax advantages for these projects.
So far, most chains have outfitted fewer than 10 percent of their stores. Over the long run, assuming Congress renews a favorable tax provision and more states offer incentives, the chains promise a solar construction program that would ultimately put panels atop almost every big store in the country.
The trend, while not entirely new, is accelerating as the chains seize a chance to bolster their environmental credentials by cutting back on their use of electricity from coal.
"It's very clear that green energy is now front and center in the minds of the business sector," said Daniel Kammen, an energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. "Not only will you see panels on the roofs of your local stores, but I suspect very soon retailers will have stickers in their windows saying, 'This is a green energy store.' "
In the coming months, 85 Kohl's stores will get solar panels; 43 already have them. "We want to keep pushing as many as we possibly can," said Ken Bonning, executive vice president for logistics at Kohl's.
Macy's, which has solar panels atop 18 stores, plans to install them on another 40 by the end of this year. Safeway is aiming to put panels atop 23 stores. And other chains, including Whole Foods Market, BJ's Wholesale Club and REI, the purveyor of outdoor goods, are planning projects of their own.
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, has 17 stores and distribution centers with solar panels in operation or in the testing phase. It plans to add them soon to five more stores. People at the chain are considering a far larger program that would put panels and other renewable technologies at hundreds of stores.
"It's going to be the Wal-Marts of the world that will buy these things over acres and make a difference," said Roger Little, chairman and chief executive of the Spire Corporation, a Boston company that provides solar equipment.
Analysts are not sure how much power the rooftop projects could ultimately produce, but they say it could be enough to help shave total electricity demand. In many communities, stores are among the biggest energy users. Depending on location and weather, the solar panels generate 10 to 40 percent of the power a store needs.
If Wal-Mart eventually covered the roofs of all its Sam's Club and Wal-Mart locations with solar panels, figures from the company show that the resulting solar acreage would roughly equal the size of Manhattan, an island of 23 square miles.
Booming demand in recent years has driven up the price of solar panels, and analysts say it costs far more to generate electricity from solar energy than from coal.
Coal generation costs about 6 cents for a kilowatt hour, which is enough electricity to run a hair dryer for an hour. Natural gas generation costs about 9 cents a kilowatt hour, said Reese Tisdale, a senior analyst with the consulting firm Emerging Energy Research. In comparison, "best case" for power from solar panels is about 25 to 30 cents a kilowatt hour, he said.
But retailers believe that they can achieve economies of scale. With coal and electricity prices rising, they are also betting that solar power will become more competitive, especially if new policies addressing global warming limit the emissions from coal plants.
Retailers, hoping to create a bigger market and positioning themselves at the forefront of a national shift toward renewable energy, are encouraging one another to join the bandwagon.
"We're hoping that our purchases along with some other retailers will help bring the technology costs down," said Kathy Loftus, who is in charge of energy and other initiatives at Whole Foods Market.
Most of the efforts so far are in California, New Jersey and Connecticut, states that offer generous incentives. Executives say they would like to convert many more. How quickly they can do so depends on government policy because retailers rely on tax incentives to offset the cost.
Corporate officials describe a U.S. tax credit for renewable energy, one that Congress has let expire and then renewed several times, as particularly important. A congressional deadlock over offshore oil drilling has held up legislation that would renew the credit for next year.
"Every project that starts development has to be finished by Dec. 31 or you lose tax equity advantage, and nobody's willing to take that risk," said George Waidelich, vice president for energy operations at Safeway. "You're talking about millions of dollars."
Retailers are fast becoming energy experts. They are experimenting with traditional solar panels, a new type of thin solar panel and ground-mounted tracking systems that move with the sun.
They are also combining those systems with other rooftop technologies like skylights and solar water heaters.
"Solar has become part of the kit that we think about when we open a store," said Sharon Im-Lee, REI's energy manager.
American retailers are following the lead of stores in Europe, which are much further along. Store-roof projects are so numerous in parts of Germany that they can be spotted in satellite photos. Government subsidies there, however, have lasted for years.
"In Germany, there are none of the concerns you find in the United States about whether support will be around next year," said Jenny Chase, an energy analyst in London.
Retailers in the United States tend to buy their own solar-power systems, at $4 million to $6 million for a store the size of a Wal-Mart, or enter into an agreement with a utility company that pays the up-front costs and then gives the store a break on power bills — an approach that appeals to big chains.
"It really helps make it economical for the retailer," said Kim Saylors-Laster, Wal-Mart's vice president for energy.
Retailers are also looking at other ways to extend their use of renewable energy by testing technologies like wind turbines and reflective white roofs, which keep buildings cooler in warm weather.
Bernard Sosnick, an analyst with Gilford Securities who has examined Wal-Mart's plans, said the day might come when people can pull their electric cars up to a store and recharge them with power from the roof or even from wind turbines in the parking lot.
"It's not as over the horizon as it might seem," he said.
James Kanter contributed reporting.
Recyclers are cashing in on the fortune in your bin
Jill Sherman and Lewis Smith
Householders are missing a chance to share in the results of huge profits generated by the soaring value of recyclable domestic rubbish, The Times has learnt.
The price of recyclable plastic, newspaper and cardboard has doubled in 18 months, giving councils a source of “green gold” that could be spent on improving local services. Many are locked into 20 to 30-year contracts with recycling companies and are unable to cash in on the higher cost of plastic and copper.
As the cost of commodities rises it increasingly makes sense for manufacturers to retrieve materials from rubbish instead of buying them new. Town hall leaders have toldThe Times that the sector is missing out on millions of pounds that would come from trading commodities themselves or negotiating better contracts. They said that such profits could go to improving local services and even cutting bills.
Such is the concern over the complicated waste contracts that the Audit Commission is looking at the length and cost of the deals as well as the financial risks. The value of raw materials and the inequity of council returns are being examined as part of the inquiry. It reports next month.
Local authorities such as Kent County Council admit that they could make up to £1 million a year by selling recyclable materials if the 25-year deal could be renegotiated. Westminster council, which has a seven-year contract to share profits as prices rise, believes that town halls are sitting on a fortune. “Where there’s muck there’s brass,” Mark Banks, Westminster’s waste strategy manager, said. Any profit made will be ploughed back into services or to lower council tax rises, he said.
This year alone the rising cost of oil – used to make plastic – has pushed prices of domestic rubbish even higher. The sale price of mixed plastic bottles has nearly tripled to £230 a tonne in the past six months. Six years ago it was £10 per tonne.
With plastic processing advances in coming months, yoghurt pots, bags, food packaging and any plastic containers will be even more sought after as manufacturers recycle plastic to avoid buying oil. Newspapers and cardboard now sell for £100 a tonne, double what they were fetching early last year. Metal from cans was £80 a tonne at the start of 2007 and has risen to £200. A tonne of copper now sells for more than £3,000, compared with a tenth of that in 2002.
The sharply rising prices give councils an added incentive to boost recycling – apart from having to meet EU landfill targets – and many are keen to cash in. But the fixed-term deals negotiated by many authorities, set at the prices of recyclable materials several years ago, allow the contractor to reap the reward.
Paul Bettison, the chairman of the Local Government Association’s environment board, said that councils had tightly judged decisions: “Do you lock the contractor into what appears to be a reasonable price and lock them in as long as possible or do you secure a shorter contract and risk seeing the price dive? Recyclates go down as well as up – a bit like investments.”
He admitted that in a few years, recycled goods could be traded on the futures market like other commodities. “The markets will be making money out of the sale of recyclables and some councils will too. Not all are negotiating long-term deals.”
Mr Bettinson wants the Government to make plain that councils are sitting on a goldmine. “We need to get the message to our authorities and say, ‘Let’s see what we can get out of this without taking silly risks.’ ” Mr Banks said: “Many councils locked into fixed-price contracts may be missing out on tens of thousands of pounds of revenue from rising prices of recyclable materials. Westminster takes a commercial approach to contracts so that we benefit in rising market situations but with a safety net in place when markets inevitably turn.”
CASE STUDY: ‘We could be making £1m a year profit’
A waste disposal deal that a decade ago looked like good business is now regarded by Kent County Council as a costly mistake.
Prices of recycled materials have risen so sharply that less than halfway into the 25-year deal the council is attempting to renegotiate with the contractor.
“At the time it looked a good deal – ten years later I would say never again,” said Keith Ferrin, the council’s cabinet member for environmental and waste services. “If I could get out of the long-term contract I have inherited I would do that.”
Under the agreement the private company was to incinerate 320,000 tonnes of waste annually, using a facility that has yet to be opened, but much of the rubbish is now too valuable to burn. Mr Ferrin said that recycling had changed so dramatically that plastic that the council formerly paid to have removed now has businesses clamouring to buy it. Mr Ferrin added that the most serious price increases have been in metals. Copper is 15 times more valuable than it was six years ago. As a consequence, recycling is now regarded as a much better bet than incineration.
“Over the course of a year we could make just under £1 million profit.”
Householders are missing a chance to share in the results of huge profits generated by the soaring value of recyclable domestic rubbish, The Times has learnt.
The price of recyclable plastic, newspaper and cardboard has doubled in 18 months, giving councils a source of “green gold” that could be spent on improving local services. Many are locked into 20 to 30-year contracts with recycling companies and are unable to cash in on the higher cost of plastic and copper.
As the cost of commodities rises it increasingly makes sense for manufacturers to retrieve materials from rubbish instead of buying them new. Town hall leaders have toldThe Times that the sector is missing out on millions of pounds that would come from trading commodities themselves or negotiating better contracts. They said that such profits could go to improving local services and even cutting bills.
Such is the concern over the complicated waste contracts that the Audit Commission is looking at the length and cost of the deals as well as the financial risks. The value of raw materials and the inequity of council returns are being examined as part of the inquiry. It reports next month.
Local authorities such as Kent County Council admit that they could make up to £1 million a year by selling recyclable materials if the 25-year deal could be renegotiated. Westminster council, which has a seven-year contract to share profits as prices rise, believes that town halls are sitting on a fortune. “Where there’s muck there’s brass,” Mark Banks, Westminster’s waste strategy manager, said. Any profit made will be ploughed back into services or to lower council tax rises, he said.
This year alone the rising cost of oil – used to make plastic – has pushed prices of domestic rubbish even higher. The sale price of mixed plastic bottles has nearly tripled to £230 a tonne in the past six months. Six years ago it was £10 per tonne.
With plastic processing advances in coming months, yoghurt pots, bags, food packaging and any plastic containers will be even more sought after as manufacturers recycle plastic to avoid buying oil. Newspapers and cardboard now sell for £100 a tonne, double what they were fetching early last year. Metal from cans was £80 a tonne at the start of 2007 and has risen to £200. A tonne of copper now sells for more than £3,000, compared with a tenth of that in 2002.
The sharply rising prices give councils an added incentive to boost recycling – apart from having to meet EU landfill targets – and many are keen to cash in. But the fixed-term deals negotiated by many authorities, set at the prices of recyclable materials several years ago, allow the contractor to reap the reward.
Paul Bettison, the chairman of the Local Government Association’s environment board, said that councils had tightly judged decisions: “Do you lock the contractor into what appears to be a reasonable price and lock them in as long as possible or do you secure a shorter contract and risk seeing the price dive? Recyclates go down as well as up – a bit like investments.”
He admitted that in a few years, recycled goods could be traded on the futures market like other commodities. “The markets will be making money out of the sale of recyclables and some councils will too. Not all are negotiating long-term deals.”
Mr Bettinson wants the Government to make plain that councils are sitting on a goldmine. “We need to get the message to our authorities and say, ‘Let’s see what we can get out of this without taking silly risks.’ ” Mr Banks said: “Many councils locked into fixed-price contracts may be missing out on tens of thousands of pounds of revenue from rising prices of recyclable materials. Westminster takes a commercial approach to contracts so that we benefit in rising market situations but with a safety net in place when markets inevitably turn.”
CASE STUDY: ‘We could be making £1m a year profit’
A waste disposal deal that a decade ago looked like good business is now regarded by Kent County Council as a costly mistake.
Prices of recycled materials have risen so sharply that less than halfway into the 25-year deal the council is attempting to renegotiate with the contractor.
“At the time it looked a good deal – ten years later I would say never again,” said Keith Ferrin, the council’s cabinet member for environmental and waste services. “If I could get out of the long-term contract I have inherited I would do that.”
Under the agreement the private company was to incinerate 320,000 tonnes of waste annually, using a facility that has yet to be opened, but much of the rubbish is now too valuable to burn. Mr Ferrin said that recycling had changed so dramatically that plastic that the council formerly paid to have removed now has businesses clamouring to buy it. Mr Ferrin added that the most serious price increases have been in metals. Copper is 15 times more valuable than it was six years ago. As a consequence, recycling is now regarded as a much better bet than incineration.
“Over the course of a year we could make just under £1 million profit.”
Monday, 11 August 2008
Farming in Israel, without a drop to spare
By Andrew Martin
Published: August 10, 2008
THE NEGEV, Israel: A souvenir in the corner of Doron Ovits's office attests to the challenges of farming in Israel.
It's a mangled piece of metal, and Ovits says it came from a rocket that landed in a field recently, lobbed from the nearby Gaza Strip.
But Ovits may have a bigger long-term problem than rockets.
Israel is running short of water. A growing population and rising incomes have increased demand for fresh water, while a four-year drought has created what Shalom Simhon, the agriculture minister, calls "a deep water crisis."
The problem isn't only in Israel. Many arid regions of the globe, including the American West, are dealing with growing populations and shrinking water supplies. Global warming could make matters even worse.
In a speech earlier this year, the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, said the shortage of water could lead to violence.
"Our experiences tell us that environmental stress, due to lack of water, may lead to conflict and would be greater in poor nations," he said. "Population growth will make the problem worse. So will climate change. As the global economy grows, so will its thirst. Many more conflicts lie just over the horizon."
Some economists suggest that arid countries should focus on growing only those crops that give them a competitive advantage, like water-sipping grapes and vegetables, and buy everything else on the world market.
But the recent volatility and high prices in commodity markets have made many world leaders reluctant to rely on global markets. Some oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia are now shopping for farmland in more fertile countries like Sudan and Pakistan.
Others are now more determined than ever to increase their own food production, Israel among them. The question now becomes, at what cost?
"The greatest challenge we face is to try and reduce the dependence on the import of grains, whether by increasing local production or whether by making more efficient use of raw materials in feeding livestock," Simhon said in an e-mail exchange. "This must be done, despite all limitations, mainly the lack of water."
Israel has always been considered to be at the forefront of water efficiency in agriculture. Modern drip irrigation was invented in Israel, and Israeli companies like Netafim now ship drip-irrigation systems all over the world.
Israel has also aggressively pursued the use of treated sewer water for irrigation. Ovits's tomatoes and peppers, for instance, are irrigated with recycled sewer water that he says is "even cleaner than the drinking water."
For all the country's efforts though, it can't control the weather. But Israeli officials say they believe they have a solution.
Agriculture in Israel now consumes 500 million cubic meters of potable water and an equal amount of other types of water, primarily treated sewer water. The country plans to provide a further 200 million cubic meters of recycled sewer water and build more desalination plants to supply even more water.
"If the desalination and recycling projects are implemented, a lack of water is not expected in 2013," Simhon said.
But is such an investment wise for a sector that contributes just 2 percent to the gross domestic product? Some critics suggest that Israel would be better off focusing on conservation.
Others have predicted a dire future. The chief scientist in the environment ministry, Yeshayahu Bar-Or, was quoted in The Economist in June as predicting that global warming would cause 35 percent less rainfall, contamination of underground water sources and pollution of the Sea of Galilee, this nation's largest source of fresh water.
In the Golan Heights, Roni Kedar, 46, hopes his farm can survive long enough for a solution.
As a farmer for Kibbutz Ein Zivan, which abuts the Syrian border, he has spent the last 30 years trying to conserve water while growing grapes, apples, flowers and berries.
HIS crops are irrigated with treated sewer water and rain runoff that is captured in a nearby reservoir, which is now severely depleted. He grows plants that do not require much water and feeds them with irrigation lines that drip water directly onto a plant's roots, minimizing waste. And he is now experimenting in his apple orchards with mesh nets that may further prevent evaporation.
But because of the drought, Israeli officials have cut the kibbutz's annual quota of water. This year's cuts were particularly harsh, to 1 million cubic meters from 1.8 million, forcing Kedar to tear out some of his orchards and rip the fruit off of some of his apple trees, to keep the trees alive but preserve water.
"I don't even like to go there. It's a disaster," he said, motioning toward an apple orchard where the fruit covers the ground. "We just threw everything to the floor and hope that next year is better."
He estimated that he would not harvest a third of his fields because of the water restrictions. "The decision is really simple. You choose the part of your fields that are hardest to get water to and you destroy them."
"We just don't have enough water," he said later. "It's frustrating because you work hard to make it grow. The point is to be big and efficient enough to survive. But right now it's hard."
Published: August 10, 2008
THE NEGEV, Israel: A souvenir in the corner of Doron Ovits's office attests to the challenges of farming in Israel.
It's a mangled piece of metal, and Ovits says it came from a rocket that landed in a field recently, lobbed from the nearby Gaza Strip.
But Ovits may have a bigger long-term problem than rockets.
Israel is running short of water. A growing population and rising incomes have increased demand for fresh water, while a four-year drought has created what Shalom Simhon, the agriculture minister, calls "a deep water crisis."
The problem isn't only in Israel. Many arid regions of the globe, including the American West, are dealing with growing populations and shrinking water supplies. Global warming could make matters even worse.
In a speech earlier this year, the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, said the shortage of water could lead to violence.
"Our experiences tell us that environmental stress, due to lack of water, may lead to conflict and would be greater in poor nations," he said. "Population growth will make the problem worse. So will climate change. As the global economy grows, so will its thirst. Many more conflicts lie just over the horizon."
Some economists suggest that arid countries should focus on growing only those crops that give them a competitive advantage, like water-sipping grapes and vegetables, and buy everything else on the world market.
But the recent volatility and high prices in commodity markets have made many world leaders reluctant to rely on global markets. Some oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia are now shopping for farmland in more fertile countries like Sudan and Pakistan.
Others are now more determined than ever to increase their own food production, Israel among them. The question now becomes, at what cost?
"The greatest challenge we face is to try and reduce the dependence on the import of grains, whether by increasing local production or whether by making more efficient use of raw materials in feeding livestock," Simhon said in an e-mail exchange. "This must be done, despite all limitations, mainly the lack of water."
Israel has always been considered to be at the forefront of water efficiency in agriculture. Modern drip irrigation was invented in Israel, and Israeli companies like Netafim now ship drip-irrigation systems all over the world.
Israel has also aggressively pursued the use of treated sewer water for irrigation. Ovits's tomatoes and peppers, for instance, are irrigated with recycled sewer water that he says is "even cleaner than the drinking water."
For all the country's efforts though, it can't control the weather. But Israeli officials say they believe they have a solution.
Agriculture in Israel now consumes 500 million cubic meters of potable water and an equal amount of other types of water, primarily treated sewer water. The country plans to provide a further 200 million cubic meters of recycled sewer water and build more desalination plants to supply even more water.
"If the desalination and recycling projects are implemented, a lack of water is not expected in 2013," Simhon said.
But is such an investment wise for a sector that contributes just 2 percent to the gross domestic product? Some critics suggest that Israel would be better off focusing on conservation.
Others have predicted a dire future. The chief scientist in the environment ministry, Yeshayahu Bar-Or, was quoted in The Economist in June as predicting that global warming would cause 35 percent less rainfall, contamination of underground water sources and pollution of the Sea of Galilee, this nation's largest source of fresh water.
In the Golan Heights, Roni Kedar, 46, hopes his farm can survive long enough for a solution.
As a farmer for Kibbutz Ein Zivan, which abuts the Syrian border, he has spent the last 30 years trying to conserve water while growing grapes, apples, flowers and berries.
HIS crops are irrigated with treated sewer water and rain runoff that is captured in a nearby reservoir, which is now severely depleted. He grows plants that do not require much water and feeds them with irrigation lines that drip water directly onto a plant's roots, minimizing waste. And he is now experimenting in his apple orchards with mesh nets that may further prevent evaporation.
But because of the drought, Israeli officials have cut the kibbutz's annual quota of water. This year's cuts were particularly harsh, to 1 million cubic meters from 1.8 million, forcing Kedar to tear out some of his orchards and rip the fruit off of some of his apple trees, to keep the trees alive but preserve water.
"I don't even like to go there. It's a disaster," he said, motioning toward an apple orchard where the fruit covers the ground. "We just threw everything to the floor and hope that next year is better."
He estimated that he would not harvest a third of his fields because of the water restrictions. "The decision is really simple. You choose the part of your fields that are hardest to get water to and you destroy them."
"We just don't have enough water," he said later. "It's frustrating because you work hard to make it grow. The point is to be big and efficient enough to survive. But right now it's hard."
Researchers work to turn car's exhaust into power
The Associated Press
Published: August 10, 2008
WARREN, Michigan: The stinky, steaming air that escapes from a car's tailpipe could help us use less gas.
Researchers are competing to meet a challenge from the U.S. Department of Energy: Improve fuel economy 10 percent by converting wasted exhaust heat into energy that can help power the vehicle.
General Motors Corp. is close to reaching the goal, as is a BMW AG supplier working with Ohio State University. Their research into thermoelectrics — the science of using temperature differences to create electricity — couldn't come at a better time as high gas prices accelerate efforts to make vehicles as efficient as possible.
GM researcher Jihui Yang said a metal-plated device that surrounds an exhaust pipe could increase fuel economy in a Chevrolet Suburban by about 5 percent, a 1-mile-per-gallon (.43 kilometer per liter) improvement that would be even greater in a smaller vehicle.
Reaching the goal of a 10 percent improvement would save more than 100 million gallons (378 million liters) of fuel per year in GM vehicles in the U.S. alone.
"The take-home message here is: It's a big deal," Yang said.
The DOE, which is partially funding the auto industry research, helped develop a thermoelectric generator for a heavy duty diesel truck and tested it for the equivalent of 550,000 miles (885,000 kilometers) about 12 years ago.
John Fairbanks, the department's thermoelectrics technology development manager, said the success of that generator justified the competitive search in 2004 for a device that could augment or replace a vehicle's alternator. Three teams were selected to participate in the program, with GM and thermoelectrics manufacturer BSST separately working on cars and a team from Michigan State University focusing on heavy-duty trucks.
Fairbanks said thermoelectric generators should be on the verge of production in about three years.
"It's probably the biggest impact in the shortest time that I can think of," he said.
The technology is similar to what NASA uses to power deep space probes, a perk being it doesn't seem to be susceptible to wear. Probes have used a thermoelectric setup for about 30 years.
Thermoelectric devices can work in two ways — using electricity to provide heating or cooling, or using temperature differences to create electricity.
The second method is Yang's focus, and for good reason.
In an internal combustion engine, only about a quarter of the total energy from gasoline is used to actually turn the wheels, while 40 percent is lost in exhaust heat and 30 percent is lost through cooling the engine. That means about 70 percent of the available energy is wasted, according to GM.
"If I can use some of that heat energy and convert it to electricity, you can improve the overall efficiency," Yang said.
A Suburban produces 15 kilowatts of exhaust heat energy during city driving, which is enough to power three or four air conditioners simultaneously.
But it's not possible to harness all the exhaust heat a vehicle produces, so when the Suburban is cruising about 55 mph (88.5 kph), the generator can produce about 800 watts of power, Yang said. That electricity could go to accessories such as a GPS device, DVD player, radio and possibly the vehicle's water pumps.
Yang's prototype device is to be tested in a Suburban next year. A similar prototype created by Ohio State scientists and BSST should be tested in a BMW in 2009.
The thermoelectric generator works when one side of its metallic material is heated, and excited electrons move to the cold side. The movement creates a current, which electrodes collect and convert to electricity.
While it's not clear how much the device would add to the price of a vehicle, the whole point of the research is to make it cost-effective, Yang said.
"There are several other steps that are required to commercialize the material, but we're cautiously optimistic that these steps can be carried out successfully," said Lon Bell, president of BSST, a subsidiary of Northville-based thermoelectrics supplier Amerigon Inc.
BSST also is working with Ford Motor Co. to develop climate control systems based on thermoelectrics.
Ford wants a system that would target a person's extremities when it's cold or the back of the neck in summer heat, rather than blow out a lot of air to change the temperature of the entire vehicle.
"We think we can make people feel cooler more quickly, feel comfortable more quickly, and that will translate into less power in the central AC system," said Clay Maranville, a Ford senior research scientist.
Honda Motor Co. also has supported university research into thermoelectrics, but a spokesman said the automaker doesn't have its own research program.
Published: August 10, 2008
WARREN, Michigan: The stinky, steaming air that escapes from a car's tailpipe could help us use less gas.
Researchers are competing to meet a challenge from the U.S. Department of Energy: Improve fuel economy 10 percent by converting wasted exhaust heat into energy that can help power the vehicle.
General Motors Corp. is close to reaching the goal, as is a BMW AG supplier working with Ohio State University. Their research into thermoelectrics — the science of using temperature differences to create electricity — couldn't come at a better time as high gas prices accelerate efforts to make vehicles as efficient as possible.
GM researcher Jihui Yang said a metal-plated device that surrounds an exhaust pipe could increase fuel economy in a Chevrolet Suburban by about 5 percent, a 1-mile-per-gallon (.43 kilometer per liter) improvement that would be even greater in a smaller vehicle.
Reaching the goal of a 10 percent improvement would save more than 100 million gallons (378 million liters) of fuel per year in GM vehicles in the U.S. alone.
"The take-home message here is: It's a big deal," Yang said.
The DOE, which is partially funding the auto industry research, helped develop a thermoelectric generator for a heavy duty diesel truck and tested it for the equivalent of 550,000 miles (885,000 kilometers) about 12 years ago.
John Fairbanks, the department's thermoelectrics technology development manager, said the success of that generator justified the competitive search in 2004 for a device that could augment or replace a vehicle's alternator. Three teams were selected to participate in the program, with GM and thermoelectrics manufacturer BSST separately working on cars and a team from Michigan State University focusing on heavy-duty trucks.
Fairbanks said thermoelectric generators should be on the verge of production in about three years.
"It's probably the biggest impact in the shortest time that I can think of," he said.
The technology is similar to what NASA uses to power deep space probes, a perk being it doesn't seem to be susceptible to wear. Probes have used a thermoelectric setup for about 30 years.
Thermoelectric devices can work in two ways — using electricity to provide heating or cooling, or using temperature differences to create electricity.
The second method is Yang's focus, and for good reason.
In an internal combustion engine, only about a quarter of the total energy from gasoline is used to actually turn the wheels, while 40 percent is lost in exhaust heat and 30 percent is lost through cooling the engine. That means about 70 percent of the available energy is wasted, according to GM.
"If I can use some of that heat energy and convert it to electricity, you can improve the overall efficiency," Yang said.
A Suburban produces 15 kilowatts of exhaust heat energy during city driving, which is enough to power three or four air conditioners simultaneously.
But it's not possible to harness all the exhaust heat a vehicle produces, so when the Suburban is cruising about 55 mph (88.5 kph), the generator can produce about 800 watts of power, Yang said. That electricity could go to accessories such as a GPS device, DVD player, radio and possibly the vehicle's water pumps.
Yang's prototype device is to be tested in a Suburban next year. A similar prototype created by Ohio State scientists and BSST should be tested in a BMW in 2009.
The thermoelectric generator works when one side of its metallic material is heated, and excited electrons move to the cold side. The movement creates a current, which electrodes collect and convert to electricity.
While it's not clear how much the device would add to the price of a vehicle, the whole point of the research is to make it cost-effective, Yang said.
"There are several other steps that are required to commercialize the material, but we're cautiously optimistic that these steps can be carried out successfully," said Lon Bell, president of BSST, a subsidiary of Northville-based thermoelectrics supplier Amerigon Inc.
BSST also is working with Ford Motor Co. to develop climate control systems based on thermoelectrics.
Ford wants a system that would target a person's extremities when it's cold or the back of the neck in summer heat, rather than blow out a lot of air to change the temperature of the entire vehicle.
"We think we can make people feel cooler more quickly, feel comfortable more quickly, and that will translate into less power in the central AC system," said Clay Maranville, a Ford senior research scientist.
Honda Motor Co. also has supported university research into thermoelectrics, but a spokesman said the automaker doesn't have its own research program.
On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction
There's no 'adaptation' to such steep warming. We must stop pandering to special interests, and try a new, post-Kyoto strategy
Oliver Tickell
The Guardian,
Monday August 11 2008
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.
The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way.
To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
But what are we to do? All our policies to date to tackle global warming have been miserable failures. The Kyoto protocol has created a vast carbon market but done little to reduce emissions. The main effect of the EU's emissions trading scheme has been to transfer about €30bn or more from consumers to Europe's biggest polluters, the power companies. The EU and US foray into biofuels has, at huge cost, increased greenhouse gas emissions and created a world food crisis, causing starvation in many poor countries.
So are all our efforts doomed to failure? Yes, so long as our governments remain craven to special interests, whether carbon traders or fossil fuel companies. The carbon market is a valuable tool, but must be subordinate to climatic imperatives. The truth is that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming, we will have to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground, especially carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and power companies must be faced down.
Global problems need global solutions, and we also need an effective replacement for the failed Kyoto protocol. The entire Kyoto system of national allocations is obsolete because of the huge volumes of energy embodied in products traded across national boundaries. It also presents a major obstacle to any new agreement – as demonstrated by the 2008 G8 meeting in Japan that degenerated into a squabble over national emission rights.
The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.
Such a package of measures would allow us to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and long-term stabilisation at 350 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. This avoids the economic pain that a cap-and-trade system alone would cause, and targets assistance at the poor, who are least to blame and most need help. The permit auction would raise about $1 trillion per year, enough to finance a spread of solutions. At a quarter of the world's annual oil spending, it is a price well worth paying.
· Oliver Tickell's book Kyoto2 has just been published kyoto2.org
Oliver Tickell
The Guardian,
Monday August 11 2008
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.
The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way.
To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
But what are we to do? All our policies to date to tackle global warming have been miserable failures. The Kyoto protocol has created a vast carbon market but done little to reduce emissions. The main effect of the EU's emissions trading scheme has been to transfer about €30bn or more from consumers to Europe's biggest polluters, the power companies. The EU and US foray into biofuels has, at huge cost, increased greenhouse gas emissions and created a world food crisis, causing starvation in many poor countries.
So are all our efforts doomed to failure? Yes, so long as our governments remain craven to special interests, whether carbon traders or fossil fuel companies. The carbon market is a valuable tool, but must be subordinate to climatic imperatives. The truth is that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming, we will have to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground, especially carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and power companies must be faced down.
Global problems need global solutions, and we also need an effective replacement for the failed Kyoto protocol. The entire Kyoto system of national allocations is obsolete because of the huge volumes of energy embodied in products traded across national boundaries. It also presents a major obstacle to any new agreement – as demonstrated by the 2008 G8 meeting in Japan that degenerated into a squabble over national emission rights.
The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.
Such a package of measures would allow us to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and long-term stabilisation at 350 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. This avoids the economic pain that a cap-and-trade system alone would cause, and targets assistance at the poor, who are least to blame and most need help. The permit auction would raise about $1 trillion per year, enough to finance a spread of solutions. At a quarter of the world's annual oil spending, it is a price well worth paying.
· Oliver Tickell's book Kyoto2 has just been published kyoto2.org
The coalface of climate change
Editorial
The Guardian,
Monday August 11 2008
The banners and the tents were folded away yesterday and the marching drums fell silent. But the dismantling of the foot soldiers' camp did not quite signal the end of the battle of Kingsnorth. Throughout the last week 1,500 protesters have been stationed close to the Kent site where the energy giant E.ON is demanding permission to replace an old power station with a new one - the first new coal-fired station for a quarter of a century. The activists talked about closing down the old station, but their real aim was preventing its replacement.
There were some arrests at the camp, but the event was overwhelmingly peaceful. Some protesters are hanging on today to help pick up the rubbish. Far from making trouble gratuitously, they agitated to warn against greater trouble that could flow from the re-throning of King Coal. Coal had fallen from fashion, being replaced by (somewhat) cleaner gas. But rising energy prices have suddenly lent it a retro appeal. If Kingsnorth goes ahead, several more stations will follow, preparing the UK for decades of solid-fuel dependence. Without new technologies, these few big power stations would pump out so much carbon that Britain would miss essential targets. And where the first world falters, the third world can justifiably argue that it should not be asked to shoulder the burden. Coal-burning in India and China would follow the UK's lead, with the world suffocating in the heat.
That must not be allowed to happen, of course, and yet there are also compelling grounds for thinking that coal must inevitably remain part of the energy mix. Energy-hungry giants such as America and China have huge coal reserves, and it is naive to hope they will not exploit them. Closer to home, the need to keep the lights on cannot be ignored, as a clutch of old power stations are retired over the next few years. In the short term at least, the obvious alternative to coal is increased reliance on gas - which could eventually spell an unhealthy dependence on the likes of Russia.
Charting a way between the hard rocks of climate change and the jagged edges of energy security will depend on carbon capture. It could transform coal into a truly clean energy source, though exactly how is not yet clear. The government grasps its importance, but says making full carbon capture a condition for new coal plants would make them too costly to build. Maybe so, but at a minimum ministers must spell out clear duties on every new station to contribute to making the technology work. That cannot just mean installing a few removable pipes and setting aside space for a possible carbon tank some years down the line. Pending climate catastrophe demands a bolder response.
The Guardian,
Monday August 11 2008
The banners and the tents were folded away yesterday and the marching drums fell silent. But the dismantling of the foot soldiers' camp did not quite signal the end of the battle of Kingsnorth. Throughout the last week 1,500 protesters have been stationed close to the Kent site where the energy giant E.ON is demanding permission to replace an old power station with a new one - the first new coal-fired station for a quarter of a century. The activists talked about closing down the old station, but their real aim was preventing its replacement.
There were some arrests at the camp, but the event was overwhelmingly peaceful. Some protesters are hanging on today to help pick up the rubbish. Far from making trouble gratuitously, they agitated to warn against greater trouble that could flow from the re-throning of King Coal. Coal had fallen from fashion, being replaced by (somewhat) cleaner gas. But rising energy prices have suddenly lent it a retro appeal. If Kingsnorth goes ahead, several more stations will follow, preparing the UK for decades of solid-fuel dependence. Without new technologies, these few big power stations would pump out so much carbon that Britain would miss essential targets. And where the first world falters, the third world can justifiably argue that it should not be asked to shoulder the burden. Coal-burning in India and China would follow the UK's lead, with the world suffocating in the heat.
That must not be allowed to happen, of course, and yet there are also compelling grounds for thinking that coal must inevitably remain part of the energy mix. Energy-hungry giants such as America and China have huge coal reserves, and it is naive to hope they will not exploit them. Closer to home, the need to keep the lights on cannot be ignored, as a clutch of old power stations are retired over the next few years. In the short term at least, the obvious alternative to coal is increased reliance on gas - which could eventually spell an unhealthy dependence on the likes of Russia.
Charting a way between the hard rocks of climate change and the jagged edges of energy security will depend on carbon capture. It could transform coal into a truly clean energy source, though exactly how is not yet clear. The government grasps its importance, but says making full carbon capture a condition for new coal plants would make them too costly to build. Maybe so, but at a minimum ministers must spell out clear duties on every new station to contribute to making the technology work. That cannot just mean installing a few removable pipes and setting aside space for a possible carbon tank some years down the line. Pending climate catastrophe demands a bolder response.
Climate threat to Brazil’s soya exports
By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo
Published: August 10 2008 22:55
Brazil’s soya exports could slump by more than a quarter over the next 12 years as a result of climate change, according to a study to be presented at an agribusiness conference opening in São Paulo on Monday.
The study will add to concern over worsening food shortages around the world. It shows that even moderate rises in temperatures would cause significant damage to a range of agricultural produce in Brazil, which has emerged over the past decade as one of the world’s biggest suppliers of food crops.
By 2020, the study says, the value of six of Brazil’s food crops – rice, coffee, beans, manioc, maize and soya – could fall by between 6.5bn reals ($4bn, €2.7bn, £2bn) and 7.1bn reals if average temperatures rose by between 1ºC and 2ºC.
“The result will be a significant drop in Brazil’s farm exports,” Hilton Silveira Pinto, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times.
The study is based on models of climate change developed at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and applied at local level to all of Brazil 5,562 municipalities by researchers at Unicamp, a university at Campinas in São Paulo state, and Embrapa, a Brazilian government agricultural research institute.
It takes account of different rates of temperature change in different parts of Brazil under best and worst-case scenarios that would result in average temperature rises by 2020 of between 1ºC and 2ºC from a baseline of average temperatures between 1961 and 1990. In parts of Brazil, such as in the rich agricultural hinterland of São Paulo state, temperatures have already risen by about 1ºC since then, said Prof Pinto.
The most serious damage would be to soya, he said. The amount of land suitable for soya cultivation would fall by more than 21 per cent under the best-case scenario, which assumes that action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and by almost 24 per cent if emissions continue at present rates.
This would result in a loss of 11.3m tons of soya from current production of 52.4m tons under the best-case scenario. Brazil last year exported about 38.5m tons of soya beans, meal and oil. Assuming that the Brazilian government maintains its policy of exporting only what is excess to domestic consumption, the study implies a drop in exports by 2020 of at least 29 per cent.
In contrast, the amount of sugar cane could increase dramatically, as it thrives in high temperatures and in atmospheres rich in carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases.
Prof Pinto stressed that the report was based on the most advanced crop varieties planted in Brazil and said damage could be mitigated by the development of new strains resistant to higher temperatures. However, he warned that few crops would withstand average temperature rises of more than 2ºC.
The study considered the impact of climate change up to 2050 and 2070, showing a fall in the value of the six crops of 9.3bn reals and 11bn reals, respectively, under the best-case scenario. However, Prof Pinto said predictions beyond 2050 were unreliable.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: August 10 2008 22:55
Brazil’s soya exports could slump by more than a quarter over the next 12 years as a result of climate change, according to a study to be presented at an agribusiness conference opening in São Paulo on Monday.
The study will add to concern over worsening food shortages around the world. It shows that even moderate rises in temperatures would cause significant damage to a range of agricultural produce in Brazil, which has emerged over the past decade as one of the world’s biggest suppliers of food crops.
By 2020, the study says, the value of six of Brazil’s food crops – rice, coffee, beans, manioc, maize and soya – could fall by between 6.5bn reals ($4bn, €2.7bn, £2bn) and 7.1bn reals if average temperatures rose by between 1ºC and 2ºC.
“The result will be a significant drop in Brazil’s farm exports,” Hilton Silveira Pinto, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times.
The study is based on models of climate change developed at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and applied at local level to all of Brazil 5,562 municipalities by researchers at Unicamp, a university at Campinas in São Paulo state, and Embrapa, a Brazilian government agricultural research institute.
It takes account of different rates of temperature change in different parts of Brazil under best and worst-case scenarios that would result in average temperature rises by 2020 of between 1ºC and 2ºC from a baseline of average temperatures between 1961 and 1990. In parts of Brazil, such as in the rich agricultural hinterland of São Paulo state, temperatures have already risen by about 1ºC since then, said Prof Pinto.
The most serious damage would be to soya, he said. The amount of land suitable for soya cultivation would fall by more than 21 per cent under the best-case scenario, which assumes that action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and by almost 24 per cent if emissions continue at present rates.
This would result in a loss of 11.3m tons of soya from current production of 52.4m tons under the best-case scenario. Brazil last year exported about 38.5m tons of soya beans, meal and oil. Assuming that the Brazilian government maintains its policy of exporting only what is excess to domestic consumption, the study implies a drop in exports by 2020 of at least 29 per cent.
In contrast, the amount of sugar cane could increase dramatically, as it thrives in high temperatures and in atmospheres rich in carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases.
Prof Pinto stressed that the report was based on the most advanced crop varieties planted in Brazil and said damage could be mitigated by the development of new strains resistant to higher temperatures. However, he warned that few crops would withstand average temperature rises of more than 2ºC.
The study considered the impact of climate change up to 2050 and 2070, showing a fall in the value of the six crops of 9.3bn reals and 11bn reals, respectively, under the best-case scenario. However, Prof Pinto said predictions beyond 2050 were unreliable.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Environmentalism Sprouts Up On Corporate Boards
More Companies Start Panels on Green Issues Amid Push by Activists
By JOANN S. LUBLIN
More U.S. corporate boards are going green.
Amid rising investor worries over global warming and shrinking natural resources, directors are keeping a closer watch on environmental issues. Boards at Integrys Energy Group Inc., Quicksilver Resources Inc., Tesoro Corp. and elsewhere recently have created separate environmental panels -- joining long-established ones at DuPont Co., Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Rohm & Haas Co. Other companies cover environmental issues with an existing board committee.
About 25% of Fortune 500 companies now have a board committee overseeing the environment, compared with fewer than 10% five years ago, estimates Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a national coalition of activists, investors and others concerned with the environment. Such panels typically try to make sure that executives effectively handle conservation efforts, new environmentally friendly ventures like wind power, compliance with environmental regulations and related business risks.
Shareholders are more active on environmental issues, too. The number of investor proposals related to the environment nearly doubled between 2004 and 2008, RiskMetrics Group Inc. says. Many proposals urge increased board attention to the issue.
The Earth's sustainability "has become a much more important part of every board's activities," observes Lester A. Hudson, chairman of American Electric Power Co.'s governance committee, which monitors environmental concerns.
AEP's experience illustrates the new dynamic. The electric utility, based in Columbus, Ohio, is among the largest U.S. users of coal -- and emitters of greenhouse gases.
In November 2003, public-employee pension funds offered a shareholder resolution urging independent directors to assess how AEP would deal with potential regulations to reduce carbon dioxide and other power-plant emissions. Mr. Hudson says three fellow directors formed a special panel to do a study, prompting the unions to drop their proposal.
The board members prepared an analysis following interviews with nearly 30 investors, environmentalists, experts, analysts and regulators. Their August 2004 report concluded that pending legislation likely wouldn't impact AEP's plan to invest $3.5 billion in cleaner coal-burning technologies by 2010. But the directors noted that AEP might want to consider scaling back plans for another $1.5 billion beyond that, because laws by that time might limit the use of coal altogether.
The study was a first for U.S. utilities, says Denise Nappier, treasurer for the state of Connecticut, which sponsored the 2003 resolution.
In 2006, Ceres gave AEP the highest U.S. ranking for board involvement in climate change, among 100 global businesses studied. That same year, AEP directors gave their governance committee oversight of its sustainability initiatives.
The panel now receives updates twice a year from Chief Executive Michael G. Morris and critiques drafts of his annual sustainability report. In the 2008 report, Mr. Hudson wrote that the board applauded AEP's progress on offsetting growth in greenhouse-gas emissions, but "expects and requires higher performance in the future."
AEP directors also tightened environmental-performance targets that employees must meet to receive annual bonuses. In 2006, they docked $80,045 from Mr. Morris' targeted $2 million bonus, after AEP received nine notices of possible environmental regulatory violations; the goal had been no more than five. Last year, the target dropped to four, and AEP received only two such notices. Businesses rarely link management rewards to environmental performance, according to Ceres.
Board committees responsible for environmental affairs elsewhere are turning up the heat, too. Steven Kline, chief environmental officer of PG&E Corp., told the board's public-policy panel in June about plans to lower the company's water consumption over several years -- without promising a timetable.
They replied, "That's great. But let's see if we can do it faster," Mr. Kline recalls. He hopes to offer a water-reduction schedule for the energy holding company when the panel convenes again in October.
But focusing board committees on the environment doesn't ensure eco-friendly behavior, activists say, citing Exxon Mobil Corp. The oil giant formed a public issues and contributions panel to monitor safety, health and the environment immediately after its Valdez oil spill in 1989.
The committee's efforts have been "more window dressing than anything else," contends Ms. Lubber. She says the company reduced oil spills, but its climate-change performance "is disappointing" -- partly because it lacks a comprehensive strategy for lowering greenhouse-gas emissions.
Exxon takes climate change seriously and has invested more than $1.5 billion to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions since 2004, says spokesman Tony Cudmore.
Ms. Lubber also faults Exxon directors for rejecting investor requests during the past five years to talk face-to-face about environmental problems. W.V. Shipley, head of a board committee that handles corporate governance, wrote Ceres last year that directors prefer senior executives to hold such sessions. Mr. Shipley declined to comment for this article.
In another sign of investor dissatisfaction, seven environmental resolutions came to a vote at Exxon's annual meeting in May. One proposal asked Exxon to set specific goals for greenhouse-gas emissions; it drew 30.9% of votes cast.
By JOANN S. LUBLIN
More U.S. corporate boards are going green.
Amid rising investor worries over global warming and shrinking natural resources, directors are keeping a closer watch on environmental issues. Boards at Integrys Energy Group Inc., Quicksilver Resources Inc., Tesoro Corp. and elsewhere recently have created separate environmental panels -- joining long-established ones at DuPont Co., Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Rohm & Haas Co. Other companies cover environmental issues with an existing board committee.
About 25% of Fortune 500 companies now have a board committee overseeing the environment, compared with fewer than 10% five years ago, estimates Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a national coalition of activists, investors and others concerned with the environment. Such panels typically try to make sure that executives effectively handle conservation efforts, new environmentally friendly ventures like wind power, compliance with environmental regulations and related business risks.
Shareholders are more active on environmental issues, too. The number of investor proposals related to the environment nearly doubled between 2004 and 2008, RiskMetrics Group Inc. says. Many proposals urge increased board attention to the issue.
The Earth's sustainability "has become a much more important part of every board's activities," observes Lester A. Hudson, chairman of American Electric Power Co.'s governance committee, which monitors environmental concerns.
AEP's experience illustrates the new dynamic. The electric utility, based in Columbus, Ohio, is among the largest U.S. users of coal -- and emitters of greenhouse gases.
In November 2003, public-employee pension funds offered a shareholder resolution urging independent directors to assess how AEP would deal with potential regulations to reduce carbon dioxide and other power-plant emissions. Mr. Hudson says three fellow directors formed a special panel to do a study, prompting the unions to drop their proposal.
The board members prepared an analysis following interviews with nearly 30 investors, environmentalists, experts, analysts and regulators. Their August 2004 report concluded that pending legislation likely wouldn't impact AEP's plan to invest $3.5 billion in cleaner coal-burning technologies by 2010. But the directors noted that AEP might want to consider scaling back plans for another $1.5 billion beyond that, because laws by that time might limit the use of coal altogether.
The study was a first for U.S. utilities, says Denise Nappier, treasurer for the state of Connecticut, which sponsored the 2003 resolution.
In 2006, Ceres gave AEP the highest U.S. ranking for board involvement in climate change, among 100 global businesses studied. That same year, AEP directors gave their governance committee oversight of its sustainability initiatives.
The panel now receives updates twice a year from Chief Executive Michael G. Morris and critiques drafts of his annual sustainability report. In the 2008 report, Mr. Hudson wrote that the board applauded AEP's progress on offsetting growth in greenhouse-gas emissions, but "expects and requires higher performance in the future."
AEP directors also tightened environmental-performance targets that employees must meet to receive annual bonuses. In 2006, they docked $80,045 from Mr. Morris' targeted $2 million bonus, after AEP received nine notices of possible environmental regulatory violations; the goal had been no more than five. Last year, the target dropped to four, and AEP received only two such notices. Businesses rarely link management rewards to environmental performance, according to Ceres.
Board committees responsible for environmental affairs elsewhere are turning up the heat, too. Steven Kline, chief environmental officer of PG&E Corp., told the board's public-policy panel in June about plans to lower the company's water consumption over several years -- without promising a timetable.
They replied, "That's great. But let's see if we can do it faster," Mr. Kline recalls. He hopes to offer a water-reduction schedule for the energy holding company when the panel convenes again in October.
But focusing board committees on the environment doesn't ensure eco-friendly behavior, activists say, citing Exxon Mobil Corp. The oil giant formed a public issues and contributions panel to monitor safety, health and the environment immediately after its Valdez oil spill in 1989.
The committee's efforts have been "more window dressing than anything else," contends Ms. Lubber. She says the company reduced oil spills, but its climate-change performance "is disappointing" -- partly because it lacks a comprehensive strategy for lowering greenhouse-gas emissions.
Exxon takes climate change seriously and has invested more than $1.5 billion to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions since 2004, says spokesman Tony Cudmore.
Ms. Lubber also faults Exxon directors for rejecting investor requests during the past five years to talk face-to-face about environmental problems. W.V. Shipley, head of a board committee that handles corporate governance, wrote Ceres last year that directors prefer senior executives to hold such sessions. Mr. Shipley declined to comment for this article.
In another sign of investor dissatisfaction, seven environmental resolutions came to a vote at Exxon's annual meeting in May. One proposal asked Exxon to set specific goals for greenhouse-gas emissions; it drew 30.9% of votes cast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
