Transport secretary says it is 'perfectly credible' for airlines to continue to expand as new technology to control their carbon emissions becomes available
Dan Milmo and Abhinav Ramnarayan
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 19.21 BST
The government has defended aviation's growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions following last week's warning that the industry will be the biggest contributor to global warming in the developed world by 2050.
Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, said other sectors such as car manufacturers could lower their carbon dioxide output more easily and argued that it was "perfectly credible" for airlines to continue expanding as new technology becomes available.
The Committee on Climate Change, the government's advisory body on global warming, portrayed aviation as the laggard in the emissions reductions race last week after calculating that the industry will account for a quarter of the carbon dioxide generated in developed countries in 2050, against 1.6% currently. Airlines would be the biggest emitters even if they met a tough UK government target of limiting their 2050 emissions to below 2005, the commission said.
"The reason why aviation will achieve a higher proportion [of CO2 emissions] is that it is harder to replace the carbon impact of aviation than it is in other sectors," said Lord Adonis.
Speaking at an Aviation Club lunch in London, he added that new technology and the emergence of biofuels would help offset the environmental cost of expanding the industry, which is expected to double in the UK to 465 million passengers per year by 2030.
The committee raised doubts last week that aircraft manufacturers and airlines could fund the research and development needed to produce more carbon-friendly jets and engines.
But Lord Adonis said there was a "growing confidence" that the industry could lower its emissions significantly with technological breakthroughs. "It is perfectly credible that we can have growth in passenger numbers at significant levels," he said.
One of the two major aircraft manufacturers, Airbus, forecast a 2% dip in passenger traffic this year as the recession hits demand. The European company also predicted that sales would be flat next year and that order cancellations and deferrals were likely over the winter as airlines struggled for cash. "We are expecting some airlines to say 'we would love to have the aircraft, but we haven't got the money,'" said John Leahy, chief operating officer of Airbus.
However, the expected 2% drop in demand is much more positive than projected figures released by the International Air Transport Association (Iata), which said the industry could see a £16.9bn loss in 2008 and 2009, with passenger numbers falling 4%. Leahy said Airbus was more optimistic because Iata figures did not take budget and domestic airlines into account.
Airbus bosses expect to deliver 480 aircraft in 2009, the same as last year, but think new orders will be at the lower end of the 300-350 projection made earlier this year.
Leahy also said that he did not expect last week's interim report by the World Trade Organisation on Boeing's complaint that Airbus was receiving unfair levels of EU aid and subsidies to have any effect. "I see on no impact on the A350 programme, we already have 500 firm orders for all three models," Leahy said.
Airbus's global market forecast says it expects that 25,000 new passenger and freight aircraft will be sold between 2009 and 2028 at a value of $3.1tn (£1.9tn). This compares with last year's forecast of 24,300 new planes for $2.8tn in the 20 years to 2026.
Asia, which currently accounts for 26% of the global airline market, would drive this growth. China and India are projected to be among the top five countries in terms of passenger aircraft demand, fuelled by the booming domestic air travel business in those two countries.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Scotland unveils world's first carbon budget
The Scottish government estimates spending on core services will lead to the release of 11.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 18.16 BST
Scotland today unveiled the world's first "carbon budget" to link greenhouse gas emissions with government spending, revealing that its plans will emit the equivalent of four coal-fired power stations next year.
The Scottish government has estimated that its spending next year on £33bn worth of core services such as hospitals, schools, roads, local government and farming, will lead to the release of 11.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The "carbon budget" is being claimed as another world first by ministers in Edinburgh, after the Scottish parliament set the first legally binding CO2 reductions target of 42% by 2020 in a climate act in June. The UK Treasury has no plans to follow suit but officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are closely watching the Scottish government's efforts.
John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, said these estimates would be used eventually to test the environmental impact of government spending, allowing ministers to weigh up individual policies and award contracts on how much CO2 they would emit.
Officials said the goal would be to use carbon emissions to help decide which contract or policy to follow, alongside its cost and quality.
"It is vital to have analysis available to help inform critical decisions on how to take appropriate action during these challenging economic times," Swinney said. "It will form part of an important discussion taking place across our nation about the carbon implications of activity across the economy and across society."
Environment groups have applauded the new measurements, but urged ministers to introduce much more detailed assessments of each spending decision, particularly on transport and housing. Swinney has yet to set a target date for detailed measurements.
Elizabeth Leighton, of WWF Scotland, said ministers had to make that a priority. "They urgently need to apply this appraisal to individual projects and individual policies, so that we know early on the carbon implications of their decision-making, so we can choose the low-carbon option."
Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green party leader, was scathing about the government's failure to include car and lorry emissions, which equal 10.5Mt, from the section on roads in the carbon assessment. The budget said spending on new motorways and trunk roads would only release 213,000tns.
"Are we really to believe that the total carbon impacts from roads will be just half that of the Scottish public pensions agency?" Harvie said.
Environment campaigners remain highly critical of many Scottish National party policies, particularly on transport and housing, arguing they undermine the minority SNP government's commitment to renewable energy. The SNP has authorised extending the M74 motorway through southern Glasgow, has promised new roads, backs a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston, supports expanding several airports and has relaxed planning laws for opencast coal mines. Scotland also has weaker planning laws on energy efficiency for new homes than apply in England.
Swinney also announced that a £170m rail link to Glasgow airport had been cancelled, to help meet a £500m drop in Treasury funding next year due to UK-wide spending cuts. The SNP also dropped a £500m rail link to Edinburgh airport two years ago.
The budget estimates that the £11bn spending on health services in Scotland would release 3.5Mt of CO2; local council spending of £11.6bn would lead to 4.3Mt of CO2; finance and sustainable growth spending of £4.9bn would result in 1.7Mt of CO2.
Agriculture and forestry, which only has a budget of £587m, would release the greatest amount of CO2 for every pound spend, at 0.56Mt of CO2, partly because of emissions from livestock.
Swinney and his officials admit the current carbon budget is based on estimates and will be refined over coming years. Although it fails to includes "secondary emissions" such as car usage of roads, it does include the indirect emissions of public sector workers from their own lifestyles and commuting and emissions from the supply chain.
The total estimate accounts for only 14% of Scotland's total carbon emissions, and the devolved government only has control over 30% of those total emissions. The UK government and European Union oversees the policies and areas for the remaining 70%, such as fuel duty, air taxes and funding green energy investments.
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 18.16 BST
Scotland today unveiled the world's first "carbon budget" to link greenhouse gas emissions with government spending, revealing that its plans will emit the equivalent of four coal-fired power stations next year.
The Scottish government has estimated that its spending next year on £33bn worth of core services such as hospitals, schools, roads, local government and farming, will lead to the release of 11.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The "carbon budget" is being claimed as another world first by ministers in Edinburgh, after the Scottish parliament set the first legally binding CO2 reductions target of 42% by 2020 in a climate act in June. The UK Treasury has no plans to follow suit but officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are closely watching the Scottish government's efforts.
John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, said these estimates would be used eventually to test the environmental impact of government spending, allowing ministers to weigh up individual policies and award contracts on how much CO2 they would emit.
Officials said the goal would be to use carbon emissions to help decide which contract or policy to follow, alongside its cost and quality.
"It is vital to have analysis available to help inform critical decisions on how to take appropriate action during these challenging economic times," Swinney said. "It will form part of an important discussion taking place across our nation about the carbon implications of activity across the economy and across society."
Environment groups have applauded the new measurements, but urged ministers to introduce much more detailed assessments of each spending decision, particularly on transport and housing. Swinney has yet to set a target date for detailed measurements.
Elizabeth Leighton, of WWF Scotland, said ministers had to make that a priority. "They urgently need to apply this appraisal to individual projects and individual policies, so that we know early on the carbon implications of their decision-making, so we can choose the low-carbon option."
Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green party leader, was scathing about the government's failure to include car and lorry emissions, which equal 10.5Mt, from the section on roads in the carbon assessment. The budget said spending on new motorways and trunk roads would only release 213,000tns.
"Are we really to believe that the total carbon impacts from roads will be just half that of the Scottish public pensions agency?" Harvie said.
Environment campaigners remain highly critical of many Scottish National party policies, particularly on transport and housing, arguing they undermine the minority SNP government's commitment to renewable energy. The SNP has authorised extending the M74 motorway through southern Glasgow, has promised new roads, backs a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston, supports expanding several airports and has relaxed planning laws for opencast coal mines. Scotland also has weaker planning laws on energy efficiency for new homes than apply in England.
Swinney also announced that a £170m rail link to Glasgow airport had been cancelled, to help meet a £500m drop in Treasury funding next year due to UK-wide spending cuts. The SNP also dropped a £500m rail link to Edinburgh airport two years ago.
The budget estimates that the £11bn spending on health services in Scotland would release 3.5Mt of CO2; local council spending of £11.6bn would lead to 4.3Mt of CO2; finance and sustainable growth spending of £4.9bn would result in 1.7Mt of CO2.
Agriculture and forestry, which only has a budget of £587m, would release the greatest amount of CO2 for every pound spend, at 0.56Mt of CO2, partly because of emissions from livestock.
Swinney and his officials admit the current carbon budget is based on estimates and will be refined over coming years. Although it fails to includes "secondary emissions" such as car usage of roads, it does include the indirect emissions of public sector workers from their own lifestyles and commuting and emissions from the supply chain.
The total estimate accounts for only 14% of Scotland's total carbon emissions, and the devolved government only has control over 30% of those total emissions. The UK government and European Union oversees the policies and areas for the remaining 70%, such as fuel duty, air taxes and funding green energy investments.
Dong Energy: 'Clean' Denmark's dirty secret
State-owned Dong Energy trades on its green image at home while outsourcing the dirty end of its energy portfolio with coal-fired power stations elsewhere in Europe
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 12.55 BST
The Danes like to think of themselves as green. Denmark is home to the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas. And today, the giant state-owned energy company, Dong Energy, opens the world's largest windfarm.
But the Danes have a dirty secret. For Dong Energy, while greening its image at home, is busy building coal-fired power stations elsewhere in Europe. First in Germany, and now in Scotland.
We in the rich world are used to the idea of our big companies dumping their dirty and anti-social industries on the poor countries. But now European companies are doing the same to us. Rather as if Scotland were a banana republic somewhere in the developing world, it is the recipient of Dong "outsourcing" the dirty end of its energy portfolio.
Dong, which began as a North Sea oil and gas company before buying the country's electricity utilities, trades on its green image in a country that likes to be thought of as green. Its website announces that the company is "part of the solution" to climate change, and it lovingly pictures its efforts to "move energy forward" on a sea of wind turbines.
Today Denmark's king and prime minister will both be on hand as the record-breaking 209-MW Horns Rev 2 windfarm opens off the west coast.
But Dong also sees itself as a diverse energy provider, and wants to grow in the coal business, too. It would be unlikely to get permission to build a new coal-fired plant at home, however. The Danish government last December proposed that the EU should limit carbon emissions from new power plants to 500g per kilowatt hour – far too low to accommodate a coal-fired plant.
So, what it cannot do at home, it is intent on doing abroad. It is planning to build a giant 1600MW coal-fired plant at Greifswald in northern Germany.
And now in Scotland, Dong is to take a 75% stake in a new joint venture with local company Peel Energy to build a similar behemoth at Hunterston, west of Glasgow.
It would be the first new fossil-fuel burning power plant in Scotland for 30 years – a real step backwards for the country that has pioneered wind power in Britain.
I have written about Scotland talking green and building for coal before. The Scottish Nationalist government is keen to end the country's reliance on nuclear power, and to that end they are covering the glens in wind turbines and dotting the coastline with coal-fired power stations. Dong's new Hunterston plant would be built next to a nuclear power station.
But Dong, like many coal companies, is keen to give the dirtiest fossil fuel a makeover. For instance, it says it will add some biofuels to the coal in the boiler to create a "super-efficient multi-fuel power plant". Both the German and Scottish plants will this way reduce emissions by 20-30% compared to conventional coal power stations, it says.
But sorry, it will still burn coal. Burning coal produces roughly twice the CO2 emissions of even another fossil fuel like natural gas. So that 20-30% cut still leaves it among the dirtiest plants around. WWF estimates the new plant's carbon emissions will be 6.9m tonnes a year. So it would still be outlawed by the proposed new EU rules.
The other greenwash favoured by coal-burners is to hold out the prospect that emissions will soon be cleaned up and buried under ground using carbon capture and storage.
Dong says the construction plans for the £2bn Hunterston plant "include the development of carbon capture and storage", but adds the caveat "once the CCS technology has been fully developed."
As I have written before, that's quite a caveat. By some counts, that day will not happen till towards the end of the plant's lifetime, if at all.
Dong Energy may be an efficient coal-burner. But dressing that accomplishment up as a green technology is greenwash. When it goes on the coal trail, Dong looks like part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 12.55 BST
The Danes like to think of themselves as green. Denmark is home to the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas. And today, the giant state-owned energy company, Dong Energy, opens the world's largest windfarm.
But the Danes have a dirty secret. For Dong Energy, while greening its image at home, is busy building coal-fired power stations elsewhere in Europe. First in Germany, and now in Scotland.
We in the rich world are used to the idea of our big companies dumping their dirty and anti-social industries on the poor countries. But now European companies are doing the same to us. Rather as if Scotland were a banana republic somewhere in the developing world, it is the recipient of Dong "outsourcing" the dirty end of its energy portfolio.
Dong, which began as a North Sea oil and gas company before buying the country's electricity utilities, trades on its green image in a country that likes to be thought of as green. Its website announces that the company is "part of the solution" to climate change, and it lovingly pictures its efforts to "move energy forward" on a sea of wind turbines.
Today Denmark's king and prime minister will both be on hand as the record-breaking 209-MW Horns Rev 2 windfarm opens off the west coast.
But Dong also sees itself as a diverse energy provider, and wants to grow in the coal business, too. It would be unlikely to get permission to build a new coal-fired plant at home, however. The Danish government last December proposed that the EU should limit carbon emissions from new power plants to 500g per kilowatt hour – far too low to accommodate a coal-fired plant.
So, what it cannot do at home, it is intent on doing abroad. It is planning to build a giant 1600MW coal-fired plant at Greifswald in northern Germany.
And now in Scotland, Dong is to take a 75% stake in a new joint venture with local company Peel Energy to build a similar behemoth at Hunterston, west of Glasgow.
It would be the first new fossil-fuel burning power plant in Scotland for 30 years – a real step backwards for the country that has pioneered wind power in Britain.
I have written about Scotland talking green and building for coal before. The Scottish Nationalist government is keen to end the country's reliance on nuclear power, and to that end they are covering the glens in wind turbines and dotting the coastline with coal-fired power stations. Dong's new Hunterston plant would be built next to a nuclear power station.
But Dong, like many coal companies, is keen to give the dirtiest fossil fuel a makeover. For instance, it says it will add some biofuels to the coal in the boiler to create a "super-efficient multi-fuel power plant". Both the German and Scottish plants will this way reduce emissions by 20-30% compared to conventional coal power stations, it says.
But sorry, it will still burn coal. Burning coal produces roughly twice the CO2 emissions of even another fossil fuel like natural gas. So that 20-30% cut still leaves it among the dirtiest plants around. WWF estimates the new plant's carbon emissions will be 6.9m tonnes a year. So it would still be outlawed by the proposed new EU rules.
The other greenwash favoured by coal-burners is to hold out the prospect that emissions will soon be cleaned up and buried under ground using carbon capture and storage.
Dong says the construction plans for the £2bn Hunterston plant "include the development of carbon capture and storage", but adds the caveat "once the CCS technology has been fully developed."
As I have written before, that's quite a caveat. By some counts, that day will not happen till towards the end of the plant's lifetime, if at all.
Dong Energy may be an efficient coal-burner. But dressing that accomplishment up as a green technology is greenwash. When it goes on the coal trail, Dong looks like part of the problem, not part of the solution.
World's biggest offshore windfarm launched … eventually
Fritz Schur, chairman of Dong, said his firm would triple its production capacity of clean energy by 2020
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 17.42 BST
The world's largest offshore windfarm was inaugurated in the North Sea today – with a high-profile display of the intermittent nature of this power source.
Danish Crown Prince Frederik pressed the button to start the Horns Rev 2 project, which uses 91 turbines to generate enough green power for 200,000 households.
But an industry audience brought together in a civic centre to watch the opening via a videolink with the 209MW windfarm, watched in silence as the turbines failed to turn.
Half a minute later as a breeze developed and the first blade slowly began to rotate, there were cheers of relief as much as joy from executives of the developer, Dong, and its guests.
Horns Rev 2, 30 kilometres (16.2 nautical miles) off the coast of Jutland, Denmark, is the largest offshore windfarm but its position will be eclipsed when the Greater Gabbard field comes on stream in Britain followed later by the much larger London Array.
The 3.5bn kroner (£420m) development has some extra significance because it has been put together by a Danish oil company.
Fritz Schur, chairman of Dong, said his firm would triple its production capacity of clean energy by 2020. "Establishing Horns Rev 2 is an important milestone in Dong Energy's gradual transition from conventional to green power generation," he said.
Critics of wind power complain that it is unreliable because of the intermittent nature of wind. But wind executives say this will only be a problem if it replaces most other energy sources. Even then they believe that other forms of clean energy can be used to take up the slack via a much-vaunted super grid to link the whole of Europe's electricity supply.
Niels Bergh-Hansen, head of wind power at Dong, shrugged off the slow start at Horns Rev 2. "The turbines are very heavy and it always takes time to get started. I had faith in the team out there and never doubted it would work fine."
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 17.42 BST
The world's largest offshore windfarm was inaugurated in the North Sea today – with a high-profile display of the intermittent nature of this power source.
Danish Crown Prince Frederik pressed the button to start the Horns Rev 2 project, which uses 91 turbines to generate enough green power for 200,000 households.
But an industry audience brought together in a civic centre to watch the opening via a videolink with the 209MW windfarm, watched in silence as the turbines failed to turn.
Half a minute later as a breeze developed and the first blade slowly began to rotate, there were cheers of relief as much as joy from executives of the developer, Dong, and its guests.
Horns Rev 2, 30 kilometres (16.2 nautical miles) off the coast of Jutland, Denmark, is the largest offshore windfarm but its position will be eclipsed when the Greater Gabbard field comes on stream in Britain followed later by the much larger London Array.
The 3.5bn kroner (£420m) development has some extra significance because it has been put together by a Danish oil company.
Fritz Schur, chairman of Dong, said his firm would triple its production capacity of clean energy by 2020. "Establishing Horns Rev 2 is an important milestone in Dong Energy's gradual transition from conventional to green power generation," he said.
Critics of wind power complain that it is unreliable because of the intermittent nature of wind. But wind executives say this will only be a problem if it replaces most other energy sources. Even then they believe that other forms of clean energy can be used to take up the slack via a much-vaunted super grid to link the whole of Europe's electricity supply.
Niels Bergh-Hansen, head of wind power at Dong, shrugged off the slow start at Horns Rev 2. "The turbines are very heavy and it always takes time to get started. I had faith in the team out there and never doubted it would work fine."
Wind energy firm given £1m grant
Published Date: 17 September 2009
A COMPANY in Midlothian was today awarded £1 million by the UK Government to develop new wind power technology.
Artemis Intelligent Power, based in Loanhead, is one of three firms to received grants for offshore wind development.Announcing the cash at the TUC conference in Liverpool today, Environment Secretary Ed Miliband said: "Our coastline means the offshore wind industry has the potential to employ tens of thousands of workers by 2020, manufacturing, transporting, installing and operating the new turbines."Waverley Cameron, chairman of Artemis Intelligent Power, said: "This kind of targeted support by government enables small research and development companies like Artemis to develop the breakthrough technologies needed to bring Britain to the forefront of the low carbon revolution."
A COMPANY in Midlothian was today awarded £1 million by the UK Government to develop new wind power technology.
Artemis Intelligent Power, based in Loanhead, is one of three firms to received grants for offshore wind development.Announcing the cash at the TUC conference in Liverpool today, Environment Secretary Ed Miliband said: "Our coastline means the offshore wind industry has the potential to employ tens of thousands of workers by 2020, manufacturing, transporting, installing and operating the new turbines."Waverley Cameron, chairman of Artemis Intelligent Power, said: "This kind of targeted support by government enables small research and development companies like Artemis to develop the breakthrough technologies needed to bring Britain to the forefront of the low carbon revolution."
Turf Battle Heats Up Over Limits on Water-Guzzling Landscapes
By GWENDOLYN BOUNDS
There's a turf war under way over America's lawns, and it may be headed for your yard.
Later this year, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to expand its WaterSense conservation program to include a voluntary label for newly built homes. Homes could win certification if they consume roughly 20% less water than standard new homes. Along with criteria for high-efficiency toilets and faucets, the program has a landscaping clause that could strictly limit the amount of turfgrass participating builders plant. The rationale: Homeowners waste a lot of water laboring to keep lawns lush.
Locally, some cities and water utilities, in Florida, Nevada and Texas, for example, already offer homeowners and builders financial incentives for taking steps to decrease water usage, including reducing the amount of lawn in residential yards. But the EPA's latest bid to go green would take the movement national, and that has the turfgrass industry up in arms.
"It puts a label on grass as bad -- that it's not something to be used," says Kris Kiser, executive vice president of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, a trade group representing equipment manufacturers for the landscape, lawn and other industries. Mr. Kiser says his group and other landscape-trade organizations are lobbying legislators to oppose the proposed WaterSense criteria for landscaping. And Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., the world's largest lawn and garden company, has criticized the EPA's outdoor plan as "arbitrary" and "not supported by science."
Under the plan, WaterSense would give participating builders two options for landscaping new homes. The first: Turfgrass can't exceed 40% of the landscapable area. The second: Builders may use a "water-budget" approach and an EPA-provided online tool to design landscape based on a regionally appropriate amount of water, as well as individual plants' water needs. "So basically, a yard in Maine or Minnesota could have larger turf area than Las Vegas," says Virginia Lee, EPA's WaterSense program team leader.
Ms. Lee says the average home in America uses 30% of its water outdoors, and in some areas of the country that number soars to 70%. While there's nothing to stop homeowners from planting all the turfgrass they want once they move in, with WaterSense landscaping as an initial template, she says, "we are trying to teach people to plant appropriate landscapes."
Looming Water Shortages
That the nation's water supplies need closer monitoring and preservation is generally not in dispute. Water managers in 36 states anticipate shortages by 2013, according to a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. population nearly doubled, but public demand for water more than tripled, according to the EPA.
The problem is particularly severe in regions battling competing forces of drought and heavy population growth, such as Las Vegas, Texas, Florida and Atlanta. A five-year study of Nevada homes that converted lawn to Xeriscape -- a broad term for water-efficient landscape that includes flowers, plants and trees found converted areas used 75% less water on average. The study was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Turf Tear-Up
Homeowners in some towns can get financial incentives to replace certain types of turfgrass with plants deemed more water efficient. Here's a sampling (some awards are capped and funds may be limited):
Place
Perk
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, New Mexico
Water-bill credit of up to 75 cents a square foot for converting landscape designated as "high water use" such as Kentucky bluegrass and sheep fescue to lower-water-use plantings. Plus, 25% off the cost of renting equipment for grass removal.
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Rebate of $1 to $1.50 per square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping.
City of Chandler, Ariz.
$200 to $600 rebate for replacing turf areas with "non-grass," low-water-use, drought-tolerant plants.
San Antonio Water System, Texas
$100 gift certificate to nursery for, among other things, "having no more than 50% of the landscape planted in turf" (only Bermuda, buffalo or zoysia varieties no St. Augustine). Additional water bill credit of $50 to $300 for low water usage.
Aurora Water, Aurora Colo.
"Xeriscape Rebate" offers residential customers up to $1 per square foot for replacing turf grass with low-water-use plant material.
The EPA hopes its WaterSense program, launched in 2006, can mimic the success of Energy Star, the federal program created in 1992 to identify and champion products that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Star label is now on thousands of items. By year-end, nearly one million new homes will have been Energy Star certified -- meaning built with qualifying materials and equipment that make them roughly 30% more efficient than standard new homes. While purchases of government-certified products are voluntary, over time they can skew the market toward products meeting the criteria. Over the Labor Day weekend, for instance, Sears and Lowe's hawked 20% discounts on appliances bearing the Energy Star label.
Opponents of the WaterSense landscape criteria worry the EPA certification, as currently proposed, might eventually gain similar traction as Energy Star among home builders. Some WaterSense labeled products, such as toilets, qualify for rebates in places such as Cobb County, Ga., and Durham, N.C. Proposed legislation would give a federal tax credit to purchasers of WaterSense-labeled homes. Other water-saving rebates are listed at www.epa.gov/watersense.
But while significant strides have been made to reduce residential indoor water use with low-flow faucets, shower heads and other water-conserving appliances, outdoor usage remains difficult to curtail. "Indoors, water conservation is based on installing technologies that don't require significant changes in behavior -- you can still flush the toilet and do laundry," says Heather Cooley, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit research group. Outdoors, there is more behavior change involved with educating people about the volume of water being used and alternatives to lawns and irrigation technologies."
Public officials are trying financial persuasion to convince consumers to ditch grass. The Southern Nevada Water Authority runs a Get Off Your Grass, We'll Pay Cash program that pays customers between $1 and $1.50 per square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping. To date the program has converted turf equivalent to roughly 2,400 football fields. Building codes in the Las Vegas area also require that new homes cannot have any lawn in the front yard and only 50% lawn in back, says Doug Bennett, conservation manager at SNWA.
What Neighbors Think
Florida has its own voluntary program, called Water Star, that limits how much high-volume-irrigation landscape -- often that's turfgrass -- participating builders can install. But that can conflict with rules enforced by many homeowners associations that require well-maintained grass landscaping. This spring, Republican Gov. Charlie Crist stepped in and signed a bill permitting homeowners to replace lawns with more "Florida friendly" plants, regardless of neighborhood covenants. Some cities, such as Apopka, Fla., even regulate the type of grass permitted for new homes to favor more drought-tolerant varieties such as Bahia and Bermuda over St. Augustine.
Such moves have met with mixed reviews. "No one here wants to see Xeriscape next door to them for the most part," says Greg Kullman, resident and former president of Silverthorn, a gated golf-course community in Hernando County, Fla. He estimates grass takes up about 90% of a Silverthorn home's yard. "Grass is a part of everyone's life from when you are first born. Without grass, a home would be bland, and if a home is bland, its value drops."
Virtues of Grass
Others say grass's own environmental benefits are being sold short. Scotts Miracle-Gro this year launched a Love Your Lawn consumer Web site. In its public comments opposing WaterSense's landscape criteria, the company asserts that healthy turf reduces soil erosion, traps dust and dirt and reduces surface temperatures. Scotts and other grass sellers are developing new seed varieties that need less water.
The EPA aims to implement the WaterSense program for new homes in early December but the agency could still modify the landscape criteria. One alternative model is Florida's Water Star program, which doesn't directly limit turfgrass but rather the amount of landscape that uses high-volume irrigation. That distinction forces participating home builders to plant more drought-tolerant grass varieties or other water-saving plants without demonizing grass, says Deirdre Irwin, Water Star coordinator for the St. Johns Water Management District, one of five such agencies in Florida.
"Our agency has a strong position that it isn't turfgrass that wastes water but the irrigation and the wrong species in the wrong place," Ms. Irwin says.
There's a turf war under way over America's lawns, and it may be headed for your yard.
Later this year, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to expand its WaterSense conservation program to include a voluntary label for newly built homes. Homes could win certification if they consume roughly 20% less water than standard new homes. Along with criteria for high-efficiency toilets and faucets, the program has a landscaping clause that could strictly limit the amount of turfgrass participating builders plant. The rationale: Homeowners waste a lot of water laboring to keep lawns lush.
Locally, some cities and water utilities, in Florida, Nevada and Texas, for example, already offer homeowners and builders financial incentives for taking steps to decrease water usage, including reducing the amount of lawn in residential yards. But the EPA's latest bid to go green would take the movement national, and that has the turfgrass industry up in arms.
"It puts a label on grass as bad -- that it's not something to be used," says Kris Kiser, executive vice president of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, a trade group representing equipment manufacturers for the landscape, lawn and other industries. Mr. Kiser says his group and other landscape-trade organizations are lobbying legislators to oppose the proposed WaterSense criteria for landscaping. And Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., the world's largest lawn and garden company, has criticized the EPA's outdoor plan as "arbitrary" and "not supported by science."
Under the plan, WaterSense would give participating builders two options for landscaping new homes. The first: Turfgrass can't exceed 40% of the landscapable area. The second: Builders may use a "water-budget" approach and an EPA-provided online tool to design landscape based on a regionally appropriate amount of water, as well as individual plants' water needs. "So basically, a yard in Maine or Minnesota could have larger turf area than Las Vegas," says Virginia Lee, EPA's WaterSense program team leader.
Ms. Lee says the average home in America uses 30% of its water outdoors, and in some areas of the country that number soars to 70%. While there's nothing to stop homeowners from planting all the turfgrass they want once they move in, with WaterSense landscaping as an initial template, she says, "we are trying to teach people to plant appropriate landscapes."
Looming Water Shortages
That the nation's water supplies need closer monitoring and preservation is generally not in dispute. Water managers in 36 states anticipate shortages by 2013, according to a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. population nearly doubled, but public demand for water more than tripled, according to the EPA.
The problem is particularly severe in regions battling competing forces of drought and heavy population growth, such as Las Vegas, Texas, Florida and Atlanta. A five-year study of Nevada homes that converted lawn to Xeriscape -- a broad term for water-efficient landscape that includes flowers, plants and trees found converted areas used 75% less water on average. The study was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Turf Tear-Up
Homeowners in some towns can get financial incentives to replace certain types of turfgrass with plants deemed more water efficient. Here's a sampling (some awards are capped and funds may be limited):
Place
Perk
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, New Mexico
Water-bill credit of up to 75 cents a square foot for converting landscape designated as "high water use" such as Kentucky bluegrass and sheep fescue to lower-water-use plantings. Plus, 25% off the cost of renting equipment for grass removal.
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Rebate of $1 to $1.50 per square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping.
City of Chandler, Ariz.
$200 to $600 rebate for replacing turf areas with "non-grass," low-water-use, drought-tolerant plants.
San Antonio Water System, Texas
$100 gift certificate to nursery for, among other things, "having no more than 50% of the landscape planted in turf" (only Bermuda, buffalo or zoysia varieties no St. Augustine). Additional water bill credit of $50 to $300 for low water usage.
Aurora Water, Aurora Colo.
"Xeriscape Rebate" offers residential customers up to $1 per square foot for replacing turf grass with low-water-use plant material.
The EPA hopes its WaterSense program, launched in 2006, can mimic the success of Energy Star, the federal program created in 1992 to identify and champion products that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Star label is now on thousands of items. By year-end, nearly one million new homes will have been Energy Star certified -- meaning built with qualifying materials and equipment that make them roughly 30% more efficient than standard new homes. While purchases of government-certified products are voluntary, over time they can skew the market toward products meeting the criteria. Over the Labor Day weekend, for instance, Sears and Lowe's hawked 20% discounts on appliances bearing the Energy Star label.
Opponents of the WaterSense landscape criteria worry the EPA certification, as currently proposed, might eventually gain similar traction as Energy Star among home builders. Some WaterSense labeled products, such as toilets, qualify for rebates in places such as Cobb County, Ga., and Durham, N.C. Proposed legislation would give a federal tax credit to purchasers of WaterSense-labeled homes. Other water-saving rebates are listed at www.epa.gov/watersense.
But while significant strides have been made to reduce residential indoor water use with low-flow faucets, shower heads and other water-conserving appliances, outdoor usage remains difficult to curtail. "Indoors, water conservation is based on installing technologies that don't require significant changes in behavior -- you can still flush the toilet and do laundry," says Heather Cooley, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit research group. Outdoors, there is more behavior change involved with educating people about the volume of water being used and alternatives to lawns and irrigation technologies."
Public officials are trying financial persuasion to convince consumers to ditch grass. The Southern Nevada Water Authority runs a Get Off Your Grass, We'll Pay Cash program that pays customers between $1 and $1.50 per square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping. To date the program has converted turf equivalent to roughly 2,400 football fields. Building codes in the Las Vegas area also require that new homes cannot have any lawn in the front yard and only 50% lawn in back, says Doug Bennett, conservation manager at SNWA.
What Neighbors Think
Florida has its own voluntary program, called Water Star, that limits how much high-volume-irrigation landscape -- often that's turfgrass -- participating builders can install. But that can conflict with rules enforced by many homeowners associations that require well-maintained grass landscaping. This spring, Republican Gov. Charlie Crist stepped in and signed a bill permitting homeowners to replace lawns with more "Florida friendly" plants, regardless of neighborhood covenants. Some cities, such as Apopka, Fla., even regulate the type of grass permitted for new homes to favor more drought-tolerant varieties such as Bahia and Bermuda over St. Augustine.
Such moves have met with mixed reviews. "No one here wants to see Xeriscape next door to them for the most part," says Greg Kullman, resident and former president of Silverthorn, a gated golf-course community in Hernando County, Fla. He estimates grass takes up about 90% of a Silverthorn home's yard. "Grass is a part of everyone's life from when you are first born. Without grass, a home would be bland, and if a home is bland, its value drops."
Virtues of Grass
Others say grass's own environmental benefits are being sold short. Scotts Miracle-Gro this year launched a Love Your Lawn consumer Web site. In its public comments opposing WaterSense's landscape criteria, the company asserts that healthy turf reduces soil erosion, traps dust and dirt and reduces surface temperatures. Scotts and other grass sellers are developing new seed varieties that need less water.
The EPA aims to implement the WaterSense program for new homes in early December but the agency could still modify the landscape criteria. One alternative model is Florida's Water Star program, which doesn't directly limit turfgrass but rather the amount of landscape that uses high-volume irrigation. That distinction forces participating home builders to plant more drought-tolerant grass varieties or other water-saving plants without demonizing grass, says Deirdre Irwin, Water Star coordinator for the St. Johns Water Management District, one of five such agencies in Florida.
"Our agency has a strong position that it isn't turfgrass that wastes water but the irrigation and the wrong species in the wrong place," Ms. Irwin says.
Measures to protect Mediterranean tuna are failing, report warns
Confidential papers show how fishing boats in the region routinely fail to follow regulations put in place to protect tuna stocks
David Adam, Environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 16.43 BST
Measures to protect dwindling stocks of bluefin tuna fish in the Mediterranean have failed to curb illegal fishing practices, leaked papers show.
The Guardian has been passed a confidential report of a French navy inspection of the tuna fishery, which shows how fishing boats in the region routinely fail to follow regulations put in place to protect stocks. Conservation experts say the report shows that existing controls are not enough to save the species and that wider measures are needed.
The disclosure comes in advance of a European commission vote on Monday on whether to support moves to list bluefin tuna as an endangered species under the UN agreement Cites, which would bring an immediate ban on its trade.
Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean, said: "This report speaks of the real situation of the fishery, more than any paper measures that remain largely unapplied. It is evident that the bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean is still entirely out of control and illegal fishing continues unabated. Management measures adopted for the fishery are not only well below the standards requested by urgent scientific advice, but even so they are not even implemented in the field."
Stocks of bluefin in the Mediterranean - where they spawn before heading into the Atlantic - collapsed during the 1990s, driven by demand for sushi, for which their tender flesh is highly prized. Numbers are now reckoned to be below one-fifth of what they were in 1970.
The remaining fish are supposed to be protected by a intergovernmental body called the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which regulates catches and fishing activity. The organisation has been consistently criticised by scientists and conservation groups for setting quotas above sustainable levels and ignoring expert advice.
The French navy report describes a surprise inspection of the tuna fishery in the eastern Mediterranean by patrol boat Arago in May this year. The navy inspected 24 vessels from Turkey, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus involved in "purse seine" fishing for bluefin, a practice where fishermen use giant nets to herd the fish towards shore, where they are transferred to shallow water pens for fattening.
The report strongly criticised the Turkish fishing fleet. It says: "The Turkish didn't seem to apply the regulations. Registration documents were either not filled in or simply did not exist. There are no ICCAT observers in the purse seiners or the vessel is simply not registered with ICCAT."
Under ICCAT rules, each vessel over 24m needs to carry a regional observer to be allowed to work the fishery.
The Arago report says they found only one observer across the fleet, and raised question marks about his honesty. "After the inspections he would find all sorts of explanations or false arguments to try to justify noncompliance with ICCAT recommendations. Moreover, the estimations of the amount of fish in the cages given by him were on average 10-times lower than those estimated by the divers of the Arago."
In all, the Arago report details 22 breaches of ICCAT regulations, including fishing without licenses, poor or absent record keeping and taking fish below the allowed size.
Tudela said: "The risk situation reported for the bluefin tuna breeding stock is higher than ever. This is inevitable given the huge overcapacity of the industrial fleet targeting the stock. To break even, this giant fleet needs to overfish. The only option to save the stock and the fishery is to temporarily close the fishery, to create conditions for a sustainable fishery and to allow the stock to recover. A ban of international trade under Cites is essential to cut the main driver of overfishing. We want to see a sustainable fishery in the future, but to allow that we must give tuna a breather."
David Adam, Environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 16.43 BST
Measures to protect dwindling stocks of bluefin tuna fish in the Mediterranean have failed to curb illegal fishing practices, leaked papers show.
The Guardian has been passed a confidential report of a French navy inspection of the tuna fishery, which shows how fishing boats in the region routinely fail to follow regulations put in place to protect stocks. Conservation experts say the report shows that existing controls are not enough to save the species and that wider measures are needed.
The disclosure comes in advance of a European commission vote on Monday on whether to support moves to list bluefin tuna as an endangered species under the UN agreement Cites, which would bring an immediate ban on its trade.
Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean, said: "This report speaks of the real situation of the fishery, more than any paper measures that remain largely unapplied. It is evident that the bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean is still entirely out of control and illegal fishing continues unabated. Management measures adopted for the fishery are not only well below the standards requested by urgent scientific advice, but even so they are not even implemented in the field."
Stocks of bluefin in the Mediterranean - where they spawn before heading into the Atlantic - collapsed during the 1990s, driven by demand for sushi, for which their tender flesh is highly prized. Numbers are now reckoned to be below one-fifth of what they were in 1970.
The remaining fish are supposed to be protected by a intergovernmental body called the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which regulates catches and fishing activity. The organisation has been consistently criticised by scientists and conservation groups for setting quotas above sustainable levels and ignoring expert advice.
The French navy report describes a surprise inspection of the tuna fishery in the eastern Mediterranean by patrol boat Arago in May this year. The navy inspected 24 vessels from Turkey, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus involved in "purse seine" fishing for bluefin, a practice where fishermen use giant nets to herd the fish towards shore, where they are transferred to shallow water pens for fattening.
The report strongly criticised the Turkish fishing fleet. It says: "The Turkish didn't seem to apply the regulations. Registration documents were either not filled in or simply did not exist. There are no ICCAT observers in the purse seiners or the vessel is simply not registered with ICCAT."
Under ICCAT rules, each vessel over 24m needs to carry a regional observer to be allowed to work the fishery.
The Arago report says they found only one observer across the fleet, and raised question marks about his honesty. "After the inspections he would find all sorts of explanations or false arguments to try to justify noncompliance with ICCAT recommendations. Moreover, the estimations of the amount of fish in the cages given by him were on average 10-times lower than those estimated by the divers of the Arago."
In all, the Arago report details 22 breaches of ICCAT regulations, including fishing without licenses, poor or absent record keeping and taking fish below the allowed size.
Tudela said: "The risk situation reported for the bluefin tuna breeding stock is higher than ever. This is inevitable given the huge overcapacity of the industrial fleet targeting the stock. To break even, this giant fleet needs to overfish. The only option to save the stock and the fishery is to temporarily close the fishery, to create conditions for a sustainable fishery and to allow the stock to recover. A ban of international trade under Cites is essential to cut the main driver of overfishing. We want to see a sustainable fishery in the future, but to allow that we must give tuna a breather."
Almost 4 million Kenyans on food aid as drought deepens
Pictures of hundreds of cow carcasses being tipped into a mass grave near Nairobi highlight the scale of the natural disaster
Xan Rice in Nairobi
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 23.12 BST
The devastating drought sweeping across Kenya is causing widespread hunger, thirst and, in the case of cattle, death. Pictures of hundreds of cow carcasses being tipped into a mass grave near Nairobi highlight the scale of the natural disaster – and the clumsy or even negligent efforts of the government to deal with it.
Aware that the drought was likely to cause pastoralists to lose significant parts of their herds, the government announced a 500m shilling (£4.1m) plan last month to buy weak animals from farmers for 8,000 shillings (£65) each. The plan provided for the animals to be transported by truck to the Kenya meat commission depot in Athi River, a town near Nairobi, where they would be held, fed, and slaughtered, with the meat sold to recoup costs.
But many of the trucks transporting the cows hundreds of miles from as far away as north-eastern province, had insufficient water and food on board, causing large numbers of animals to die along the way. Of those that arrived alive, many soon perished owing to a lack of pasture in the holding bay.
The botched operation has caused anger and embarrassment among MPs, especially given that the government has been asking donors for urgent financial help in feeding the nearly 10 million Kenyans who are food insecure.
"They should have slaughtered the animals at the point of origin, not money to bring them to Athi River to be buried," said John Muthotho, chairman of the parliamentary committee on agriculture, which has accused the meat commission and the livestock ministry of incompetence.
Drought has long been a theme in Kenya, and east Africa more broadly, though the extreme dry spells appear to be hitting with more frequency. Over the past decade pastoralists have become used to marching vast distances in search of grazing, ending up in once-unlikely areas.
In Nairobi, the sight of Masai herders grazing their cows in upmarket suburbs or blocking the highway as their cattle amble across no longer raises eyebrows. In the Masai Mara game reserve tourists enter the park each day to see the wild animals roam the vast plains but at night it is the herders, who are being allowed to drive in thousands of cattle to graze.
The crisis is being exacerbated by high food prices, caused by poor harvests but also poor government planning that has left a large hole in the grain reserves. During the recent holidays many schools that serve lunches during term time stayed open simply so the pupils could be assured of eating one meal a day.
There is also a serious water shortage, with some neighbourhoods in Nairobi going without for weeks at a time. One reason is drought, but the destruction of water catchment areas – in some cases with the encouragement of the authorities – has not helped. With the electricity supply largely dependent of hydropower, low dam levels have also led to widespread power rationing.
Xan Rice in Nairobi
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 23.12 BST
The devastating drought sweeping across Kenya is causing widespread hunger, thirst and, in the case of cattle, death. Pictures of hundreds of cow carcasses being tipped into a mass grave near Nairobi highlight the scale of the natural disaster – and the clumsy or even negligent efforts of the government to deal with it.
Aware that the drought was likely to cause pastoralists to lose significant parts of their herds, the government announced a 500m shilling (£4.1m) plan last month to buy weak animals from farmers for 8,000 shillings (£65) each. The plan provided for the animals to be transported by truck to the Kenya meat commission depot in Athi River, a town near Nairobi, where they would be held, fed, and slaughtered, with the meat sold to recoup costs.
But many of the trucks transporting the cows hundreds of miles from as far away as north-eastern province, had insufficient water and food on board, causing large numbers of animals to die along the way. Of those that arrived alive, many soon perished owing to a lack of pasture in the holding bay.
The botched operation has caused anger and embarrassment among MPs, especially given that the government has been asking donors for urgent financial help in feeding the nearly 10 million Kenyans who are food insecure.
"They should have slaughtered the animals at the point of origin, not money to bring them to Athi River to be buried," said John Muthotho, chairman of the parliamentary committee on agriculture, which has accused the meat commission and the livestock ministry of incompetence.
Drought has long been a theme in Kenya, and east Africa more broadly, though the extreme dry spells appear to be hitting with more frequency. Over the past decade pastoralists have become used to marching vast distances in search of grazing, ending up in once-unlikely areas.
In Nairobi, the sight of Masai herders grazing their cows in upmarket suburbs or blocking the highway as their cattle amble across no longer raises eyebrows. In the Masai Mara game reserve tourists enter the park each day to see the wild animals roam the vast plains but at night it is the herders, who are being allowed to drive in thousands of cattle to graze.
The crisis is being exacerbated by high food prices, caused by poor harvests but also poor government planning that has left a large hole in the grain reserves. During the recent holidays many schools that serve lunches during term time stayed open simply so the pupils could be assured of eating one meal a day.
There is also a serious water shortage, with some neighbourhoods in Nairobi going without for weeks at a time. One reason is drought, but the destruction of water catchment areas – in some cases with the encouragement of the authorities – has not helped. With the electricity supply largely dependent of hydropower, low dam levels have also led to widespread power rationing.
Sovereignty, oil hunt complicate Arctic research
Reuters, Thursday September 17 2009
* Arctic sovereignty complicates research
* Oil industry exploration cuts ships available
* Expedition science chief helps design new vessel
By Jeffrey Jones
ABOARD THE PROFESSOR KHROMOV, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Russian and U.S. oceanographers studying the impact of global warming on the Bering Strait in late August enjoyed seas on some days that were so calm their ship made the only ripples.
But the serenity of the seascape belied increasingly turbulent waters for scientific research as countries exert sovereignty over Arctic territory and Big Oil boosts exploration efforts.
It has complicated life for Kathleen Crane, as she and her colleagues coordinate dozens of researchers in the western Arctic, a crucial region for the study of climate change and its impact on water, ice and life forms.
"It makes it harder because it's starting to ratchet up the perceived antagonisms between countries. They become competitors rather than working for the same goal," Crane, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said aboard the research ship Professor Khromov.
The expedition, called RUSALCA, or Russian-American Long-term Census of the Arctic, is one of several international Arctic studies as sea ice shrinks, opening the possibility of more navigable waterways in the far north.
Russia and the United States are among six countries pressing jurisdiction in the Arctic, where oil and gas resources are huge but access has always been restricted by the remoteness and cold.
Shrinking ice is sharpening previously minor disputes, such as a Russian-Danish standoff over who owns the seabed under the North Pole or how far Canada controls the Northwest Passage that the United States calls an international waterway.
A week before the RUSALCA mission began, Canada conducted a high-profile military exercise in its most northerly regions to underline its claims.
Such tensions have made security provisions at ports and aboard ships more onerous, Crane said.
In Washington, more government departments demand paperwork, and scientists and their gear require Transportation Security Administration clearance -- even at a tiny port like Nome, Alaska, where the mission began.
Nome, best known as the finish line for Alaska's Iditarod dogsled race, is expected to become an important strategic base as development ramps up, Joy Baker, the town's harbor master, said before RUSALCA scientists embarked on their expedition.
"The Arctic has become a very important place in the U.S. mind-set," Crane said. "But on the other hand, there's a lot more need for justification to work in that Arctic."
PERMITS REQUIRED
In Russian waters, every activity and piece of gear requires a permit. In late August, an impromptu plan to take a Zodiac craft out for a spin around the Khromov in waters just off Siberia was quickly scrubbed by the ship's Russian Navy representative, fearing that launching without prior authorization could jeopardize the mission.
Security fears eased after the Cold War, which helped NOAA and the Russian Academy of Sciences begin joint oceanographic cruises in 2004. But the old distrust never completely faded.
"It was pretty difficult. There was some suspicion among enforcement agencies on the Russian and American sides," said Aleksey Ostrovskiy, a Russian coordinator for the expedition. "Permission is given to anyone who wants to work, as long as it doesn't conflict with Russian national security interests. But sometimes it's hard to prove."
The race for Arctic resources has also created headaches for oceanographers, as the world's largest oil companies scoop up ice-capable vessels for exploration.
There are relatively few ships that scientists can use for their research, which includes sampling water and sea life at numerous points in the Bering and ice-prone Chukchi seas.
Crane said Exxon Mobil Corp, BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell, which have pockets deep enough to sign contracts for years in advance, are her biggest competitors for ships.
"The oil companies that are really expanding their geophysical surveying in the Arctic, and also environmental surveying, have been relying on Russian icebreakers and Russian research vessels," she said.
The Khromov is a Russian research ship leased and operated by Heritage Expeditions, a New Zealand-based ecotourism company. Financial troubles forced Russia's science authority to take such steps, Ostrovskiy said.
"Some ships were decommissioned, some ships were turned into tourist business because it was very difficult for the academy to keep them running though all of this, with licensing and inspections. It's very expensive," he said.
The United States has a few ships that oceanographers can use in the region occasionally. But the science community will soon have one all its own thanks to President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package.
RUSALCA's since chief, Terry Whitledge, is working on a project to build the United States' first ship dedicated to science since the 1980s.
The $200 million project is the first use of U.S. economic stimulus funding by the National Science Foundation.
A contract to build the 242-foot (74-metre) ship, designed to operate off Alaska, is scheduled to go to a U.S. shipyard in the next two months, said Whitledge, who directs the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
"We were the main supporters to keep the ball rolling, but it's a national resource available to anyone in the U.S. who has an oceanography grant," he said. (Editing by Alan Elsner)
* Arctic sovereignty complicates research
* Oil industry exploration cuts ships available
* Expedition science chief helps design new vessel
By Jeffrey Jones
ABOARD THE PROFESSOR KHROMOV, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Russian and U.S. oceanographers studying the impact of global warming on the Bering Strait in late August enjoyed seas on some days that were so calm their ship made the only ripples.
But the serenity of the seascape belied increasingly turbulent waters for scientific research as countries exert sovereignty over Arctic territory and Big Oil boosts exploration efforts.
It has complicated life for Kathleen Crane, as she and her colleagues coordinate dozens of researchers in the western Arctic, a crucial region for the study of climate change and its impact on water, ice and life forms.
"It makes it harder because it's starting to ratchet up the perceived antagonisms between countries. They become competitors rather than working for the same goal," Crane, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said aboard the research ship Professor Khromov.
The expedition, called RUSALCA, or Russian-American Long-term Census of the Arctic, is one of several international Arctic studies as sea ice shrinks, opening the possibility of more navigable waterways in the far north.
Russia and the United States are among six countries pressing jurisdiction in the Arctic, where oil and gas resources are huge but access has always been restricted by the remoteness and cold.
Shrinking ice is sharpening previously minor disputes, such as a Russian-Danish standoff over who owns the seabed under the North Pole or how far Canada controls the Northwest Passage that the United States calls an international waterway.
A week before the RUSALCA mission began, Canada conducted a high-profile military exercise in its most northerly regions to underline its claims.
Such tensions have made security provisions at ports and aboard ships more onerous, Crane said.
In Washington, more government departments demand paperwork, and scientists and their gear require Transportation Security Administration clearance -- even at a tiny port like Nome, Alaska, where the mission began.
Nome, best known as the finish line for Alaska's Iditarod dogsled race, is expected to become an important strategic base as development ramps up, Joy Baker, the town's harbor master, said before RUSALCA scientists embarked on their expedition.
"The Arctic has become a very important place in the U.S. mind-set," Crane said. "But on the other hand, there's a lot more need for justification to work in that Arctic."
PERMITS REQUIRED
In Russian waters, every activity and piece of gear requires a permit. In late August, an impromptu plan to take a Zodiac craft out for a spin around the Khromov in waters just off Siberia was quickly scrubbed by the ship's Russian Navy representative, fearing that launching without prior authorization could jeopardize the mission.
Security fears eased after the Cold War, which helped NOAA and the Russian Academy of Sciences begin joint oceanographic cruises in 2004. But the old distrust never completely faded.
"It was pretty difficult. There was some suspicion among enforcement agencies on the Russian and American sides," said Aleksey Ostrovskiy, a Russian coordinator for the expedition. "Permission is given to anyone who wants to work, as long as it doesn't conflict with Russian national security interests. But sometimes it's hard to prove."
The race for Arctic resources has also created headaches for oceanographers, as the world's largest oil companies scoop up ice-capable vessels for exploration.
There are relatively few ships that scientists can use for their research, which includes sampling water and sea life at numerous points in the Bering and ice-prone Chukchi seas.
Crane said Exxon Mobil Corp, BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell, which have pockets deep enough to sign contracts for years in advance, are her biggest competitors for ships.
"The oil companies that are really expanding their geophysical surveying in the Arctic, and also environmental surveying, have been relying on Russian icebreakers and Russian research vessels," she said.
The Khromov is a Russian research ship leased and operated by Heritage Expeditions, a New Zealand-based ecotourism company. Financial troubles forced Russia's science authority to take such steps, Ostrovskiy said.
"Some ships were decommissioned, some ships were turned into tourist business because it was very difficult for the academy to keep them running though all of this, with licensing and inspections. It's very expensive," he said.
The United States has a few ships that oceanographers can use in the region occasionally. But the science community will soon have one all its own thanks to President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package.
RUSALCA's since chief, Terry Whitledge, is working on a project to build the United States' first ship dedicated to science since the 1980s.
The $200 million project is the first use of U.S. economic stimulus funding by the National Science Foundation.
A contract to build the 242-foot (74-metre) ship, designed to operate off Alaska, is scheduled to go to a U.S. shipyard in the next two months, said Whitledge, who directs the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
"We were the main supporters to keep the ball rolling, but it's a national resource available to anyone in the U.S. who has an oceanography grant," he said. (Editing by Alan Elsner)
Eco groups tell parties not to cut spending on environment
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Friday, 18 September 2009
Green groups have urged Britain's political parties to match their spin with substance by including firm pledges on the environment in their election manifestos.
Although the parties have maintained their commitment to green issues despite the recession, campaigners fear that the huge deficit in the public finances may force cuts in spending on tackling climate change and improving the natural environment.
In a report published today, eight groups which have a total of 1.5 million members list 10 key demands the parties should include in their manifestos to prove their green credentials. They include an increase in the budgets of the Energy and Climate Change and Environment departments. Both could be vulnerable to spending cuts under Labour or the Tories, as neither party has pledged to ring-fence their budgets. Other demands include an end to airport expansion, and a 40 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions generally and from Britain's houses by 2020.
Stephen Hale, director of Green Alliance, said on behalf of the groups (CPRE, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust, WWF and the Green Alliance): "It's now or never. The real contest will be over specific policies. Action in the next parliament is critical if we are to simultaneously reduce our CO2 emissions while improving the resilience of our natural environment to avoid the looming crises of food, energy and water shortages by 2030."
A year ago, the groups accused Labour of having a "contradictory and incoherent" approach to the environment, saying the Tories were "strong on presentation but weak on substance" and that the Liberal Democrats' long-standing enthusiasm for green issues had waned.
Privately, green campaigners believe the Government's record has improved since Ed Miliband became Energy and Climate Change Secretary. They think the Tories have adopted some good policies, such as opposing a third runway at Heathrow, but want to see David Cameron give the environment the high profile it enjoyed soon after he became Tory leader four years ago. They believe that Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has become more engaged in green issues in the past year after a poor start.
The groups said: "It is imperative that the leaders of all parties in the next Parliament accord the highest priority to climate change and the natural environment."
Green manifestos: The 10 environment demands
* UK on track to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, 80 per cent by 2050
* At least 15 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020
* Strong UK leadership to ensure world greenhouse gas emissions fall by 2015
* UK to give most of $160bn-a-year low-carbon scheme in developing nations
* Progress towards restoring UK natural environment by 2020
*Access for all to green space within walking distance of their home
* Sustainable as well as economic development at heart of planning system
* All income from EU emissions trading to go to tackling climate change
* Increase government spending on low carbon economy
* Cut emissions from UK housing stock by more than 40 per cent by 2020
Friday, 18 September 2009
Green groups have urged Britain's political parties to match their spin with substance by including firm pledges on the environment in their election manifestos.
Although the parties have maintained their commitment to green issues despite the recession, campaigners fear that the huge deficit in the public finances may force cuts in spending on tackling climate change and improving the natural environment.
In a report published today, eight groups which have a total of 1.5 million members list 10 key demands the parties should include in their manifestos to prove their green credentials. They include an increase in the budgets of the Energy and Climate Change and Environment departments. Both could be vulnerable to spending cuts under Labour or the Tories, as neither party has pledged to ring-fence their budgets. Other demands include an end to airport expansion, and a 40 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions generally and from Britain's houses by 2020.
Stephen Hale, director of Green Alliance, said on behalf of the groups (CPRE, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust, WWF and the Green Alliance): "It's now or never. The real contest will be over specific policies. Action in the next parliament is critical if we are to simultaneously reduce our CO2 emissions while improving the resilience of our natural environment to avoid the looming crises of food, energy and water shortages by 2030."
A year ago, the groups accused Labour of having a "contradictory and incoherent" approach to the environment, saying the Tories were "strong on presentation but weak on substance" and that the Liberal Democrats' long-standing enthusiasm for green issues had waned.
Privately, green campaigners believe the Government's record has improved since Ed Miliband became Energy and Climate Change Secretary. They think the Tories have adopted some good policies, such as opposing a third runway at Heathrow, but want to see David Cameron give the environment the high profile it enjoyed soon after he became Tory leader four years ago. They believe that Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has become more engaged in green issues in the past year after a poor start.
The groups said: "It is imperative that the leaders of all parties in the next Parliament accord the highest priority to climate change and the natural environment."
Green manifestos: The 10 environment demands
* UK on track to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, 80 per cent by 2050
* At least 15 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020
* Strong UK leadership to ensure world greenhouse gas emissions fall by 2015
* UK to give most of $160bn-a-year low-carbon scheme in developing nations
* Progress towards restoring UK natural environment by 2020
*Access for all to green space within walking distance of their home
* Sustainable as well as economic development at heart of planning system
* All income from EU emissions trading to go to tackling climate change
* Increase government spending on low carbon economy
* Cut emissions from UK housing stock by more than 40 per cent by 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
