Journey could increase by 250 miles, posing serious threat to many species
Stephen Moss
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 April 2009 00.05 BST
Migrating birds such as the garden warbler and whitethroat will face longer journeys because of climate change, experts warned today.
A team of scientists led by Durham University has demonstrated that while the birds' breeding ranges are likely to shift northwards, their wintering areas will not, thus increasing the length of their journeys by up to 250 miles. The study, published in the Journal of Biogeography, has serious implications for many of the birds returning this month to Britain to breed.
The research team used computer simulation models similar to those used by weather forecasters to analyse how climate change might affect the migration patterns of European Sylvia warblers.
Every year these tiny birds – some weighing as little as 12g – travel thousands of miles northwards from their African winter-quarters to breed in Europe and Asia. Up to 500 million birds undertake this epic journey to take advantage of the long summer days and glut of insect food in temperate latitudes.
But as climate change leads to rises in spring and summer temperatures, some of these long-distance migrants are responding by shifting their breeding ranges further north, making their return journey each spring even longer than before. In future, when they return to Africa in autumn, the predicted southward extension of the Sahara Desert may also eventually increase their travel distance.
Dr Stephen Willis of Durham University, who co-ordinated the study, stressed the problems this additional mileage will pose. "From 2071 to 2100, nine out of the 17 species we looked at are projected to face longer migrations, particularly birds that cross the Sahara desert. The added distance is a considerable threat," he said.
Different birds follow different migration strategies, with some species covering the distance in short hops. Others, such as the sedge warbler, fatten up and almost double their body weight before making the journey across the Sahara and Mediterranean Sea in a single leap. But whichever way they travel, longer journeys will make enormous demands on their energy resources, which they may not be able to meet.
Professor Rhys Green of the RSPB, who co-authored the research paper, believes that this increase in distance – though relatively small compared with the total journey the birds undertake – is likely to cause major problems. "Anything that makes those journeys longer or more dependent on vulnerable pit-stop habitats used for refuelling on migration could mean the difference between life and death," he warned.
There is evidence that short-term climatic effects have caused problems in the past. For example, the prolonged drought in the Sahel Zone of western Africa during the late 1960s led to a massive 90% fall in the British population of whitethroats in a single year, from 1968 to 1969. Although numbers later recovered, the species remains highly vulnerable to sudden environmental change.
Some species, however, may already be beginning to adapt their migration patterns as a result of climate change. The chiffchaff, which normally migrates to Iberia and North Africa rather than crossing the Sahara, now regularly overwinters in Britain, especially in the milder areas of the south and west. Meanwhile the German and Austrian populations of the blackcap, one of the species followed in the study, now migrate west instead of south to spend the winter here in the UK.
If other species can follow suit by changing their migration patterns they may be able to survive. "Some species may be able to adapt and change, for example by adopting shorter migration routes, if they can find enough food at the right time," said Willis.
"Bird migrations are incredible feats of stamina and endurance but, as temperatures rise and habitats change, birds will face their biggest challenge since the Pleistocene era."
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Breaking the silence about spring
Amy Seidl's new book, Early Spring, describes the impacts of climate change on the world immediately around us.
From RealClimate, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 15.54 BST
Did you know that in 1965 the U.S. Department of Agriculture planted a particular variety of lilac in more than seventy locations around the U.S. Northeast, to detect the onset of spring — in turn to be used to determine the appropriate timing of corn planting and the like? The records the USDA have kept show that those same lilacs are blooming as much as two weeks earlier than they did in 1965. April has, in a very real sense, become May. This is one of the interesting facts that you'll read about in Amy Seidl's book, Early Spring, a hot-off-the-press essay about the impacts of climate change on the world immediately around us – the forest, the birds, the butterflies in our backyards.
The brilliant title of Seidl's book was one of the reasons that it caught my attention. The other was that I have realized I need to better educate myself about the impact of climate change on everyday life. I've been dismissive of the idea that the average person can really detect the impacts of recent warming on, for example, the timing of the apple-blossom season, but I've been taken to task by several of RealClimate's readers for this. If you are paying attention, they have argued, the changes are actually rather obvious.
Of course, Amy Seidl is not the average person. Rather, she's a trained ecologist with a Ph.D. (as well as an avid gardener) and she's clearly paying extremely close attention. Her book is the first one I have read that effectively brings home the tangible impacts that global warming will have – is having – on our everyday lives. "We are increasingly familiar," she writes, of images of melting glaciers, "but how do we give them relevance in our lives? From my window I see no glaciers." She answers her own question with a series of vignettes, some from her own experiences, many more from her extensive research (well referenced throughout the book).
Cardinals, robins and cowbirds are all arriving earlier in Vermont than they did a century ago. Kingfishes, fox sparrows and towhees are not. Why the difference? The answer, as Seidl explains, is that the former group has the ability to respond ecologically to the changes, because these birds cue their arrival to temperature. The latter, it appears, respond more directly to temporal cues, that won't change even as climate does. It's obvious from this example that the make up of bird life in Vermont – the species distribution – will change over time. This may not necessarily be a bad thing of course. On the other hand, it turns out that the robins are the most important host for West Nile virus; the early bird gets the worm, so to speak, and passes it along to humans.
Maple seedlings need about 100 days of below-freezing weather. As this becomes rarer, fewer maples will populate the forests. This, Seidl explains, is why species-range models predict the decline and eventual loss of sugar maple (at least in New England) in the future. But, she notes, the models don't take into account the full complexity of the system, such as the impact of competition among different species. So we don't really know what will happen, or how fast. What we do know is that maple-sugar farmers have noticed – and documented – an earlier maple sugaring season over the last few decades.
There are many other examples in Early Spring both of clear climate-related changes (such as the early arrival of robins), and of less clear-cut changes (the maple sugaring season). Seidl doesn't make the common mistake of assuming that the more ambiguous examples are necessarily due to climate change. For example, she quotes a maple-sugarer who points out that technological changes have allowed them to tap maples earlier, and hence that the timing of sugaring is a weak measure of climate change. The point though, is that even rather minor changes are, after all, being noticed. And if much larger changes do occur, as predicted, they will most certainly have impacts we can't ignore, even if we don't live in the Arctic or in Bangladesh. In other words, Seidl tells us, listen to the farmers and gardeners, and the observations of regular people: they are meaningful.
The soberness of Seidl's approach to the subject of climate change impacts contrasts starkly with that of many books before it. It couldn't be further, for example, from Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees, which is a truly alarming read. In my comments on Six Degrees, I said that it wasn't an alarmist book. I stand by that characterization, because – and this is what I liked about it – it doesn't go beyond what is in the scientific literature. However, while Lynas's book is a straightforward reading of the scientific literature, it is a somewhat uncritical one, and hence tends to emphasize what might happen in the future over what will happen; this is a point that many readers of my review seem to have missed. Seidl's book, on the other hand, is focused on the more certain – and often less dramatic — things, and on the impacts we are likely to see in our own lifetimes.
The calm demeanor of Seidl's book, and the very personal nature of it, could lead one to think that it is primarily just a philosophical reflection on the climate change story. Indeed, Bill McKibben, in his introduction to Early Spring, says that in the face of changes we may not be able to prevent, "one of our tasks is simply to bear witness". Certainly, the book is partly that. But Seidl's voice, like Rachel Carson's before her, has the authentic and authoritative voice of a scientist, made all the more compelling for being very much rooted in the author's own story and experiences. And she doesn't pull punches when she has something definitive to say: "One thing is clear:" she writes, "we will not be able to manage the climate".
Early Spring has the potential to be immensely influential, a real turning point in the popular appreciation of climate change impacts among laypersons and scientists alike. Read it.
From RealClimate, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 15.54 BST
Did you know that in 1965 the U.S. Department of Agriculture planted a particular variety of lilac in more than seventy locations around the U.S. Northeast, to detect the onset of spring — in turn to be used to determine the appropriate timing of corn planting and the like? The records the USDA have kept show that those same lilacs are blooming as much as two weeks earlier than they did in 1965. April has, in a very real sense, become May. This is one of the interesting facts that you'll read about in Amy Seidl's book, Early Spring, a hot-off-the-press essay about the impacts of climate change on the world immediately around us – the forest, the birds, the butterflies in our backyards.
The brilliant title of Seidl's book was one of the reasons that it caught my attention. The other was that I have realized I need to better educate myself about the impact of climate change on everyday life. I've been dismissive of the idea that the average person can really detect the impacts of recent warming on, for example, the timing of the apple-blossom season, but I've been taken to task by several of RealClimate's readers for this. If you are paying attention, they have argued, the changes are actually rather obvious.
Of course, Amy Seidl is not the average person. Rather, she's a trained ecologist with a Ph.D. (as well as an avid gardener) and she's clearly paying extremely close attention. Her book is the first one I have read that effectively brings home the tangible impacts that global warming will have – is having – on our everyday lives. "We are increasingly familiar," she writes, of images of melting glaciers, "but how do we give them relevance in our lives? From my window I see no glaciers." She answers her own question with a series of vignettes, some from her own experiences, many more from her extensive research (well referenced throughout the book).
Cardinals, robins and cowbirds are all arriving earlier in Vermont than they did a century ago. Kingfishes, fox sparrows and towhees are not. Why the difference? The answer, as Seidl explains, is that the former group has the ability to respond ecologically to the changes, because these birds cue their arrival to temperature. The latter, it appears, respond more directly to temporal cues, that won't change even as climate does. It's obvious from this example that the make up of bird life in Vermont – the species distribution – will change over time. This may not necessarily be a bad thing of course. On the other hand, it turns out that the robins are the most important host for West Nile virus; the early bird gets the worm, so to speak, and passes it along to humans.
Maple seedlings need about 100 days of below-freezing weather. As this becomes rarer, fewer maples will populate the forests. This, Seidl explains, is why species-range models predict the decline and eventual loss of sugar maple (at least in New England) in the future. But, she notes, the models don't take into account the full complexity of the system, such as the impact of competition among different species. So we don't really know what will happen, or how fast. What we do know is that maple-sugar farmers have noticed – and documented – an earlier maple sugaring season over the last few decades.
There are many other examples in Early Spring both of clear climate-related changes (such as the early arrival of robins), and of less clear-cut changes (the maple sugaring season). Seidl doesn't make the common mistake of assuming that the more ambiguous examples are necessarily due to climate change. For example, she quotes a maple-sugarer who points out that technological changes have allowed them to tap maples earlier, and hence that the timing of sugaring is a weak measure of climate change. The point though, is that even rather minor changes are, after all, being noticed. And if much larger changes do occur, as predicted, they will most certainly have impacts we can't ignore, even if we don't live in the Arctic or in Bangladesh. In other words, Seidl tells us, listen to the farmers and gardeners, and the observations of regular people: they are meaningful.
The soberness of Seidl's approach to the subject of climate change impacts contrasts starkly with that of many books before it. It couldn't be further, for example, from Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees, which is a truly alarming read. In my comments on Six Degrees, I said that it wasn't an alarmist book. I stand by that characterization, because – and this is what I liked about it – it doesn't go beyond what is in the scientific literature. However, while Lynas's book is a straightforward reading of the scientific literature, it is a somewhat uncritical one, and hence tends to emphasize what might happen in the future over what will happen; this is a point that many readers of my review seem to have missed. Seidl's book, on the other hand, is focused on the more certain – and often less dramatic — things, and on the impacts we are likely to see in our own lifetimes.
The calm demeanor of Seidl's book, and the very personal nature of it, could lead one to think that it is primarily just a philosophical reflection on the climate change story. Indeed, Bill McKibben, in his introduction to Early Spring, says that in the face of changes we may not be able to prevent, "one of our tasks is simply to bear witness". Certainly, the book is partly that. But Seidl's voice, like Rachel Carson's before her, has the authentic and authoritative voice of a scientist, made all the more compelling for being very much rooted in the author's own story and experiences. And she doesn't pull punches when she has something definitive to say: "One thing is clear:" she writes, "we will not be able to manage the climate".
Early Spring has the potential to be immensely influential, a real turning point in the popular appreciation of climate change impacts among laypersons and scientists alike. Read it.
Government may countermand Boris Johnson over air quality fears
Ministers could challenge London mayor as concern mounts that failure to meet European directives on air quality may lead to £300m of fines
Hélène Mulholland
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 12.24 BST
The government could overturn Boris Johnson's decision to suspend the third phase of London's low emission zone amid fears over EU air quality standards, it emerged today.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed lawyers to consult existing legislation that gives the government powers to override the London mayor.
The move follows concerns that UK taxpayers could be fined up to £300m if strict European directives on air quality are not met.
It would be the first time the government has directly challenged the mayor by exercising its powers of direction, enshrined in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The measure allows ministers to reverse a mayoral decision where policies for the devolved government clash with national decision making.
Defra's yet to be submitted application to the European commission for an extension on meeting EU air quality limits by 2011 was based on the assumption that the western extension of the London congestion charge, and the third phase of the low emission zone, would go ahead.
The low emission zone – first introduced by Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone – was seen as a key measure for lowering harmful emissions in London, which suffers from some of the worst pollution levels in Europe.
However, Johnson last year announced plans to scrap the western extension of the congestion charge, and in February suspended the third phase of the low emission zone because of its "detrimental impact" on small businesses in the economic downturn.
In February, Johnson described the zone as a "totally senseless piece of policy" which he said would have been another tax on hard pressed businesses in the midst of a recession.
"I have absolutely every pride in defending what we did," he told the London assembly at the time. "It was completely right for the London economy."
With the threat of national embarrassment and multimillion pound fines in the longer term if Defra fails to have its air quality extension plans accepted, the department said Johnson would now have to deliver "equal, if not greater, benefits to improve air quality" in his air quality strategy, due this summer.
The European commission began "infraction" proceedings against 10 EU member states, including the UK, earlier this year for failing to comply with levels of particulate matter (PM10) – dangerous airborne particles emitted by industry, traffic and domestic heating.
The Rogers review into local authority regulatory services, published in 2007, noted that poor air quality contributes to between 12,000 and 24,000 premature deaths each year.
Defra's own figures show that average life expectancy is reduced by up to eight months due to pollution from particulates.
The Campaign for Clean Air in London claims the third phase of the low emission zone would have protected 107,000 Londoners at risk of high nitrogen dioxide levels.
The scheme currently targets buses, coaches and the most polluting lorries over 3.5 tonnes.
Failure to meet the required emissions standards leads to a £200 daily charge, or a £1,000 daily fine if the charge is not paid.
Phase three of the scheme was scheduled to start in October next year and would have affected 90,000 much smaller vehicles, including vans and minibuses.
A daily £100 charge was due to be imposed on those that did not meet the emissions standards. Failure to pay would have incurred a £500 fine for each day that the vans entered the zone, which covers the Greater London area.
Defra declined to comment on whether lawyers had been instructed to look in detail at the department's powers under the act, but highlighted a specific government power of direction on air quality it could use to force the mayor to ensure measures in place at least compensate for the scrapping of the low emission zone.
A spokesman said: "The secretary of state can give directions under section 363 of the GLA Act, 'about the content of the London air quality strategy'.
"We would expect the mayor to put in place other measures that would deliver equal, if not greater, benefits to improve air quality if, after consultation, the third phase of the low emission zone is not implemented," the spokesman added.
Asked about other powers at its disposal, Defra pointed to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007 that would allow the secretary of state "to direct the mayor to implement alternative measures to meet the air quality limits set out in the directive".
Defra said it remained "confident of complying with European commission PM10 air quality limits by 2011" and confirmed that the UK's application would be submitted "shortly".
Simon Birkett, from the Campaign for Clean Air in London, warned that the measures put in place so far by Johnson "fall far short" of what is needed to reduce air pollutions in London.
Birkett said there was a worrying disparity of duty between the government, which is legally bound to reach air quality standards, and the mayor and local authorities, which merely have to show they are "working towards" targets.
He called on the government to work with the mayor to provide necessary funding to introduce one or more additional low emission zones in London and enable him to launch a major campaign to improve public understanding of poor air quality as part of a "win-win" for Londoners' health and the government's application.
Birkett said: "If a 'win-win' outcome is not within easy reach, the government should not hesitate or delay in issuing directions to the mayor to maintain implemented and planned air quality improvement measures and adopt new ones by specific deadlines."
Darren Johnson, a Green party member of the London assembly and the chair of the assembly's environment committee, which is looking at air quality measures for London, has written to Defra, urging it to consider its powers over the mayor in light of decisions he said had "seriously messed up" the government's own strategy.
"Unless the government and the London mayor can implement a big new idea to dramatically slash pollutants within the next twelve months, the government must be prepared to use its powers of direction," he said.
"The mayor's decisions to weaken both congestion charging and the low emission zone have been irresponsible and disastrous for London's environment."
The assembly report into air quality is expected later this month.
Hélène Mulholland
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 12.24 BST
The government could overturn Boris Johnson's decision to suspend the third phase of London's low emission zone amid fears over EU air quality standards, it emerged today.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed lawyers to consult existing legislation that gives the government powers to override the London mayor.
The move follows concerns that UK taxpayers could be fined up to £300m if strict European directives on air quality are not met.
It would be the first time the government has directly challenged the mayor by exercising its powers of direction, enshrined in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The measure allows ministers to reverse a mayoral decision where policies for the devolved government clash with national decision making.
Defra's yet to be submitted application to the European commission for an extension on meeting EU air quality limits by 2011 was based on the assumption that the western extension of the London congestion charge, and the third phase of the low emission zone, would go ahead.
The low emission zone – first introduced by Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone – was seen as a key measure for lowering harmful emissions in London, which suffers from some of the worst pollution levels in Europe.
However, Johnson last year announced plans to scrap the western extension of the congestion charge, and in February suspended the third phase of the low emission zone because of its "detrimental impact" on small businesses in the economic downturn.
In February, Johnson described the zone as a "totally senseless piece of policy" which he said would have been another tax on hard pressed businesses in the midst of a recession.
"I have absolutely every pride in defending what we did," he told the London assembly at the time. "It was completely right for the London economy."
With the threat of national embarrassment and multimillion pound fines in the longer term if Defra fails to have its air quality extension plans accepted, the department said Johnson would now have to deliver "equal, if not greater, benefits to improve air quality" in his air quality strategy, due this summer.
The European commission began "infraction" proceedings against 10 EU member states, including the UK, earlier this year for failing to comply with levels of particulate matter (PM10) – dangerous airborne particles emitted by industry, traffic and domestic heating.
The Rogers review into local authority regulatory services, published in 2007, noted that poor air quality contributes to between 12,000 and 24,000 premature deaths each year.
Defra's own figures show that average life expectancy is reduced by up to eight months due to pollution from particulates.
The Campaign for Clean Air in London claims the third phase of the low emission zone would have protected 107,000 Londoners at risk of high nitrogen dioxide levels.
The scheme currently targets buses, coaches and the most polluting lorries over 3.5 tonnes.
Failure to meet the required emissions standards leads to a £200 daily charge, or a £1,000 daily fine if the charge is not paid.
Phase three of the scheme was scheduled to start in October next year and would have affected 90,000 much smaller vehicles, including vans and minibuses.
A daily £100 charge was due to be imposed on those that did not meet the emissions standards. Failure to pay would have incurred a £500 fine for each day that the vans entered the zone, which covers the Greater London area.
Defra declined to comment on whether lawyers had been instructed to look in detail at the department's powers under the act, but highlighted a specific government power of direction on air quality it could use to force the mayor to ensure measures in place at least compensate for the scrapping of the low emission zone.
A spokesman said: "The secretary of state can give directions under section 363 of the GLA Act, 'about the content of the London air quality strategy'.
"We would expect the mayor to put in place other measures that would deliver equal, if not greater, benefits to improve air quality if, after consultation, the third phase of the low emission zone is not implemented," the spokesman added.
Asked about other powers at its disposal, Defra pointed to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007 that would allow the secretary of state "to direct the mayor to implement alternative measures to meet the air quality limits set out in the directive".
Defra said it remained "confident of complying with European commission PM10 air quality limits by 2011" and confirmed that the UK's application would be submitted "shortly".
Simon Birkett, from the Campaign for Clean Air in London, warned that the measures put in place so far by Johnson "fall far short" of what is needed to reduce air pollutions in London.
Birkett said there was a worrying disparity of duty between the government, which is legally bound to reach air quality standards, and the mayor and local authorities, which merely have to show they are "working towards" targets.
He called on the government to work with the mayor to provide necessary funding to introduce one or more additional low emission zones in London and enable him to launch a major campaign to improve public understanding of poor air quality as part of a "win-win" for Londoners' health and the government's application.
Birkett said: "If a 'win-win' outcome is not within easy reach, the government should not hesitate or delay in issuing directions to the mayor to maintain implemented and planned air quality improvement measures and adopt new ones by specific deadlines."
Darren Johnson, a Green party member of the London assembly and the chair of the assembly's environment committee, which is looking at air quality measures for London, has written to Defra, urging it to consider its powers over the mayor in light of decisions he said had "seriously messed up" the government's own strategy.
"Unless the government and the London mayor can implement a big new idea to dramatically slash pollutants within the next twelve months, the government must be prepared to use its powers of direction," he said.
"The mayor's decisions to weaken both congestion charging and the low emission zone have been irresponsible and disastrous for London's environment."
The assembly report into air quality is expected later this month.
To stop a climate catastrophe we must first believe we can make a difference
If most people think we don't have a hope of keeping global warming below 2C, it is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 10.43 BST
Climate scientists are hyping the global warming crisis in order to keep themselves in jobs, conferences and research grants to exotic locations. Their snouts are wedged deep in a lucrative trough.
So goes the familiar chant from the climate naysayers – those who are convinced climate change is not caused by people nor that its effects are overblown.
So the results of the Guardian's poll of climate experts showing that most believe we don't have a hope in hell of keeping planetary warming to below 2C – the threshold the EU defines as "dangerous" – are all the more remarkable.
It blows the lid on a very different sort of conspiracy: that climate scientists have actually been toning down their message lest the worst-case scenario becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As one respondent put it, "Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done. How do you think the second world war was won? Churchill didn't stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches."
Far from over-playing their hand to swell their research coffers, scientists have been toning down their message in an attempt to avoid public despair and inaction.
Just 7% of the 261 experts surveyed (200 of whom were researchers in climate science or related fields) said they thought governments would succeed in restricting global warming to 2C. Nearly two-fifths thought this target was impossible and 46% thought a 3 to 4C rise by the end of the century was most likely.
A 3 or 4C rise might not sound much but the climatic shifts accompanying it would be massive. At 3C one to four billion extra people would face water shortages and 150 to 550 million more people would be at risk of hunger. With an extra degree of warming on top of that, seven million to 300 million would be put at risk of coastal flooding due to sea level rise.
In the face of such apocalyptic scenarios it is natural for people to feel like giving up. Small personal actions such as turning the TV off standby, turning down your thermostat and lagging the loft have always seemed pitiful in the face of a global catastrophe.
But if the scientists are saying the bad stuff is going to happen anyway then it is tempting to think we might as well stop punishing ourselves, jump on that no-frills flight and be done with it.
Unfortunately, the climate doesn't give us a milestone beyond which we can stop bothering. Warming the planet to 3C beyond pre-industrial levels is a lot worse than a 2C rise, but it is a walk in the park with mum buying you an ice-cream compared with a rise of 4C.
Likewise, stopping us getting near 5C is very much worth the effort. Sea-level rise at that global temperature increase will take out cities including London, New York and Tokyo. The poles will be transformed by warming.
Scientists must stop sanitising their message. World leaders and their people need to hear the warnings loud and clear and follow through with radical action that matches the scale of the crisis. Only if they do will future generations look back on what is looking decreasingly likely to be our "finest hour".
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 10.43 BST
Climate scientists are hyping the global warming crisis in order to keep themselves in jobs, conferences and research grants to exotic locations. Their snouts are wedged deep in a lucrative trough.
So goes the familiar chant from the climate naysayers – those who are convinced climate change is not caused by people nor that its effects are overblown.
So the results of the Guardian's poll of climate experts showing that most believe we don't have a hope in hell of keeping planetary warming to below 2C – the threshold the EU defines as "dangerous" – are all the more remarkable.
It blows the lid on a very different sort of conspiracy: that climate scientists have actually been toning down their message lest the worst-case scenario becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As one respondent put it, "Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done. How do you think the second world war was won? Churchill didn't stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches."
Far from over-playing their hand to swell their research coffers, scientists have been toning down their message in an attempt to avoid public despair and inaction.
Just 7% of the 261 experts surveyed (200 of whom were researchers in climate science or related fields) said they thought governments would succeed in restricting global warming to 2C. Nearly two-fifths thought this target was impossible and 46% thought a 3 to 4C rise by the end of the century was most likely.
A 3 or 4C rise might not sound much but the climatic shifts accompanying it would be massive. At 3C one to four billion extra people would face water shortages and 150 to 550 million more people would be at risk of hunger. With an extra degree of warming on top of that, seven million to 300 million would be put at risk of coastal flooding due to sea level rise.
In the face of such apocalyptic scenarios it is natural for people to feel like giving up. Small personal actions such as turning the TV off standby, turning down your thermostat and lagging the loft have always seemed pitiful in the face of a global catastrophe.
But if the scientists are saying the bad stuff is going to happen anyway then it is tempting to think we might as well stop punishing ourselves, jump on that no-frills flight and be done with it.
Unfortunately, the climate doesn't give us a milestone beyond which we can stop bothering. Warming the planet to 3C beyond pre-industrial levels is a lot worse than a 2C rise, but it is a walk in the park with mum buying you an ice-cream compared with a rise of 4C.
Likewise, stopping us getting near 5C is very much worth the effort. Sea-level rise at that global temperature increase will take out cities including London, New York and Tokyo. The poles will be transformed by warming.
Scientists must stop sanitising their message. World leaders and their people need to hear the warnings loud and clear and follow through with radical action that matches the scale of the crisis. Only if they do will future generations look back on what is looking decreasingly likely to be our "finest hour".
India demands climate change cash pledge
By Fiona Harvey in Bonn
Published: April 14 2009 16:34
India has thrown down the gauntlet to developed nations in the latest round of climate change talks, saying the developing world wants to see pledges of cash before it is prepared to discuss emissions curbs.
The move draws battle lines between rich and poor countries and threatens to halt progress on climate change: rich countries insisted that they cannot name sums before getting commitments that future emissions will be reduced.
Shyam Saran, special envoy to the Indian prime minister, said at a UN meeting in Bonn: “The question [of developing country curbs] should not be divorced from what financial support is available. Rather than ask, are you prepared to deviate from business as usual, the question is what kind of efforts are possible if adequate financial resources and technical resources are made available.”
Developing countries also want to see much bigger cuts in emissions from the developed world than have been proposed.
But the stand-off meant there was little progress at the meeting, the first in a series of UN talks this year that will culminate at a conference in Copenhagen in December to formalise a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
“This is a dangerous game to play,” warned Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the US Natural Resources Defense Council, who said there was little time by December to hammer out the details needed. “It’s chicken-and-egg. Finance is a key issue, and it’s dangerous as you have countries getting further away from each other instead of closer together.”
Connie Hedegaard, Danish minister for climate, who will be one of the hosts at Copenhagen, took the unusual step of chiding fellow ministers.
“The industrialised countries have not yet shown the necessary leadership,” she said. “Not leadership when it comes to reduction commitments. Not leadership when it comes to finance.”
Developed nations said it was crucial for emerging economies – which are overtaking rich countries as the biggest sources of emissions – to curb their greenhouse gases. While recognising that poorer nations might need to increase their emissions as their economies grow, they want emerging countries to ensure CO2 output is substantially lower than under “business as usual”.
Several developing nations demanded sums of between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of industrialised countries’ gross domestic product as the price for their co-operation. South Africa asked for enormous reductions in emissions from industrialised countries, including a 75 per cent cut in the UK by 2020.
Governments will meet again in June to discuss a draft text of the climate change treaty, and three times more before Copenhagen. But the failure to break the deadlock on finance would stall progress further, warned Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace: “As things stand, this exact same meeting will be repeated in June,” she said.
Jonathan Pershing, deputy special envoy for climate change at the US State Department, said it was “improbable” that the US could produce figures on its financing offers by June. The European Union failed to agree on its financing offer last month.
Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, said the stalemate could be broken. “There is a broad understanding that developed countries need to provide financial support and developing countries need to submit plans for actions. I don’t know which will come first but the right one will,” he said.
The talks were also remarkable for the way the US was fêted, as delegates relished the sight, not seen for eight years, of US officials agreeing with the rest of the world on the urgency of tackling emissions. Todd Stern, special envoy for climate change, was cheered and applauded when he announced: “We’re glad to be back.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 14 2009 16:34
India has thrown down the gauntlet to developed nations in the latest round of climate change talks, saying the developing world wants to see pledges of cash before it is prepared to discuss emissions curbs.
The move draws battle lines between rich and poor countries and threatens to halt progress on climate change: rich countries insisted that they cannot name sums before getting commitments that future emissions will be reduced.
Shyam Saran, special envoy to the Indian prime minister, said at a UN meeting in Bonn: “The question [of developing country curbs] should not be divorced from what financial support is available. Rather than ask, are you prepared to deviate from business as usual, the question is what kind of efforts are possible if adequate financial resources and technical resources are made available.”
Developing countries also want to see much bigger cuts in emissions from the developed world than have been proposed.
But the stand-off meant there was little progress at the meeting, the first in a series of UN talks this year that will culminate at a conference in Copenhagen in December to formalise a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
“This is a dangerous game to play,” warned Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the US Natural Resources Defense Council, who said there was little time by December to hammer out the details needed. “It’s chicken-and-egg. Finance is a key issue, and it’s dangerous as you have countries getting further away from each other instead of closer together.”
Connie Hedegaard, Danish minister for climate, who will be one of the hosts at Copenhagen, took the unusual step of chiding fellow ministers.
“The industrialised countries have not yet shown the necessary leadership,” she said. “Not leadership when it comes to reduction commitments. Not leadership when it comes to finance.”
Developed nations said it was crucial for emerging economies – which are overtaking rich countries as the biggest sources of emissions – to curb their greenhouse gases. While recognising that poorer nations might need to increase their emissions as their economies grow, they want emerging countries to ensure CO2 output is substantially lower than under “business as usual”.
Several developing nations demanded sums of between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of industrialised countries’ gross domestic product as the price for their co-operation. South Africa asked for enormous reductions in emissions from industrialised countries, including a 75 per cent cut in the UK by 2020.
Governments will meet again in June to discuss a draft text of the climate change treaty, and three times more before Copenhagen. But the failure to break the deadlock on finance would stall progress further, warned Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace: “As things stand, this exact same meeting will be repeated in June,” she said.
Jonathan Pershing, deputy special envoy for climate change at the US State Department, said it was “improbable” that the US could produce figures on its financing offers by June. The European Union failed to agree on its financing offer last month.
Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, said the stalemate could be broken. “There is a broad understanding that developed countries need to provide financial support and developing countries need to submit plans for actions. I don’t know which will come first but the right one will,” he said.
The talks were also remarkable for the way the US was fêted, as delegates relished the sight, not seen for eight years, of US officials agreeing with the rest of the world on the urgency of tackling emissions. Todd Stern, special envoy for climate change, was cheered and applauded when he announced: “We’re glad to be back.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Moss spray could restore moors and tackle global warming
The Times
April 13, 2009
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
The arduous process of restoring fragile moorland by hand could be revolutionised with a new spray-on technique.
Regeneration is essential to cut greenhouse gas emissions because moorlands trap large quantities of carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
The new technique means that instead of putting every new plant in the ground individually, conservationists will spray deteriorating moors with fragmented moss from a helicopter.
A trial will take place in the Peak District, where several square miles of moors have lost the bog plants that protect the peat underneath from eroding. Tests conducted already this year on a smaller scale, using fragmented sphagnum moss, have proved so encouraging that they are to be expanded to a landscape scale.
Sphagnum moss, which can hold up to 20 times its own weight in water, was one of the main plants keeping the layer of vegetation on upland moors in place but vast swaths of it were killed by pollution and by agricultural drainage schemes.
Horticultural specialists have now worked out a way of propagating large quantities of the moss, which can still grow when cut into fragments.
“You only need a few cells to get it growing,” said Chris Dean, of Moors for the Future. “This could revolutionise restoration work throughout the country if we can make it work. We need to think big.”
Chris Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency, which is working with Moors for the Future, said: “Our upland peatlands are the UK’s biggest natural carbon store. Incredibly, this wild habitat holds around 3 billion tonnes of CO2, equivalent to 20 years of the country’s current carbon emissions.
“It’s imperative we ensure the peatlands are conserved and protected so this legacy of industral CO2 emissions stays locked up rather than escaping into the air and adding to our greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we urgently need to reduce them.”
April 13, 2009
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
The arduous process of restoring fragile moorland by hand could be revolutionised with a new spray-on technique.
Regeneration is essential to cut greenhouse gas emissions because moorlands trap large quantities of carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
The new technique means that instead of putting every new plant in the ground individually, conservationists will spray deteriorating moors with fragmented moss from a helicopter.
A trial will take place in the Peak District, where several square miles of moors have lost the bog plants that protect the peat underneath from eroding. Tests conducted already this year on a smaller scale, using fragmented sphagnum moss, have proved so encouraging that they are to be expanded to a landscape scale.
Sphagnum moss, which can hold up to 20 times its own weight in water, was one of the main plants keeping the layer of vegetation on upland moors in place but vast swaths of it were killed by pollution and by agricultural drainage schemes.
Horticultural specialists have now worked out a way of propagating large quantities of the moss, which can still grow when cut into fragments.
“You only need a few cells to get it growing,” said Chris Dean, of Moors for the Future. “This could revolutionise restoration work throughout the country if we can make it work. We need to think big.”
Chris Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency, which is working with Moors for the Future, said: “Our upland peatlands are the UK’s biggest natural carbon store. Incredibly, this wild habitat holds around 3 billion tonnes of CO2, equivalent to 20 years of the country’s current carbon emissions.
“It’s imperative we ensure the peatlands are conserved and protected so this legacy of industral CO2 emissions stays locked up rather than escaping into the air and adding to our greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we urgently need to reduce them.”
U.S. Takes a Gamble With Test of Carbon Caps on Car Makers
By STEPHEN POWER
The Obama administration is preparing to test whether capping greenhouse gas emissions will push the economy into higher gear, or deeper into a rut. The likely subject of the experiment is the ailing auto industry.
Later this month, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is expected to declare that carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles endanger health and welfare because of their impact on the climate.
That finding will be a trigger for the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act -- independent of any congressional action on broader climate-change measures. A senior administration official familiar with the EPA's plans says the agency will likely confine its rule-making efforts on greenhouse gases this year to autos.
Business groups are sounding the alarm over the prospect of expanded EPA power. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that more than one million businesses involved in manufacturing, operating buildings and services, and farming could eventually become subject to costly new emissions regulations.
Ms. Jackson, in a recent speech, said it is "a myth...that right now we are at this horrible fork in the road...and EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin' Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawnmower and baby bottles."
Still, what the EPA wants to do with the auto industry is ambitious -- and risky given the industry's weakened condition amid the worst sales slump since the Great Depression. Chrysler LLC has fewer than 30 days to conclude a deal with its creditors, unions and prospective partner Fiat SpA or it could be forced to seek bankruptcy protection. General Motors Corp. has fewer than 60 days to satisfy the Obama administration that it can be viable without a trip through bankruptcy court.
The EPA is trying to craft new federal emissions standards that would match California's still-to-be-implemented state-level greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and federal automobile fuel economy regulations now being developed by the Transportation Department. Figuring out how to do this won't be easy, or cheap.
The Obama administration inherited a congressional mandate for auto makers to boost the average fuel economy of their vehicle fleets to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase from the roughly 25 mpg standard for the current fleet. California estimates its standards would require auto makers to achieve 35 mpg by 2017. And unlike the federal government, which gives auto makers compliance credits for churning out "flex-fuel" vehicles capable of running on high levels of ethanol, California requires auto makers to prove motorists are actually filling up on those high-level blends in order to claim credit.
Just meeting the federal standards will require huge investments by auto makers. Last summer, the Transportation Department estimated its proposal to require auto makers to achieve 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost them $46.7 billion, a sum the agency said would make it among the most expensive rule makings in U.S. history.
How the EPA handles automotive greenhouse gases could influence the broader debate in Congress over climate change.
Some Democrats are betting that fears of the EPA's growing regulatory reach will galvanize Congress to pass Mr. Obama's preferred approach to tackling climate change: legislation that set an overall limit on greenhouse-gas emissions and allows companies to buy and sell the right to pollute within that limit.
EPA regulation "wasn't a threat that existed during the Bush administration," says Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.). Now that the EPA is poised to act, he says, "I think that will become a realization that drives the political process."
A less welcome scenario for businesses is that environmentalists and ordinary citizens will use the EPA's endangerment finding to go to court to force the administration to widen the scope of its rule making.
Under one portion of the Clean Air Act, facilities that could be major sources of air pollution can be built or significantly modified only if they are equipped with "the best available control technology." The law generally applies to power plants, refineries, steel mills or other facilities if they emit at least 100 tons per year of any regulated air pollutant.
But the law also covers "any building, structure, facility or installation" that emits at least 250 tons per year of any regulated air pollutant -- a threshold low enough to cover roughly one million midsize to large commercial-sector sources, including restaurants, hospitals, schools and office buildings, based on estimates by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"There may be some fringe thinkers out there, but not one of the major environmental groups has any desire" to go after facilities that emit less than 10,000 tons of CO2 a year, says David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the Sierra Club.
Opponents of EPA-crafted regulation say those assurances aren't good enough. "Our neighbors would challenge Costco [under the Clean Air Act] if they had the chance," says Roger Martella, who was the EPA's general counsel under President George W. Bush and now represents utilities, manufacturers, and other groups worried about EPA regulation. "The Sierra Club can't stop them."
Mr. Obama declared in his inaugural address that "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The response to the EPA's first steps toward attacking climate change will test whether he spoke too soon.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
By STEPHEN POWER
The Obama administration is preparing to test whether capping greenhouse gas emissions will push the economy into higher gear, or deeper into a rut. The likely subject of the experiment is the ailing auto industry.
Later this month, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is expected to declare that carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles endanger health and welfare because of their impact on the climate.
That finding will be a trigger for the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act -- independent of any congressional action on broader climate-change measures. A senior administration official familiar with the EPA's plans says the agency will likely confine its rule-making efforts on greenhouse gases this year to autos.
Business groups are sounding the alarm over the prospect of expanded EPA power. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that more than one million businesses involved in manufacturing, operating buildings and services, and farming could eventually become subject to costly new emissions regulations.
Ms. Jackson, in a recent speech, said it is "a myth...that right now we are at this horrible fork in the road...and EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin' Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawnmower and baby bottles."
Still, what the EPA wants to do with the auto industry is ambitious -- and risky given the industry's weakened condition amid the worst sales slump since the Great Depression. Chrysler LLC has fewer than 30 days to conclude a deal with its creditors, unions and prospective partner Fiat SpA or it could be forced to seek bankruptcy protection. General Motors Corp. has fewer than 60 days to satisfy the Obama administration that it can be viable without a trip through bankruptcy court.
The EPA is trying to craft new federal emissions standards that would match California's still-to-be-implemented state-level greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and federal automobile fuel economy regulations now being developed by the Transportation Department. Figuring out how to do this won't be easy, or cheap.
The Obama administration inherited a congressional mandate for auto makers to boost the average fuel economy of their vehicle fleets to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase from the roughly 25 mpg standard for the current fleet. California estimates its standards would require auto makers to achieve 35 mpg by 2017. And unlike the federal government, which gives auto makers compliance credits for churning out "flex-fuel" vehicles capable of running on high levels of ethanol, California requires auto makers to prove motorists are actually filling up on those high-level blends in order to claim credit.
Just meeting the federal standards will require huge investments by auto makers. Last summer, the Transportation Department estimated its proposal to require auto makers to achieve 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost them $46.7 billion, a sum the agency said would make it among the most expensive rule makings in U.S. history.
How the EPA handles automotive greenhouse gases could influence the broader debate in Congress over climate change.
Some Democrats are betting that fears of the EPA's growing regulatory reach will galvanize Congress to pass Mr. Obama's preferred approach to tackling climate change: legislation that set an overall limit on greenhouse-gas emissions and allows companies to buy and sell the right to pollute within that limit.
EPA regulation "wasn't a threat that existed during the Bush administration," says Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.). Now that the EPA is poised to act, he says, "I think that will become a realization that drives the political process."
A less welcome scenario for businesses is that environmentalists and ordinary citizens will use the EPA's endangerment finding to go to court to force the administration to widen the scope of its rule making.
Under one portion of the Clean Air Act, facilities that could be major sources of air pollution can be built or significantly modified only if they are equipped with "the best available control technology." The law generally applies to power plants, refineries, steel mills or other facilities if they emit at least 100 tons per year of any regulated air pollutant.
But the law also covers "any building, structure, facility or installation" that emits at least 250 tons per year of any regulated air pollutant -- a threshold low enough to cover roughly one million midsize to large commercial-sector sources, including restaurants, hospitals, schools and office buildings, based on estimates by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"There may be some fringe thinkers out there, but not one of the major environmental groups has any desire" to go after facilities that emit less than 10,000 tons of CO2 a year, says David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the Sierra Club.
Opponents of EPA-crafted regulation say those assurances aren't good enough. "Our neighbors would challenge Costco [under the Clean Air Act] if they had the chance," says Roger Martella, who was the EPA's general counsel under President George W. Bush and now represents utilities, manufacturers, and other groups worried about EPA regulation. "The Sierra Club can't stop them."
Mr. Obama declared in his inaugural address that "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The response to the EPA's first steps toward attacking climate change will test whether he spoke too soon.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Greenstar cleans up as war on waste escalates
By Chris Tighe
Published: April 13 2009 03:00
The rising tide of plastic packaging makes many consumers uneasy as they fill their supermarket trolleys with goods mounted on plastic trays and liquids stored in plastic bottles.
But the innovative efforts of Teesside plastics recycling pioneer Greenstar WES, the world's first commercial producer of food grade recycled plastic, should go some way to tackle concerns about environmental pollution and waste.
Each month, Greenstar WES's plant at the Wilton International site near Redcar, North Yorkshire, receives up to 2,000 tonnes of baled plastics, much of it domestic waste collected from households. The company was the first in the world to develop and apply the technology to convert plastic milk bottles from consumers' bins into clean, food-grade, high-density polyethylene (r-HDPE) flakes.
It was also the first UK processor capable of recycling metallised crisp packets; it now handles 2,000 tonnes of them annually, turning them into multicoloured plastic pellets for making paint trays and plant pots.
Its r-HDPE flakes are supplied to packaging manufacturers, including Nampak, Sharp Interpack and Linpac Packaging for use in applications including bottles and food trays for chickens and mushrooms. In 2009 it expects to supply 8,000 tonnes of food-grade recycled plastic to British, Belgian, Italian, French and Dutch manufacturers. About 60 per cent goes to Nampak, which has been keen to source more r-HDPE from within the UK.
Consumers may not realise when they buy Marks and Spencer's organic milk that one 10th of the plastic used for bottles has been on a shop shelf before. Nampak, which describes Greenstar WES as a vital piece of the jigsaw in getting bottles including r-HDPE accepted and on retailers' shelves, eventually hopes to use 30 per cent recycled content in its bottles.
Sharp Interpack uses the r-HDPE flakes for its food trays. Andrew Copson, managing director, says: "Environmental responsibilities won't go away and so initiatives like food-grade recycled plastics are a fundamental game-changer."
Having started out during the early 1990s as Waste Exchange Services, WES's management in 2007 sold 75 per cent to Greenstar UK, one of the country's biggest recycling-led waste management companies.
Greenstar WES innovations include the processing of heavily printed plastic film, the conversion of waste plastics from car scrap and specialist pipes and of low-grade plastics like dirty polystyrene. Its total annual processing capacity is 25,000 tonnes of plastics, but it intends to increase volumes.
"We're always playing with plastic and soon hope to have some new products to [test]," says James Donaldson, founder and managing director. "Plastic is fantastic, especially when it's recycled."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 13 2009 03:00
The rising tide of plastic packaging makes many consumers uneasy as they fill their supermarket trolleys with goods mounted on plastic trays and liquids stored in plastic bottles.
But the innovative efforts of Teesside plastics recycling pioneer Greenstar WES, the world's first commercial producer of food grade recycled plastic, should go some way to tackle concerns about environmental pollution and waste.
Each month, Greenstar WES's plant at the Wilton International site near Redcar, North Yorkshire, receives up to 2,000 tonnes of baled plastics, much of it domestic waste collected from households. The company was the first in the world to develop and apply the technology to convert plastic milk bottles from consumers' bins into clean, food-grade, high-density polyethylene (r-HDPE) flakes.
It was also the first UK processor capable of recycling metallised crisp packets; it now handles 2,000 tonnes of them annually, turning them into multicoloured plastic pellets for making paint trays and plant pots.
Its r-HDPE flakes are supplied to packaging manufacturers, including Nampak, Sharp Interpack and Linpac Packaging for use in applications including bottles and food trays for chickens and mushrooms. In 2009 it expects to supply 8,000 tonnes of food-grade recycled plastic to British, Belgian, Italian, French and Dutch manufacturers. About 60 per cent goes to Nampak, which has been keen to source more r-HDPE from within the UK.
Consumers may not realise when they buy Marks and Spencer's organic milk that one 10th of the plastic used for bottles has been on a shop shelf before. Nampak, which describes Greenstar WES as a vital piece of the jigsaw in getting bottles including r-HDPE accepted and on retailers' shelves, eventually hopes to use 30 per cent recycled content in its bottles.
Sharp Interpack uses the r-HDPE flakes for its food trays. Andrew Copson, managing director, says: "Environmental responsibilities won't go away and so initiatives like food-grade recycled plastics are a fundamental game-changer."
Having started out during the early 1990s as Waste Exchange Services, WES's management in 2007 sold 75 per cent to Greenstar UK, one of the country's biggest recycling-led waste management companies.
Greenstar WES innovations include the processing of heavily printed plastic film, the conversion of waste plastics from car scrap and specialist pipes and of low-grade plastics like dirty polystyrene. Its total annual processing capacity is 25,000 tonnes of plastics, but it intends to increase volumes.
"We're always playing with plastic and soon hope to have some new products to [test]," says James Donaldson, founder and managing director. "Plastic is fantastic, especially when it's recycled."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
GE Invests in Car-Battery Maker
A123 to Expand Production of Energy Systems for Hybrid, Electric Vehicles
By ALEX P. KELLOGG
Car-battery maker A123 Systems Inc. is expected to announce Monday that it has raised $69 million as part of its most recent capital campaign, and that primary backer General Electric Co. will gain a seat on the company's board in exchange for its investment.
The infusion will advance the Watertown, Mass., company's plans to build new factories in Michigan to manufacture the lithium-ion batteries, packs and modules it has been developing for the auto industry in recent years.
The boost for A123's plans is good news for Michigan, whose economy has been racked by the crisis in the auto industry, including the government-orchestrated restructuring of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Michigan has been bleeding traditional manufacturing jobs in recent years, and the state's governor has been promoting alternative-energy industries as a potential salve.
Getty Images
Chrysler plans to use A123 batteries in its prospective line of electric vehicles. Above, Chrysler executives introduce the 200C EV electric concept car in January at the Detroit auto show.
The funding news follows an announcement that Chrysler has selected A123 to develop batteries for the car maker's prospective line of electric vehicles.
Dave Vieau, president and chief executive of A123, said the success of the capital campaign indicates that even in the current economic climate, there is private-sector investor interest in alternative-energy technologies that show promise.
GE's Energy Financial Services and Capital Equity units provided $15 million in the latest round of financing. That brings GE's total investments in the battery maker to $70 million, representing an ownership stake of more than 10%.
Mr. Vieau said the new capital will help move the company closer to profitability by allowing it to scale up its manufacturing efforts. The added scale could also promote wider adoption of alternative-energy technologies, because it lowers the unit cost of battery packs and could bring down the cost of hybrid and electric vehicles. The company says its planned production facilities would be capable of supplying systems for five million hybrid electric vehicles or a half-million plug-in electric vehicles per year by 2013.
Questions remain, however, about how solid the market is for this new generation of car batteries. After a spike last summer, sales of hybrid vehicles have sunk along with the rest of the car market. And A123's partnership with Chrysler could be in jeopardy if the company is forced into bankruptcy.
Chrysler's battery-powered versions of the Jeep Wrangler, Jeep Patriot and Chrysler Town & Country minivan will all use A123 technology, if they make it to the market by 2013 as proposed.
Another client of A123 is SAIC Motor Corp., one of China's biggest state-owned auto makers.
Meanwhile, GM's highly anticipated Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid car is scheduled to hit the market next year, using batteries from a different manufacturer.
Mark Little, senior vice president and director of global research at GE, said he believes battery-powered vehicles are only a year away from being available to the average American consumer. "Even a 5% penetration in the auto industry is a huge market, and I see that happening quite rapidly," said Mr. Little, who will represent GE on the A123 board.
GE was an early investor in the battery maker, which said it has now raised more than $300 million since it was founded in 2001. A123 also makes batteries for power tools and for utility companies.
Write to Alex P. Kellogg at alex.kellogg@wsj.com
By ALEX P. KELLOGG
Car-battery maker A123 Systems Inc. is expected to announce Monday that it has raised $69 million as part of its most recent capital campaign, and that primary backer General Electric Co. will gain a seat on the company's board in exchange for its investment.
The infusion will advance the Watertown, Mass., company's plans to build new factories in Michigan to manufacture the lithium-ion batteries, packs and modules it has been developing for the auto industry in recent years.
The boost for A123's plans is good news for Michigan, whose economy has been racked by the crisis in the auto industry, including the government-orchestrated restructuring of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Michigan has been bleeding traditional manufacturing jobs in recent years, and the state's governor has been promoting alternative-energy industries as a potential salve.
Getty Images
Chrysler plans to use A123 batteries in its prospective line of electric vehicles. Above, Chrysler executives introduce the 200C EV electric concept car in January at the Detroit auto show.
The funding news follows an announcement that Chrysler has selected A123 to develop batteries for the car maker's prospective line of electric vehicles.
Dave Vieau, president and chief executive of A123, said the success of the capital campaign indicates that even in the current economic climate, there is private-sector investor interest in alternative-energy technologies that show promise.
GE's Energy Financial Services and Capital Equity units provided $15 million in the latest round of financing. That brings GE's total investments in the battery maker to $70 million, representing an ownership stake of more than 10%.
Mr. Vieau said the new capital will help move the company closer to profitability by allowing it to scale up its manufacturing efforts. The added scale could also promote wider adoption of alternative-energy technologies, because it lowers the unit cost of battery packs and could bring down the cost of hybrid and electric vehicles. The company says its planned production facilities would be capable of supplying systems for five million hybrid electric vehicles or a half-million plug-in electric vehicles per year by 2013.
Questions remain, however, about how solid the market is for this new generation of car batteries. After a spike last summer, sales of hybrid vehicles have sunk along with the rest of the car market. And A123's partnership with Chrysler could be in jeopardy if the company is forced into bankruptcy.
Chrysler's battery-powered versions of the Jeep Wrangler, Jeep Patriot and Chrysler Town & Country minivan will all use A123 technology, if they make it to the market by 2013 as proposed.
Another client of A123 is SAIC Motor Corp., one of China's biggest state-owned auto makers.
Meanwhile, GM's highly anticipated Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid car is scheduled to hit the market next year, using batteries from a different manufacturer.
Mark Little, senior vice president and director of global research at GE, said he believes battery-powered vehicles are only a year away from being available to the average American consumer. "Even a 5% penetration in the auto industry is a huge market, and I see that happening quite rapidly," said Mr. Little, who will represent GE on the A123 board.
GE was an early investor in the battery maker, which said it has now raised more than $300 million since it was founded in 2001. A123 also makes batteries for power tools and for utility companies.
Write to Alex P. Kellogg at alex.kellogg@wsj.com
Scientists fear worst on global warming
• Poll admission that official targets are unrealistic• Public doesn't realise 'how serious climate change is'
David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 14 April 2009
Politicians insist that urgent and widespread action can yet prevent the worst of global warming but the cracks in that argument have been showing for some time.
Officially, UK efforts on climate change are in line with a global ambition to limit the temperature rise above pre-industrial levels to below 2C - a threshold the EU has defined as dangerous. But in 2006 David King, then the government's chief scientist, said a 3C rise was likely. Last summer, Bob Watson, the chief scientist to the environment department (Defra), told the Guardian the world needed to prepare for the possibility of a 4C rise. This autumn, Oxford University will hold a conference to discuss life in a 4C warmer world.
Hit with a double whammy of spiralling carbon emissions from the coal-fired boom in developing countries such as China and political stalemate, many climate scientists have become noticeably nervous in recent years. While technical papers in academic journals have tracked increasingly desperate predictions, most have put on a brave face in public. Likely failure to meet the 2C target, and the certainty of dreadful consequences, has been the worst-kept secret in climate science.
No longer. Today's Guardian poll of attendees at a climate conference last month in Copenhagen exposes the gulf between political rhetoric and scientific thinking. Of more than 250 experts surveyed, more than half said the 2C target could still be achieved but only 18 thought that it would be. By the end of the century, most thought average temperatures would rise by some 4C.
The figure is not plucked from their imaginations. The authoritative report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 laid it out in simple terms. If carbon emissions continue to rise at present rates, then the IPCC's best guess is a 4C rise by 2100. The Guardian poll merely highlights a belief that the warning has simply failed to penetrate. As one said: "I think a full understanding of what must be done quickly, and the consequences of insufficient action, is lacking among the policy makers and the public." Another said: "Current government actions are playing into the hands of ... an electorate that doesn't quite understand how serious climate change is."
Survey respondents were promised anonymity. Many scientists are reluctant to admit publicly that the 2C target is unrealistic, and several warned that simply raising the subject was sensitive. One said: "Telling people that x% people think it can't be done would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done ... Churchill didn't stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches."
Several scientists said the G20 summit in London, where climate change was barely considered, had convinced them the action required would not be taken. Simon Lewis, a climate researcher at the University of Leeds, said: "The summit shows that political leaders do not regard climate change as an urgent issue. They were tasked to re-configure the global economy and they chose to re-affirm the old model, and not move to a low-carbon economy as scientists have urged. The summit was more of an end-of-the-world order than a new world order."
Bob Doppelt, director of the climate leadership initiative at the University of Oregon, said: "One of the problems is that the issue is still being framed as a scientific and environmental issue. This is a major mistake. Climate change is just a symptom of dysfunctional social and economic practices and policies. It is a social and economic issue. The emphasis needs to shift away from the biophysical sciences now to the social sciences if we have any hope of solving this problem."
Others said it could take a series of extreme weather events similar to Hurricane Katrina and the 2003 European heatwave to force political action. One said a "9/11-type event" that could be traced to increased greenhouse gas emissions might break the political deadlock.
David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 14 April 2009
Politicians insist that urgent and widespread action can yet prevent the worst of global warming but the cracks in that argument have been showing for some time.
Officially, UK efforts on climate change are in line with a global ambition to limit the temperature rise above pre-industrial levels to below 2C - a threshold the EU has defined as dangerous. But in 2006 David King, then the government's chief scientist, said a 3C rise was likely. Last summer, Bob Watson, the chief scientist to the environment department (Defra), told the Guardian the world needed to prepare for the possibility of a 4C rise. This autumn, Oxford University will hold a conference to discuss life in a 4C warmer world.
Hit with a double whammy of spiralling carbon emissions from the coal-fired boom in developing countries such as China and political stalemate, many climate scientists have become noticeably nervous in recent years. While technical papers in academic journals have tracked increasingly desperate predictions, most have put on a brave face in public. Likely failure to meet the 2C target, and the certainty of dreadful consequences, has been the worst-kept secret in climate science.
No longer. Today's Guardian poll of attendees at a climate conference last month in Copenhagen exposes the gulf between political rhetoric and scientific thinking. Of more than 250 experts surveyed, more than half said the 2C target could still be achieved but only 18 thought that it would be. By the end of the century, most thought average temperatures would rise by some 4C.
The figure is not plucked from their imaginations. The authoritative report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 laid it out in simple terms. If carbon emissions continue to rise at present rates, then the IPCC's best guess is a 4C rise by 2100. The Guardian poll merely highlights a belief that the warning has simply failed to penetrate. As one said: "I think a full understanding of what must be done quickly, and the consequences of insufficient action, is lacking among the policy makers and the public." Another said: "Current government actions are playing into the hands of ... an electorate that doesn't quite understand how serious climate change is."
Survey respondents were promised anonymity. Many scientists are reluctant to admit publicly that the 2C target is unrealistic, and several warned that simply raising the subject was sensitive. One said: "Telling people that x% people think it can't be done would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done ... Churchill didn't stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches."
Several scientists said the G20 summit in London, where climate change was barely considered, had convinced them the action required would not be taken. Simon Lewis, a climate researcher at the University of Leeds, said: "The summit shows that political leaders do not regard climate change as an urgent issue. They were tasked to re-configure the global economy and they chose to re-affirm the old model, and not move to a low-carbon economy as scientists have urged. The summit was more of an end-of-the-world order than a new world order."
Bob Doppelt, director of the climate leadership initiative at the University of Oregon, said: "One of the problems is that the issue is still being framed as a scientific and environmental issue. This is a major mistake. Climate change is just a symptom of dysfunctional social and economic practices and policies. It is a social and economic issue. The emphasis needs to shift away from the biophysical sciences now to the social sciences if we have any hope of solving this problem."
Others said it could take a series of extreme weather events similar to Hurricane Katrina and the 2003 European heatwave to force political action. One said a "9/11-type event" that could be traced to increased greenhouse gas emissions might break the political deadlock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
