Michael White
The Guardian, Thursday 10 September 2009
In the Human Rights Act and its freedom of information legislation New Labour has demonstrated a masochistic genius for creating weapons with which it can regularly be beaten. Next month the new supreme court looks set to become another one. Meanwhile, the thoroughly independent committee on climate change, set up only last year, today had ministers running for cover with a call for higher taxes on air passengers.
Ahead of December's pivotal climate change conference in Copenhagen, the logic offered by the high-powered committee, chaired by the ubiquitous Lord (Adair) Turner, was impeccable. The need to stabilise and reverse greenhouse gas emissions gets more urgent by the day and aviation is a fast-growing contributor to the problem.
Therefore, the summiteers should reach an international agreement in Denmark. But, as they look like ducking the challenge, it makes sense to pile on the pressure now. Richer people in rich countries do most of the flying and poor people in poor countries pick up the bill in environmental degradation. So the former should change their own habits – prodded via the price mechanism – with the proceeds being given to the world's poor to help repair the damage.
But ministers have to juggle too many policy balls to be able to say "Gosh, yes, you're right". Guardian readers and cabinet members (shadow cabinet too) may not hesitate to sign up to the 10:10 campaign to reduce their personal carbon footprint next year. But they also know that the wider electorate seems to want climate change tackled, but not at the cost of any great personal sacrifice.
So Lord Adonis, Gordon Brown's cerebral transport secretary, took time out from a high-speed rail conference (part of the green agenda) to assure voters that the government has no plans to raise aviation taxes further. Aware of the irony, he defended Brown's endorsement of a third Heathrow runway – which the Turner committee's chief executive, David Kennedy, hinted might be condemned in its next report.
Across at the Energy and Climate Change Department, Ed Miliband's officials are keen to stress how much Britain is doing. Emissions from domestic flights are being capped at 2005 levels by 2050, part of Labour's commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The air passenger duty is already edging up (London to Sydney from £55 to £85 next year) and will do so again when aviation is included in the EU's emissions trading scheme in 2012.
Everyone knows it is not enough, but a want of political courage combines with a prudent reluctance to force the pace. Today the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank suggested going a lot further than 10:10 by giving each of us carbon caps which we could trade, poorer people who don't travel much pocketing cash from globe-trotting executives. That sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, like wartime ration books without the threat of Hitler to make people behave.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Areva's High-Voltage Power Play
By MATTHEW CURTIN
World-class assets in sectors of strategic importance for the French state don't often come on the market. So the sale of the transmission-and-distribution unit of indebted, state-owned nuclear-energy group Areva is generating plenty of foreign interest.
Japan's Toshiba is considering offering around €4 billion ($5.8 billion). Siemens has put up its hand, though as one of Europe's three big players in the segment, it faces antitrust hurdles. General Electric and other Asian companies may bid too.
None should get its hopes up. T&D's strong position in Europe and Asia, where it has invested heavily in India, makes it a juicy target. But energy is a key strategic sector in France, where creating national champions is central to industrial policy. And Alstom and Schneider, two of France's biggest industrial groups, are preparing a joint bid. Assuming it is coherent and fully priced, foreign buyers may not get much of a look-in.
Any bidder will certainly have to pay more for T&D than the €930 million Areva did in 2003. Alstom sold the business under duress to avoid financial collapse for just four times operating profit. Analysts reckon the enterprise value today, after sales have risen 40% and operating margins improved, is worth roughly six times operating profit, the multiple on which Alstom shares are trading, or roughly €4 billion.
Alstom and Schneider have a good case. Each wants different parts of the business: high-voltage transmission for Alstom; medium-voltage distribution for Schneider, making it the world leader. Alstom knows the business well, which reduces integration risk and offsets the lack of synergies. The deal would help it play catch-up with GE and Siemens -- and could be a stepping stone towards its long-term ambition to create a new French champion by merging its power business with Areva's. By bidding together, Alstom and Schneider avoid endangering their credit ratings. Critically, they foresee no job losses in France.
If that wasn't enough to lower foreign bidders' hopes, AXA Private Equity, a unit of France's biggest insurer, is also mulling an offer. So Paris may have a fallback option should Alstom and Schneider not come up trumps.
Write to Matthew Curtin at matthew.curtin@dowjones.com
World-class assets in sectors of strategic importance for the French state don't often come on the market. So the sale of the transmission-and-distribution unit of indebted, state-owned nuclear-energy group Areva is generating plenty of foreign interest.
Japan's Toshiba is considering offering around €4 billion ($5.8 billion). Siemens has put up its hand, though as one of Europe's three big players in the segment, it faces antitrust hurdles. General Electric and other Asian companies may bid too.
None should get its hopes up. T&D's strong position in Europe and Asia, where it has invested heavily in India, makes it a juicy target. But energy is a key strategic sector in France, where creating national champions is central to industrial policy. And Alstom and Schneider, two of France's biggest industrial groups, are preparing a joint bid. Assuming it is coherent and fully priced, foreign buyers may not get much of a look-in.
Any bidder will certainly have to pay more for T&D than the €930 million Areva did in 2003. Alstom sold the business under duress to avoid financial collapse for just four times operating profit. Analysts reckon the enterprise value today, after sales have risen 40% and operating margins improved, is worth roughly six times operating profit, the multiple on which Alstom shares are trading, or roughly €4 billion.
Alstom and Schneider have a good case. Each wants different parts of the business: high-voltage transmission for Alstom; medium-voltage distribution for Schneider, making it the world leader. Alstom knows the business well, which reduces integration risk and offsets the lack of synergies. The deal would help it play catch-up with GE and Siemens -- and could be a stepping stone towards its long-term ambition to create a new French champion by merging its power business with Areva's. By bidding together, Alstom and Schneider avoid endangering their credit ratings. Critically, they foresee no job losses in France.
If that wasn't enough to lower foreign bidders' hopes, AXA Private Equity, a unit of France's biggest insurer, is also mulling an offer. So Paris may have a fallback option should Alstom and Schneider not come up trumps.
Write to Matthew Curtin at matthew.curtin@dowjones.com
Iberdrola to Boost U.S. Wind-Energy Investment
By KEITH JOHNSON and RUSSELL GOLD
Iberdrola SA, the Spanish renewable-energy company, said it will spend $2 billion it raised through a bond issue Tuesday to keep growing in the U.S.
The announcement came after Iberdrola met criticism from Republican lawmakers in Congress and conservative commentators over the amount of U.S. government money it is getting under a new federal subsidy program for renewable energy.
When the Energy Department handed out $502 million in cash grants last week, Iberdrola received a majority of the funds -- $294 million -- for five wind-power projects in Oregon, Texas, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The money was part of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill enacted earlier this year.
"American capital, supported by the government's plans, is being invested in America and creating wealth and jobs in the country, thanks to Iberdrola," Iberdrola's chairman, Ignacio Sanchez Galan, said in a video posted on the company's Web site.
The company already is the second-largest wind-farm operator in the U.S., behind Florida-based FPL Group Inc.'s NextEra Energy; the U.S. is the world's largest market for wind power.
Iberdrola has said it is bullish on the U.S. because the nation has better wind resources than other countries and more government support for renewable energy. According to recent securities filings, the U.S. accounts for 31% of the company's installed wind power, but 42% of its pipeline of future wind farms.
According to a filing with the Spanish stock-market regulatory agency, Iberdrola sold two tranches of bonds this week: a five-year note paying 3.8% interest and a 10-year note paying 5% interest.
Write to Keith Johnson at keith.johnson@wsj.com and Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com
Iberdrola SA, the Spanish renewable-energy company, said it will spend $2 billion it raised through a bond issue Tuesday to keep growing in the U.S.
The announcement came after Iberdrola met criticism from Republican lawmakers in Congress and conservative commentators over the amount of U.S. government money it is getting under a new federal subsidy program for renewable energy.
When the Energy Department handed out $502 million in cash grants last week, Iberdrola received a majority of the funds -- $294 million -- for five wind-power projects in Oregon, Texas, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The money was part of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill enacted earlier this year.
"American capital, supported by the government's plans, is being invested in America and creating wealth and jobs in the country, thanks to Iberdrola," Iberdrola's chairman, Ignacio Sanchez Galan, said in a video posted on the company's Web site.
The company already is the second-largest wind-farm operator in the U.S., behind Florida-based FPL Group Inc.'s NextEra Energy; the U.S. is the world's largest market for wind power.
Iberdrola has said it is bullish on the U.S. because the nation has better wind resources than other countries and more government support for renewable energy. According to recent securities filings, the U.S. accounts for 31% of the company's installed wind power, but 42% of its pipeline of future wind farms.
According to a filing with the Spanish stock-market regulatory agency, Iberdrola sold two tranches of bonds this week: a five-year note paying 3.8% interest and a 10-year note paying 5% interest.
Write to Keith Johnson at keith.johnson@wsj.com and Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com
Electric cars: Tesla ready to go Deutsch
It's been a rocky year for the nascent American electric car maker Tesla, but the company - headed by Praetorian polymath Elon Musk - plans to extend its reach in Europe by opening a new sales and service centre in Munich later this week. Probably helps that Daimler, the German maker of Mercedes, holds a significant stake in Tesla - but the move also follows on from the firm's London store (it's in Knightsbridge, just a champagne cork's pop away from Harrod's) and the scheduled opening of another spot in Monaco. Two questions: has anyone been to the London location? And while these exclusive locations are perfect for Tesla's sporty Roadster models, will they help push the slightly-lower-down-the-scale Model S?
Red letter day as Royal Mail joins 10:10 climate change campaign
• Biggest organisation so far to back emissions effort• Customers and employees encouraged to join in
John Crace
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 September 2009 19.05 BST
The Royal Mail has become the latest major business to sign up to 10:10, the national climate change campaign to reduce carbon emissions in the UK by 10% in 2010. With 176,000 employees, it is the largest organisation to commit to 10:10 so far.
Royal Mail will not only seek to reduce its CO2 emissions in 2010 but will encourage its staff and business customers to do the same. The company says it has already reduced its operational emissions by more than 5% over the past three to four years.
In the next 12 months Royal Mail intends to: roll out more double-decker delivery trucks, which can carry more items per vehicle; improve route planning to reduce the total distance travelled; encourage its staff to reduce their emissions at home as well as at work; and offer cost savings to business customers that commit to only sending mail using sustainable paper and fully recyclable packaging.
"Royal Mail believes 10:10 is a great initiative and one that we're proud to be part of," said chief executive, Adam Crozier. "We know we can do much more for the future, both by driving down Royal Mail's own carbon usage throughout the country and by making it easy for companies who send a lot of mail to use the most environmentally friendly option."
Dr Martin Blake, head of sustainability for Royal Mail said the company planned to reduce its emissions by 50% by 2015.He said: "Our process is avoid, reduce, replace and offset. So first we aim to avoid emitting carbon, for example by eliminating unnecessary journeys. Reduction will see us trying to cut the amount of fossil fuel we use. Replacement will see the fuel we use replaced with low or zero carbon equivalents. And finally, we'll offset."
Franny Armstrong, who founded 10:10 and directed the eco-documentary The Age of Stupid, welcomed the Royal Mail's initiative. "We're thrilled to have an iconic organisation like the Royal Mail sign up to 10:10," she said. "With such a huge number of staff, sites and vehicles, the company has the capacity to make significant emissions cuts as well as getting the 10:10 message out."
The campaign, which hopes to build a grassroots movement for tougher action on climate change, is backed by the Guardian. In the week since launch it has attracted 14,000 individuals, 550 companies, 150 schools and 250 other organisations such as hospitals and councils.
Gordon Brown and the entire cabinet and Tory front bench have personally signed up, as have companies such as the online supermarket Ocado, software firm Oracle and city law firm Slaughter and May, as well as celebrities including Delia Smith, Ian McEwan, and Colin Firth. Companies signing up to the campaign commit to reducing their emissions by a minimum of 3% but to attempt deeper cuts. Four major power companies have agreed to provide customers with information on whether they are hitting their 10:10 target.
In a letter to the Guardian tomorrow the NHS – Europe's largest employer and largest public sector emitter of CO2 – is urged to sign up to 10:10 by 10 NHS trusts that have already joined. They argue that cost savings from energy efficiency will be crucial as pressure rises on budgets and that staff morale could be boosted. Also today, a report concludes that the NHS will have to play a leading role in the response to climate change if it is to provide the best quality healthcare in the future.
David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, said: "The NHS is determined to provide the best healthcare in a sustainable way which reduces our carbon footprint."
Mail shots
• The Royal Mail handles 75,000,000 items of post every day
• Collects from 113,000 different points
• Delivers to 28,000,000 addresses
• Has 33,000 vehicles using 135,000,000 litres of diesel a year
• Has an annual road mileage equivalent to a return trip to Jupiter
• Has 12,000 retail outlets
• Has annual carbon dioxide emissions of just under 1m tonnes a year, about 0.15% of all UK emissions
• Has an annual electricity consumption that would power 112,000 homes
• Produces annual landfill waste equivalent to over 2,200 buses
• Has an annual water consumption equivalent to 28 litres for every person in the UK
John Crace
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 September 2009 19.05 BST
The Royal Mail has become the latest major business to sign up to 10:10, the national climate change campaign to reduce carbon emissions in the UK by 10% in 2010. With 176,000 employees, it is the largest organisation to commit to 10:10 so far.
Royal Mail will not only seek to reduce its CO2 emissions in 2010 but will encourage its staff and business customers to do the same. The company says it has already reduced its operational emissions by more than 5% over the past three to four years.
In the next 12 months Royal Mail intends to: roll out more double-decker delivery trucks, which can carry more items per vehicle; improve route planning to reduce the total distance travelled; encourage its staff to reduce their emissions at home as well as at work; and offer cost savings to business customers that commit to only sending mail using sustainable paper and fully recyclable packaging.
"Royal Mail believes 10:10 is a great initiative and one that we're proud to be part of," said chief executive, Adam Crozier. "We know we can do much more for the future, both by driving down Royal Mail's own carbon usage throughout the country and by making it easy for companies who send a lot of mail to use the most environmentally friendly option."
Dr Martin Blake, head of sustainability for Royal Mail said the company planned to reduce its emissions by 50% by 2015.He said: "Our process is avoid, reduce, replace and offset. So first we aim to avoid emitting carbon, for example by eliminating unnecessary journeys. Reduction will see us trying to cut the amount of fossil fuel we use. Replacement will see the fuel we use replaced with low or zero carbon equivalents. And finally, we'll offset."
Franny Armstrong, who founded 10:10 and directed the eco-documentary The Age of Stupid, welcomed the Royal Mail's initiative. "We're thrilled to have an iconic organisation like the Royal Mail sign up to 10:10," she said. "With such a huge number of staff, sites and vehicles, the company has the capacity to make significant emissions cuts as well as getting the 10:10 message out."
The campaign, which hopes to build a grassroots movement for tougher action on climate change, is backed by the Guardian. In the week since launch it has attracted 14,000 individuals, 550 companies, 150 schools and 250 other organisations such as hospitals and councils.
Gordon Brown and the entire cabinet and Tory front bench have personally signed up, as have companies such as the online supermarket Ocado, software firm Oracle and city law firm Slaughter and May, as well as celebrities including Delia Smith, Ian McEwan, and Colin Firth. Companies signing up to the campaign commit to reducing their emissions by a minimum of 3% but to attempt deeper cuts. Four major power companies have agreed to provide customers with information on whether they are hitting their 10:10 target.
In a letter to the Guardian tomorrow the NHS – Europe's largest employer and largest public sector emitter of CO2 – is urged to sign up to 10:10 by 10 NHS trusts that have already joined. They argue that cost savings from energy efficiency will be crucial as pressure rises on budgets and that staff morale could be boosted. Also today, a report concludes that the NHS will have to play a leading role in the response to climate change if it is to provide the best quality healthcare in the future.
David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, said: "The NHS is determined to provide the best healthcare in a sustainable way which reduces our carbon footprint."
Mail shots
• The Royal Mail handles 75,000,000 items of post every day
• Collects from 113,000 different points
• Delivers to 28,000,000 addresses
• Has 33,000 vehicles using 135,000,000 litres of diesel a year
• Has an annual road mileage equivalent to a return trip to Jupiter
• Has 12,000 retail outlets
• Has annual carbon dioxide emissions of just under 1m tonnes a year, about 0.15% of all UK emissions
• Has an annual electricity consumption that would power 112,000 homes
• Produces annual landfill waste equivalent to over 2,200 buses
• Has an annual water consumption equivalent to 28 litres for every person in the UK
Fear is not the best motivator
It's easy enough to scare people about climate change. But there are other ways to capture imaginations and create momentum
Mark Dowd
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 September 2009 15.45 BST
The chances are, if you are reading this, that you might also have seen either The Age of Stupid or An Inconvenient Truth. To those who fight to get climate change to the top of the agenda, these two movies are essential campaigning tools. Now I don't dispute their power and Messrs Gore and Postlethwaite are to be credited for sticking their heads above the parapet, but I have a problem with them: they left me feeling numb and overwhelmed. Gore stacks up the evidence of the momentum towards dangerous tipping points so effectively that by the time he gets on to "solutions" very near the end of his hundred minute presentation, you feel you are about to be demolished by a juggernaut.
I had a similar reaction when I first saw The Age of Stupid. At the end of a packed screening earlier in the year, one of my Operation Noah colleagues stood up and bluntly asked the audience: "So having seen that, who wants to get involved in campaigning?" There was a chilled and muted response. It may be me, but a very large amount of the film left me thinking that all the images of flooding, drought and destruction which Postlethwaite uncovers in his film archives are inevitable. From his futuristic vantage point of 2055, he shows a world that, in a mere 40 to 50 years, has gone to the dogs. And in a world where denial is still very much a factor, it's amazing how quickly people switch from denying the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming, to embracing the view that it's all too late and we're all doomed. Of course, that "flip" still allows you to go on behaving as before. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Which raises all sorts of questions that lobbyists and campaigners have been grappling with for years now on all this: what is the best way to engage the human imagination on the issue of our time? Guilt and fear are very limited in their appeal and, more often than not, only induce a greater desire to turn away and carry on as before. What's encouraging is to come across so many schoolchildren who are getting more and more familiar with the notion of stewardship. It's a term that has both appeal to religious and secular mindsets: namely that because of our lofty status in terms of biological and intellectual complexity compared to other species, this carries with it a responsibility to cherish our surroundings. Man's intelligence, as we have seen from history, can be put to a variety of creative and destructive uses: compare lunar landings and the discovery of penicillin with war and genocide. Ahead of December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, we are now facing an epic collective decision as a species: business as usual and sleepwalking towards all sorts of potential horrors, or reverting back an understanding that sees ourselves not as usurpers of nature as a commodity, but as protective guardians of a wondrous world that is threatened – uniquely, by its own most intelligent life form. Fossil fuels which took millions and million of years to be formed by slow natural processes are being released into the biosphere at a dizzying rate with destabilising consequences which are there for all to see.
I believe virtue and example are contagious. Look at what happened recently with the launch of the 10:10 campaign, which the Guardian is backing. No sooner had Ed Miliband signed up to cut his own carbon emissions by 10%, than we were being told the whole Tory front bench were getting ready to endorse the pledge. Within 24 hours, the entire cabinet had also jumped on board and Liberal Democrats announced they were looking at moves to make this a resolution which would bind the whole party. Cynical politicking? Maybe in part, but this is all about momentum and taking the notion of stewardship beyond the perceived domain of the elite middle classes into society as a whole.
We are gnawing away at the very womb that sustains us. Reversing that trend needs as big an army of stewards as we can possibly muster.
Mark Dowd is campaign strategist for Operation Noah
Mark Dowd
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 September 2009 15.45 BST
The chances are, if you are reading this, that you might also have seen either The Age of Stupid or An Inconvenient Truth. To those who fight to get climate change to the top of the agenda, these two movies are essential campaigning tools. Now I don't dispute their power and Messrs Gore and Postlethwaite are to be credited for sticking their heads above the parapet, but I have a problem with them: they left me feeling numb and overwhelmed. Gore stacks up the evidence of the momentum towards dangerous tipping points so effectively that by the time he gets on to "solutions" very near the end of his hundred minute presentation, you feel you are about to be demolished by a juggernaut.
I had a similar reaction when I first saw The Age of Stupid. At the end of a packed screening earlier in the year, one of my Operation Noah colleagues stood up and bluntly asked the audience: "So having seen that, who wants to get involved in campaigning?" There was a chilled and muted response. It may be me, but a very large amount of the film left me thinking that all the images of flooding, drought and destruction which Postlethwaite uncovers in his film archives are inevitable. From his futuristic vantage point of 2055, he shows a world that, in a mere 40 to 50 years, has gone to the dogs. And in a world where denial is still very much a factor, it's amazing how quickly people switch from denying the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming, to embracing the view that it's all too late and we're all doomed. Of course, that "flip" still allows you to go on behaving as before. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Which raises all sorts of questions that lobbyists and campaigners have been grappling with for years now on all this: what is the best way to engage the human imagination on the issue of our time? Guilt and fear are very limited in their appeal and, more often than not, only induce a greater desire to turn away and carry on as before. What's encouraging is to come across so many schoolchildren who are getting more and more familiar with the notion of stewardship. It's a term that has both appeal to religious and secular mindsets: namely that because of our lofty status in terms of biological and intellectual complexity compared to other species, this carries with it a responsibility to cherish our surroundings. Man's intelligence, as we have seen from history, can be put to a variety of creative and destructive uses: compare lunar landings and the discovery of penicillin with war and genocide. Ahead of December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, we are now facing an epic collective decision as a species: business as usual and sleepwalking towards all sorts of potential horrors, or reverting back an understanding that sees ourselves not as usurpers of nature as a commodity, but as protective guardians of a wondrous world that is threatened – uniquely, by its own most intelligent life form. Fossil fuels which took millions and million of years to be formed by slow natural processes are being released into the biosphere at a dizzying rate with destabilising consequences which are there for all to see.
I believe virtue and example are contagious. Look at what happened recently with the launch of the 10:10 campaign, which the Guardian is backing. No sooner had Ed Miliband signed up to cut his own carbon emissions by 10%, than we were being told the whole Tory front bench were getting ready to endorse the pledge. Within 24 hours, the entire cabinet had also jumped on board and Liberal Democrats announced they were looking at moves to make this a resolution which would bind the whole party. Cynical politicking? Maybe in part, but this is all about momentum and taking the notion of stewardship beyond the perceived domain of the elite middle classes into society as a whole.
We are gnawing away at the very womb that sustains us. Reversing that trend needs as big an army of stewards as we can possibly muster.
Mark Dowd is campaign strategist for Operation Noah
Air travel may have to be rationed in the future says Government climate change advisers
The era of cheap air travel cannot continue, according to Government advisers, who have called for a global cap on aviation emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM BST 09 Sep 2009
Air travel is expected to at least double by the middle of the century as new airlines spring up in developing countries like China and rich countries like Britain expand airports such as Heathrow.
However the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) fears unlimited growth of air travel will cause greenhouse gas emissions to increase and therefore cause global warming.
In a letter to the Secretaries of State for Climate Change and Transport, the committee calls for global aviation emissions to be capped at 2005 levels by 2050.
They said that this does not mean that the number of flights will be cut in the short term.
However, unless new technology allowing planes to fly without producing so many greenhouse gases is invented very soon, it does mean that the world cannot afford to take more flights than currently are taken.
David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the CCC, said the era of each generation being able to fly more than the last was over and flights may get more expensive as a way of rationing.
"You may want to go on holiday more that you do now. But you may not be able to do that in a carbon-constrained world," he said.
The CCC is calling for the Government to push for a global cap on aviation emissions as part of any deal climate change deal to be decided by the UN in Copenhagen at the end of the year.
All aviation emissions should be capped, but there could be a period where flights in and out of rich countries would be targeted, while those between developing countries were exempt, the letter suggested.
Any deal to reduce emissions from flying should be "ambitious", and aim for no less than the EU's current plans which require a 5 per cent reduction in emissions from 2013 to 2020.
Mr Kennedy insisted such measures would not force people to fly less than they currently do.
However he said the air travel "may well be rationed" in the future to stop the growth of emissions.
"We can do a lot with bio-fuels in the future but there is a big question about food security and how much land would be needed. So we certainly have to think seriously about constraining demand," he said.
Mr Kennedy said the committee favoured using a "cap and trade scheme" as a system of rationing. This is already due to come in in the EU from 2012. It forces airlines to buy "emissions permits" for producing pollution. As the number of permits is reduced in order to bring down emissions the price will go up and that cost will ultimately be passed onto customers.
"We have to think seriously about constraining demand and the way we do that is to have high fares to reflect carbon prices," he added.
In the past Lord Turner, the chairman of the CCC, said that people should be given personal flight limits.
The Committee on Climate Change was set up to advise the Government on how to meet climate change targets. At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
The CCC report comes as a think tank suggested that the unless the UK manages to meet tough targets on cutting greenhouse gases within the next three years, everyone in the UK will have to be rationed on the amount of energy, car use and flights they take.
The Institute for Public Policy Research suggested people have a certain amount of carbon credits that limits the amount they can spend on luxuries like air travel.
At the end of the year 90 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference to decide a replacement fro the Kyoto Protocol.
The UK is arguing for a "tough" deal that forces rich countries to cut emissions by between 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 as well as spending billions on helping poor countries to adapt to climate change.
However David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said the complexity of the issue, other problems such as the recession clouding the political agenda and "suspicion" between rich and poor countries put any chance of a deal in "real danger".
The International Air Transport Association said air travel can continue to grow without increasing emissions because of biofuels and more efficient flying.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM BST 09 Sep 2009
Air travel is expected to at least double by the middle of the century as new airlines spring up in developing countries like China and rich countries like Britain expand airports such as Heathrow.
However the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) fears unlimited growth of air travel will cause greenhouse gas emissions to increase and therefore cause global warming.
In a letter to the Secretaries of State for Climate Change and Transport, the committee calls for global aviation emissions to be capped at 2005 levels by 2050.
They said that this does not mean that the number of flights will be cut in the short term.
However, unless new technology allowing planes to fly without producing so many greenhouse gases is invented very soon, it does mean that the world cannot afford to take more flights than currently are taken.
David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the CCC, said the era of each generation being able to fly more than the last was over and flights may get more expensive as a way of rationing.
"You may want to go on holiday more that you do now. But you may not be able to do that in a carbon-constrained world," he said.
The CCC is calling for the Government to push for a global cap on aviation emissions as part of any deal climate change deal to be decided by the UN in Copenhagen at the end of the year.
All aviation emissions should be capped, but there could be a period where flights in and out of rich countries would be targeted, while those between developing countries were exempt, the letter suggested.
Any deal to reduce emissions from flying should be "ambitious", and aim for no less than the EU's current plans which require a 5 per cent reduction in emissions from 2013 to 2020.
Mr Kennedy insisted such measures would not force people to fly less than they currently do.
However he said the air travel "may well be rationed" in the future to stop the growth of emissions.
"We can do a lot with bio-fuels in the future but there is a big question about food security and how much land would be needed. So we certainly have to think seriously about constraining demand," he said.
Mr Kennedy said the committee favoured using a "cap and trade scheme" as a system of rationing. This is already due to come in in the EU from 2012. It forces airlines to buy "emissions permits" for producing pollution. As the number of permits is reduced in order to bring down emissions the price will go up and that cost will ultimately be passed onto customers.
"We have to think seriously about constraining demand and the way we do that is to have high fares to reflect carbon prices," he added.
In the past Lord Turner, the chairman of the CCC, said that people should be given personal flight limits.
The Committee on Climate Change was set up to advise the Government on how to meet climate change targets. At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
The CCC report comes as a think tank suggested that the unless the UK manages to meet tough targets on cutting greenhouse gases within the next three years, everyone in the UK will have to be rationed on the amount of energy, car use and flights they take.
The Institute for Public Policy Research suggested people have a certain amount of carbon credits that limits the amount they can spend on luxuries like air travel.
At the end of the year 90 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference to decide a replacement fro the Kyoto Protocol.
The UK is arguing for a "tough" deal that forces rich countries to cut emissions by between 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 as well as spending billions on helping poor countries to adapt to climate change.
However David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said the complexity of the issue, other problems such as the recession clouding the political agenda and "suspicion" between rich and poor countries put any chance of a deal in "real danger".
The International Air Transport Association said air travel can continue to grow without increasing emissions because of biofuels and more efficient flying.
'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
By Richard PindarPublished: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to prove insufficient.
By Richard PindarPublished: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to prove insufficient.
North Sea cod 'doomed by climate change'
Cod are doomed to disappear from the North Sea because of climate change and not just as a result of over-fishing, researchers have discovered.
In the past 40 years the average temperature of the North Sea has increased by 1C with catastrophic effects on its delicate eco-systems.
Species of plankton, on which cod larvae feed, have moved away in search of cooler waters. The decline in cod stocks has led to an explosion in the populations of crabs and jellyfish, on which the adult fish feed. The shortage of predators at the top of the food chain has had a knock-on effect on flat fish, such as plaice and sole, whose offspring are eaten by crabs.
The cumulative consequences of warming for the North Sea have been spelt out in detail in the study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences journal.
Richard Kirby, a Royal Society Research Fellow at the University of Plymouth, and Grégory Beaugrand, from the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, warn that stricter quotas or a ban on fishing would not be enough to save the North Sea’s cod. They add, however, that quotas are important to protect those cod that are left for as long as possible.
The researchers studied the distribution of surface-dwelling copepod plankton on which young cod feed. Copepod numbers have declined by more than 60 per cent as the sea has warmed over the past four decades.
Dr Kirkby said: “The plankton that young cod usually eat during March, April and May prefer cold water and so they have become much less frequent as the North Sea has warmed.
“These copepods have moved north by about 1,200km (750 miles), or 30km per year, and the plankton replacing them come later in the year, which is no good for the young cod. The cod will not simply move north to follow the plankton, however, because the water there is too deep.”
Dr Kirby said: “As top predators such as cod are declining, this appears to have had a cascading effect on the whole ecosystem.
“The increase in temperature has affected the whole food chain from the plankton to fish and jellyfish, including animals that live on the sea bed such as crabs, sea urchins, and bivalves such as mussels and scallops.
“Plaice and sole also appear to be declining in abundance. This reveals how changes in fisheries may be related through indirect links in the food web.”
Dr Kirby added: “If the increase in global temperatures projected by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] continues, cod will inevitably disappear as a commercial species in the North Sea whatever the reduction in fishing. New areas such as the Barents Sea may become a habitat for cod.
“It is therefore particularly essential to limit fishing mortality to enable the survival of fish such as cod.”
A separate report by Natural England, the Government’s conservation body, suggests that three quarters of people are prepared to pay more for fish that is caught in ways that minimise damage to the environment.
Research has shown that only a quarter of 20 British fish stocks are being harvested sustainably, and that almost a third of the North Sea catch is discarded — thrown back because it is an unwanted species, under size or over the quotas set.
Fishing methods can also affect wildlife in the seas, the report said.
However, some practices in the English fishing industry are environmentally friendly, including handline fishing, which reduces the amount of fish caught by mistake, adapting gear to reduce its impact, and closing fisheries periodically.
Fish caught sustainably should command a premium price to ensure that fishermen get better returns for taking steps to limit damage to the environment, Natural England said yesterday.
It also called for an urgent overhaul of the European Common Fisheries Policy, which governs fishing in European waters and has been criticised for poor management and failure to prevent dwindling fish stocks.
The report called for the policy, which is due to be reformed by 2012, to put environmental sustainability of the seas at its heart, to hand the management of fisheries down from an EU level to regional and local areas and to ensure that the size of the EU fleet matches the available fish stocks.
Helen Phillips, Natural England’s chief executive, said: “We need a radical change of approach to avoid a permanent collapse of marine life around our shores and the end of livelihoods that, for decades, have depended on it.
“We can avoid the bleak future that England’s fishing industry currently faces but we have to accept that far-reaching changes, from policy through to purchase, are now needed.”
Don't panic! Sim City can help us save the planet
Keith Stuart
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 September 2009 18.30 BST
Last week, at the CEDEC game conference in Japan, the creator of the legendary giant robot manga series Mobile Suit Gundam launched an astonishing attack on gaming. "I think that videogames are evil ... [Gaming] is not a type of activity that provides any support to our daily lives, and all these consoles are just consuming electricity! Videogames are assisting the death of our planet!"
I think the venerable Yoshiyuki Tomino was partially joking – especially as the Gundam series has spawned more videogames than I can begin to remember. But does he have a point?
In a sense, becoming a gamer does add a clown shoe-sized girth to your carbon footprint; you've got the console itself, that large-screen LCD TV you bought to get the most out of the HD visuals and maybe even a home theatre sound system; that's quite a drain on the power grid.
Of course, there are modest ways to reduce your impact – switching off your console when it is not in use, turning off the TV when you're downloading large files, buying games and movies via digital distribution, and investing in a solar panel gadget to charge your DS or PSP – but this isn't really addressing Tomino's fundamental complaint that we're all sedentary power vampires destroying the planet one shoot-'em-up at a time.
But I disagree. For a start, videogames have proved a highly engaging means of communicating ecological issues to young people – much more effective than old Al Gore shouting at us in front of a presentation. Most major charities are commissioning their own educational titles – Greenpeace, for example, has a whole selection– and there are children's MMOs such as Elf Island and Emerald Island designed to impart a digestible eco-message to kids. And of course, Sim City will tell you all you need to know about the consequences of mass industrialisation, without preaching to you about "doing your bit".
More importantly, the next generation of gamers could be the one to get us out of this whole darn mess. Almost every videogame is about the individual engaging with and defeating complex systems. While real life tends to make us feel hopeless and disengaged when it comes to massive global issues, the virtual environment is a comprehensible and crucially malleable space in which consequences are immediately apparent. Games like Sim City, Spore, Civilization and Tetris are not only an intellectual training ground, they foster and endorse a view that big problems are solvable. Far from assisting the death of the planet, this attitude is probably the only thing that can save it.
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 September 2009 18.30 BST
Last week, at the CEDEC game conference in Japan, the creator of the legendary giant robot manga series Mobile Suit Gundam launched an astonishing attack on gaming. "I think that videogames are evil ... [Gaming] is not a type of activity that provides any support to our daily lives, and all these consoles are just consuming electricity! Videogames are assisting the death of our planet!"
I think the venerable Yoshiyuki Tomino was partially joking – especially as the Gundam series has spawned more videogames than I can begin to remember. But does he have a point?
In a sense, becoming a gamer does add a clown shoe-sized girth to your carbon footprint; you've got the console itself, that large-screen LCD TV you bought to get the most out of the HD visuals and maybe even a home theatre sound system; that's quite a drain on the power grid.
Of course, there are modest ways to reduce your impact – switching off your console when it is not in use, turning off the TV when you're downloading large files, buying games and movies via digital distribution, and investing in a solar panel gadget to charge your DS or PSP – but this isn't really addressing Tomino's fundamental complaint that we're all sedentary power vampires destroying the planet one shoot-'em-up at a time.
But I disagree. For a start, videogames have proved a highly engaging means of communicating ecological issues to young people – much more effective than old Al Gore shouting at us in front of a presentation. Most major charities are commissioning their own educational titles – Greenpeace, for example, has a whole selection– and there are children's MMOs such as Elf Island and Emerald Island designed to impart a digestible eco-message to kids. And of course, Sim City will tell you all you need to know about the consequences of mass industrialisation, without preaching to you about "doing your bit".
More importantly, the next generation of gamers could be the one to get us out of this whole darn mess. Almost every videogame is about the individual engaging with and defeating complex systems. While real life tends to make us feel hopeless and disengaged when it comes to massive global issues, the virtual environment is a comprehensible and crucially malleable space in which consequences are immediately apparent. Games like Sim City, Spore, Civilization and Tetris are not only an intellectual training ground, they foster and endorse a view that big problems are solvable. Far from assisting the death of the planet, this attitude is probably the only thing that can save it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
