By STEVEN F. HAYWARD
The U.S. and Western Europe can point to a remarkable achievement over the past 40 years: significant reductions in air pollution with only a modest effect on our economic growth and prosperity. So, why can't we expect to do the same with greenhouse-gas emissions?
The Journal Report
See the complete Environment report.
Greenhouse gas isn't a traditional air-pollution problem. It is an energy-use problem, and that makes a world of difference. Traditional air pollution is an unwanted byproduct. Reducing it does not require any constraint on fossil-fuel use. Indeed, over the past few decades, we've doubled consumption of some fossil fuels while making huge cuts in pollution.
Carbon dioxide, however, is the result of complete fuel combustion. Apart from still-unproven technologies, there's no way to remove it from the process. The only way to reduce emissions is to burn less fuel, which means less energy output.
So, to meet the target the climate campaigners have set, the U.S., Europe and Japan will have to replace virtually their entire fossil-fuel energy infrastructure. For the U.S., the 80% target means reducing fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions to a level the nation last experienced in 1910. On a per-capita basis, we'd have to go back to the level of about 1875.
Julian Puckett
Steven Hayward
It is not even clear the goal of replacing fossil fuels can be accomplished at any cost, a point the International Energy Agency raised in its most recent annual energy forecast: "Even leaving aside any debate about the political feasibility of the 450 Policy Scenario, it is uncertain whether the scale of the transformation envisaged is even technically achievable, as the scenario assumes broad deployment of technologies that have not yet been proven. The technology shift, if achievable, would certainly be unprecedented in scale and speed of deployment."
The basic problem is that current and proposed alternatives—solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, more nukes—are much more expensive than fossil fuels. Credible estimates for implementing low or noncarbon energy in the U.S. over the next generation start in the low trillions of dollars. Reasonable people will argue how much this will pinch economic growth, but no one can doubt that the sign will be negative.
The Master Resource
Why? Energy is not like other goods that can be substituted or done without. It has rightly been called the master resource, because it is fundamental to everything else in the economy. There are no examples of a nation that grew wealthy on expensive energy.
True, we have a track record of success in this area. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has become more carbon-efficient while boosting its economic growth. But, for all our efforts, emissions keep going up. Hitting the 80% target by 2050 would mean roughly tripling our efficiency improvements and sustaining them for years to come—surely an impossible feat.
Maybe there will be some energy-technology breakthroughs, but even if so the cost to the economy will still be very large. Power plants, refineries and transmission grids are long-lasting assets, so a rapid switch to new technology will mean retiring assets before their useful life is over and diverting trillions in capital from other sectors. It is the equivalent of replacing your car, all of your household appliances, and your roof to boot, before they are worn out. This will obviously affect other consumption significantly.
Some climate campaigners argue for making gradual changes, using methods like trading licenses to produce carbon. But those plans are based on extremely rosy predictions about how much we can achieve and how much they'll cost. The optimistic price estimates in the Waxman-Markey bill, for instance, assume we'll set up an international system to trade offsets. This free market, the thinking goes, will help keep energy costs relatively steady and protect U.S. consumers from much hardship.
But the obstacles to getting an international system in place are huge—if not insurmountable. Already, Australia, New Zealand and Russia are showing signs of backing out of the existing emissions-cutting framework. The diplomatic house of cards can't withstand further gusts of national self-interest.
Then there's problem of developing nations. If the world is going to hit the 80% target, nations like China and India need to be held to big emissions cuts. Why? Even if the U.S. and other industrialized nations somehow achieved the 80% reduction target, it would have virtually no climate benefit because of soaring emissions from developing nations. As the International Energy Agency concluded, the major nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development "alone cannot put the world onto the path to 450-ppm trajectory, even if they were to reduce their emissions to zero" (emphasis added).
A Slim Chance
And the chances of getting emerging economies on board with an ambitious emissions plan are slim to none. Yes, world-wide treaties have been hammered out in the past to curb pollution. But, once again, things are different where energy is concerned. Developing nations need to bring huge new amounts of energy online over the next 40 years; is there any realistic chance they will adopt expensive energy on a scale that even rich nations can't afford?
Proponents suggest that we give developing nations lower goals to start with, to help them catch up to the rest of the world. But some of the biggest developing nations—and biggest greenhouse-gas emitters—have indicated they won't accept any kind of cap. For one, India has been pretty straightforward for a long time: They'll think about emissions limits when they are as wealthy as the industrialized world is today. How many times do India and China have to say "no" to emissions limits before we believe them?
Finally, the idea that we must act now to avoid bigger costs down the road just doesn't hold water. Simply put, the world of tomorrow will be considerably richer than today—and much better able to absorb the costs of climate change. Yale University's William Nordhaus, one of the top climate economists, thinks it is sound to allow about half or more of the prospective damage from climate change to simply occur—since the world 40 or 60 years from now will be in a much better situation to handle the economic effects.
--Mr. Hayward is F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Yes: The Transition Can Be Gradual—and Affordable
By ROBERT N. STAVINS
The world is facing a potential catastrophe from greenhouse-gas emissions. But nations don't have to wreck their economies to avert the crisis.
The Journal Report
See the complete Environment report.
Critics argue that the legislation passed earlier this year by the U.S. House of Representatives—to cut U.S. emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050—will mean big, disruptive changes to our infrastructure and untold economic damage. But they make a couple of basic errors. For one thing, they seem to think we'd have to replace the entire infrastructure quickly, paying trillions of dollars to shift to cleaner power. They also seem to assume that we have to choose between much more expensive energy and no energy at all.
The move to greener power doesn't have to be completed immediately, and it doesn't have to be painful. The right transition plan will increase consumers' bills gradually and modestly, and allow companies to make gradual, well-timed moves.
How would this work? One way is via a combination of national and multinational cap-and-trade systems. Companies around the world would be issued rights by their governments to produce carbon, which they could buy and sell on an open market. If they wanted to produce more carbon, they could buy another company's rights. If they produced less carbon than they needed, they could sell their extra rights. What's more, companies could earn more rights by creating appropriate "offsets" that mitigated their carbon use, such as planting forests. Nations could add carbon taxes to the mix.
Julian Puckett
Robert Stavins
The effect would be to send price signals through the market—making use of less carbon-intensive fuels more cost-competitive, providing incentives for energy efficiency and stimulating climate-friendly technological change, such as methods of capturing and storing carbon.
More Efficient
True, in the short term changing the energy mix will come at some cost, but this will hardly stop economic growth. As economies have grown and matured, they have become more adept at squeezing more economic activity out of each unit of energy they generate and consume. Consider this: From 1990 to 2007, while world emissions rose 38%, world economic growth soared 75%—emissions per unit of economic activity fell by more than 20%.
Critics argue we can't possibly increase efficiency enough to hit the 80% goal. In a very limited sense, that's true. Efficiency improvements alone, like the ones that propelled us forward in the past, won't get us where we need to go by 2050. But this plan doesn't rely solely on boosting efficiency. It brings together a host of other changes, such as moving toward greener power sources. What's more, making gradual changes means we don't have to scrap still-productive power plants, but rather begin to move new investment in the right direction.
As for how much this will cost, the best economic analyses—including studies from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Energy Information Administration—say such a policy in the U.S. would cost considerably less than 1% of gross domestic product per year in the long term, or up to $175 per household in 2020. (That's the cost of one postage stamp per household per day.)
In the end, we would be delaying 2050's expected economic output by no more than a few months. And bear in mind that previous environmental actions, such as attacking smog-forming air pollution and cutting acid rain, have consistently turned out to be much cheaper than predicted.
Critics are wary of raising energy prices, arguing that no nations have grown wealthy with expensive power. But historically, it is the scarcity and cost of energy that have prompted technological changes as well as the use of new forms of power. What's more, critics challenge the price estimates the experts have set out. They say that the predictions depend on extensive—and unrealistic—cooperation among nations. In particular, they say, developing nations won't sign onto plans for curbing emissions, for fear of losing their economic momentum.
Indeed, we do need a sensible international arrangement in place to achieve low costs, and the economic pain will be much greater if we don't set up an international carbon market. But it can be done. Many nations have already initiated such emissions-control policies. And the world can be brought together in a meaningful, long-term arrangement that is scientifically sound, economically rational and politically pragmatic.
Road to Cooperation
For instance, the U.S. and China have been involved in intense talks about climate policy. If the two nations come together in a bilateral agreement—a real possibility—they would have much more leverage to persuade other major nations to join. From there, developing nations could be brought on board by giving them targets that reduce emissions without stifling growth. Advanced nations might agree to more-severe emissions cuts and allow developing nations to make gradual cuts in the early decades as they rise toward the world's average per-capita emissions. With the right incentives, developing countries can and will move onto less carbon-intensive growth paths.
The longer we put off serious action, the more aggressive our future efforts will need to be, as greenhouse gases and carbon-spewing capital assets continue to accumulate. Plants built today will determine emissions for a generation. In the steel sector—where plant lifetimes typically exceed 25 years—more than half of all plants in the world are now less than 10 years old. The picture is similar in the cement industry, as well as more broadly throughout the economy. For every year of delay before moving to a sustainable emissions path, the global cost of taking necessary actions increases by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Reducing Costs
Critics argue that we can afford to wait because the world of tomorrow will be wealthier and better able to absorb the costs. But acting sooner, such as by adopting the emission caps proposed in the U.S. House legislation, will lower the ultimate costs of achieving the target, because there will be more time allowed for gradual transition—which is what keeps costs down. Perhaps most important, the costs of failing to take action—the damages of climate change—would be substantially greater.
Getting serious about climate change won't be free, and it won't be easy. But if state-of-the-science predictions about the consequences of continued inaction are correct, the time has come for meaningful and sensible action.
--Dr. Stavins is the Albert Pratt professor of business and government at the Harvard Kennedy School, a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a university fellow of Resources for the Future. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
Hate Calculus? Try Counting Cow Carbon
Companies Are Measuring the Environmental Impact of Their Products, but the Math is Fraught With Complexity and Imprecision
By JEFFREY BALL
Shoppers soon will be able to buy everything from meat to moccasins based on a number that purports to tell them the products' environmental impact.
Manufacturers and retailers across the globe are working to measure their products' carbon footprints for a variety of reasons, and all of the efforts have one thing in common: The results have the appearance of precision.
See a breakdown of the carbon footprint for a gallon of U.S. milk
But all the decimal points in the world can't hide the fact that measuring carbon footprints is inexact. It is clouded by varying methodologies and definitions -- not to mention guesses.
"There are no clear rules for the time being," says Klaus Radunsky, who co-chairs a group within the Geneva-based International Organization for Standardization that is producing a guideline for measuring products' environmental impacts. "It depends very much on how you do the calculations."
Few products demonstrate the messiness of this effort more than a simple carton of milk. Several studies in various countries have already sought to tally the impact of milk from its production on a farm to the disposal of its carton. In between, the studies try to measure such intricacies as the energy used to make the fertilizer to grow feed for the cows, to fuel trucks delivering the milk, and to power refrigerators cooling it in kitchens.
It isn't surprising that each of these studies sizes milk's footprint differently, in large part because each varies in the way it counts one or more of those factors.
Milk is among the first products that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is trying to measure as part of a broad effort by the retailer to assess the environmental impact of the products its sells. It intends to begin labeling certain products with a "sustainability" score -- a single number that would take into account not only carbon emissions, but also water use and waste production. That is doubly complicated because it involves weighing the relative importance of different kinds of environmental impact. Which is worse: that a tomato uses lots of water or lots of pesticide?
Wal-Mart is working with academics and environmentalists to decide both how to tally that score and how to display it. It might be a number from 1 to 10, and it might be a color in a range of hues, says Matt Kistler, the retailer's senior vice president of sustainability. The challenge is to come up with something that is understandable and accurate. "Can we get there overnight? No, because a lot of the information doesn't exist yet," he says. "But I think we can get there."
See how the New York City Department of Education is making simple changes to make big cuts in its energy use and carbon footprint.
Among the reasons driving the measurement efforts by manufacturers and retailers are concern for the planet, marketing, to reduce emissions and, in some cases, to avoid being caught flat-footed by any coming climate-change regulation.
Tesco PLC, the big U.K. retailer, began last month labeling milk sold under its store brand. Its studies concluded that a pint of whole milk generates an amount of greenhouse gas equivalent to about two pounds of carbon dioxide. Tesco prints the metric equivalent of that number, 900 grams, on its whole-milk labels.
Another study by the U.S. dairy industry came up with a preliminary footprint that is about 15% lower, when expressed in terms of a comparably sized container of milk.
What may account for some of the difference is another set of dizzying variables in the carbon calculation. Some farms have more energy-efficient machinery. Some cows eat less corn, which typically is grown with petroleum-based fertilizers. And some kinds of feed cause cows to burp more methane, a potent source of carbon. That bovine belching is widely agreed to be the biggest source of carbon emissions in milk production.
But some parts of the equation are subjective. Cows produce multiple sellable goods: milk while they are alive, and, once they are slaughtered, products including beef, leather and bones. So how much of the emissions from the dairy farm should be blamed on the milk, and how much on the making of the steak and shoes?
Tesco attempts to resolve that question by splitting the emissions according to the relative economic value of the milk versus the cow's carcass. If, say, a dairy farm got 90% of its revenue from selling milk and 10% from selling the cow, then 90% of its emissions would be ascribed to the milk and 10% to the other products.
That is the route recommended as most practical by the Carbon Trust, a London-based company established by the British government to help curb carbon emissions in the U.K. The methodology is part of a broader set of carbon-measuring guidelines published last year by the Carbon Trust, the U.K. government and a standard-setting organization called the British Standards Institute.
Euan Murray, who oversees carbon-footprint studies at the Carbon Trust, which Tesco hired to conduct its milk study, says allocating emissions based on economic value makes intuitive sense to most people. But, he adds, "there's no absolutely right way of doing it."
The U.S. dairy industry is updating its own study, and the new version uses a more-complicated calculation preferred by the International Organization for Standardization. It seeks essentially to look inside the cow, separating the portion of the animal's biological functions that go to producing milk from the portion that go to producing the cow itself. Those functions include the cow's eating, burping, flatulence and waste.
"It becomes extremely difficult to do," says Greg Thoma, a chemical-engineering professor at the University of Arkansas. He is one of a team of professors at the university contracted by the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, a dairy-industry group, to produce the carbon-footprint study.
The Arkansas researchers see their method as more accurate than the approach used in the U.K. A footprint based on milk's economic value, Mr. Thoma notes, could rise or fall just because the market price of milk changes.
The Carbon Trust recommends updating footprint studies if conditions change significantly. The Trust's Mr. Murray says it makes sense for products that contribute more to a farm's economic activity to be tagged with more of the carbon responsibility.
The U.S. method is open to plenty of uncertainties, too. It requires knowing, for instance, what mix of feed a cow ate on the dairy farm, because each kind of feed -- corn, say, or almond hulls -- brings with it a different carbon footprint. It also requires knowing the weight of each cow when it left the farm to be slaughtered. In reality, researchers don't know those figures for every cow. "So I have to make a guess," Mr. Thoma says. "It's not going to be exact."
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
By JEFFREY BALL
Shoppers soon will be able to buy everything from meat to moccasins based on a number that purports to tell them the products' environmental impact.
Manufacturers and retailers across the globe are working to measure their products' carbon footprints for a variety of reasons, and all of the efforts have one thing in common: The results have the appearance of precision.
See a breakdown of the carbon footprint for a gallon of U.S. milk
But all the decimal points in the world can't hide the fact that measuring carbon footprints is inexact. It is clouded by varying methodologies and definitions -- not to mention guesses.
"There are no clear rules for the time being," says Klaus Radunsky, who co-chairs a group within the Geneva-based International Organization for Standardization that is producing a guideline for measuring products' environmental impacts. "It depends very much on how you do the calculations."
Few products demonstrate the messiness of this effort more than a simple carton of milk. Several studies in various countries have already sought to tally the impact of milk from its production on a farm to the disposal of its carton. In between, the studies try to measure such intricacies as the energy used to make the fertilizer to grow feed for the cows, to fuel trucks delivering the milk, and to power refrigerators cooling it in kitchens.
It isn't surprising that each of these studies sizes milk's footprint differently, in large part because each varies in the way it counts one or more of those factors.
Milk is among the first products that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is trying to measure as part of a broad effort by the retailer to assess the environmental impact of the products its sells. It intends to begin labeling certain products with a "sustainability" score -- a single number that would take into account not only carbon emissions, but also water use and waste production. That is doubly complicated because it involves weighing the relative importance of different kinds of environmental impact. Which is worse: that a tomato uses lots of water or lots of pesticide?
Wal-Mart is working with academics and environmentalists to decide both how to tally that score and how to display it. It might be a number from 1 to 10, and it might be a color in a range of hues, says Matt Kistler, the retailer's senior vice president of sustainability. The challenge is to come up with something that is understandable and accurate. "Can we get there overnight? No, because a lot of the information doesn't exist yet," he says. "But I think we can get there."
See how the New York City Department of Education is making simple changes to make big cuts in its energy use and carbon footprint.
Among the reasons driving the measurement efforts by manufacturers and retailers are concern for the planet, marketing, to reduce emissions and, in some cases, to avoid being caught flat-footed by any coming climate-change regulation.
Tesco PLC, the big U.K. retailer, began last month labeling milk sold under its store brand. Its studies concluded that a pint of whole milk generates an amount of greenhouse gas equivalent to about two pounds of carbon dioxide. Tesco prints the metric equivalent of that number, 900 grams, on its whole-milk labels.
Another study by the U.S. dairy industry came up with a preliminary footprint that is about 15% lower, when expressed in terms of a comparably sized container of milk.
What may account for some of the difference is another set of dizzying variables in the carbon calculation. Some farms have more energy-efficient machinery. Some cows eat less corn, which typically is grown with petroleum-based fertilizers. And some kinds of feed cause cows to burp more methane, a potent source of carbon. That bovine belching is widely agreed to be the biggest source of carbon emissions in milk production.
But some parts of the equation are subjective. Cows produce multiple sellable goods: milk while they are alive, and, once they are slaughtered, products including beef, leather and bones. So how much of the emissions from the dairy farm should be blamed on the milk, and how much on the making of the steak and shoes?
Tesco attempts to resolve that question by splitting the emissions according to the relative economic value of the milk versus the cow's carcass. If, say, a dairy farm got 90% of its revenue from selling milk and 10% from selling the cow, then 90% of its emissions would be ascribed to the milk and 10% to the other products.
That is the route recommended as most practical by the Carbon Trust, a London-based company established by the British government to help curb carbon emissions in the U.K. The methodology is part of a broader set of carbon-measuring guidelines published last year by the Carbon Trust, the U.K. government and a standard-setting organization called the British Standards Institute.
Euan Murray, who oversees carbon-footprint studies at the Carbon Trust, which Tesco hired to conduct its milk study, says allocating emissions based on economic value makes intuitive sense to most people. But, he adds, "there's no absolutely right way of doing it."
The U.S. dairy industry is updating its own study, and the new version uses a more-complicated calculation preferred by the International Organization for Standardization. It seeks essentially to look inside the cow, separating the portion of the animal's biological functions that go to producing milk from the portion that go to producing the cow itself. Those functions include the cow's eating, burping, flatulence and waste.
"It becomes extremely difficult to do," says Greg Thoma, a chemical-engineering professor at the University of Arkansas. He is one of a team of professors at the university contracted by the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, a dairy-industry group, to produce the carbon-footprint study.
The Arkansas researchers see their method as more accurate than the approach used in the U.K. A footprint based on milk's economic value, Mr. Thoma notes, could rise or fall just because the market price of milk changes.
The Carbon Trust recommends updating footprint studies if conditions change significantly. The Trust's Mr. Murray says it makes sense for products that contribute more to a farm's economic activity to be tagged with more of the carbon responsibility.
The U.S. method is open to plenty of uncertainties, too. It requires knowing, for instance, what mix of feed a cow ate on the dairy farm, because each kind of feed -- corn, say, or almond hulls -- brings with it a different carbon footprint. It also requires knowing the weight of each cow when it left the farm to be slaughtered. In reality, researchers don't know those figures for every cow. "So I have to make a guess," Mr. Thoma says. "It's not going to be exact."
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
Farm wins £500,000 to turn pig muck into power
A farm has secured a grant worth more than £500,000 to harness the power of pig muck by turning it into electricity.
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political EditorPublished: 5:11PM BST 20 Sep 2009
The company in East Lothian was handed the money to convert slurry and vegetable waste into energy.
The Ruchlaw Produce Company in Dunbar, which employs 45 people, is the first farm in south east Scotland to use the technology.
The waste is fed into an “anaerobic digester” to create methane and carbon dioxide, which are then be pumped into a biogas plant to generate electricity and hot water for heating.
The digester, which will be formally unveiled by Scottish ministers this week, should be able to produce 832MW of electricity and 629MWH of heat.
It is hoped about 2,000 tons of vegetable waste will be gathered by local councils and producers to be converted into green energy, reducing landfill waste.
Any extra waste generated from the new plant will be converted into fertiliser and excess fuel will be sold to the National Grid.
The company, set on 137 hectares, has 3,200 breeding sows which produce 70,000 pigs a year. The £560,000 grant was secured from Rural Priorities, part of the Scotland Rural Development Programme.
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political EditorPublished: 5:11PM BST 20 Sep 2009
The company in East Lothian was handed the money to convert slurry and vegetable waste into energy.
The Ruchlaw Produce Company in Dunbar, which employs 45 people, is the first farm in south east Scotland to use the technology.
The waste is fed into an “anaerobic digester” to create methane and carbon dioxide, which are then be pumped into a biogas plant to generate electricity and hot water for heating.
The digester, which will be formally unveiled by Scottish ministers this week, should be able to produce 832MW of electricity and 629MWH of heat.
It is hoped about 2,000 tons of vegetable waste will be gathered by local councils and producers to be converted into green energy, reducing landfill waste.
Any extra waste generated from the new plant will be converted into fertiliser and excess fuel will be sold to the National Grid.
The company, set on 137 hectares, has 3,200 breeding sows which produce 70,000 pigs a year. The £560,000 grant was secured from Rural Priorities, part of the Scotland Rural Development Programme.
Aquamarine makes a splash raising £10 million for wave energy device
Published Date: 21 September 2009
By Scott Reid
AQUAMARINE Power, the Edinburgh-based renewables company, has raised £10 million as it embarks on a two-year test programme for its wave energy converter.
The funding has been described as "just the start of the journey", with a further £40m needed to take the Oyster device to full commercialisation.Work is under way to connect a full-scale demonstrator system to sub-sea pipelines which will deliver high-pressure water to an onshore turbine.The firm aims to have the first commercial wave farm up and running within five years. An array of 20 devices could provide green energy for a town of 9,000 homes.Aquamarine chief executive Martin McAdam said there was "considerable investor appetite" for renewable energy companies. He told The Scotsman: "Our goal is to raise sufficient equity to get to the point where we have a commercial product offering in the marketplace."We want to raise a total of £50m, and the first £10m takes us a significant step along that way, but it is just the start of the journey for us."Raising substantial funds in these exceptionally difficult market conditions is an incredible achievement."McAdam, who spent eight years working in the wind industry, founded renewable energy provider Airtricity's US operations, which were sold to German utility giant E.ON for $1.2 billion (£740m) in 2007.Aquamarine, whose Oyster device consists of a hinged flap connected to the seabed at about ten metres, already has an agreement in place with Airtricity – part of Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) – to develop up to 1,000 megawatts of marine energy by 2020.It is estimated that as much as 21.5 gigawatts of wave and tidal energy could be generated from Scottish waters – enough to meet about half of the nation's energy demands.McAdam added: "The key for us is to have a product in the next three years that is attractive for utility companies or independent power producers from the perspective of adding additional renewable energy to their generation portfolio."The first-round funding has brought in "a number of high net-worth individuals" as well as Scottish Enterprise as an equity investor.Aquamarine's shareholder base also includes Edinburgh-based Sigma Capital and SSE, which is the single largest investor with a stake of about 44 per cent.The wave energy group, which was founded in 2005, is also eyeing grant funding to help achieve its goals.McAdam admitted the firm faced "very significant prototype costs", but argued that wave energy was a "vast untapped resource" with better reliability than solar or wind power.He said: "At this early stage, we would not be that cost effective. However, the goal in three years' time – through lower engineering and fabrication costs – is to be competitive with offshore wind."
By Scott Reid
AQUAMARINE Power, the Edinburgh-based renewables company, has raised £10 million as it embarks on a two-year test programme for its wave energy converter.
The funding has been described as "just the start of the journey", with a further £40m needed to take the Oyster device to full commercialisation.Work is under way to connect a full-scale demonstrator system to sub-sea pipelines which will deliver high-pressure water to an onshore turbine.The firm aims to have the first commercial wave farm up and running within five years. An array of 20 devices could provide green energy for a town of 9,000 homes.Aquamarine chief executive Martin McAdam said there was "considerable investor appetite" for renewable energy companies. He told The Scotsman: "Our goal is to raise sufficient equity to get to the point where we have a commercial product offering in the marketplace."We want to raise a total of £50m, and the first £10m takes us a significant step along that way, but it is just the start of the journey for us."Raising substantial funds in these exceptionally difficult market conditions is an incredible achievement."McAdam, who spent eight years working in the wind industry, founded renewable energy provider Airtricity's US operations, which were sold to German utility giant E.ON for $1.2 billion (£740m) in 2007.Aquamarine, whose Oyster device consists of a hinged flap connected to the seabed at about ten metres, already has an agreement in place with Airtricity – part of Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) – to develop up to 1,000 megawatts of marine energy by 2020.It is estimated that as much as 21.5 gigawatts of wave and tidal energy could be generated from Scottish waters – enough to meet about half of the nation's energy demands.McAdam added: "The key for us is to have a product in the next three years that is attractive for utility companies or independent power producers from the perspective of adding additional renewable energy to their generation portfolio."The first-round funding has brought in "a number of high net-worth individuals" as well as Scottish Enterprise as an equity investor.Aquamarine's shareholder base also includes Edinburgh-based Sigma Capital and SSE, which is the single largest investor with a stake of about 44 per cent.The wave energy group, which was founded in 2005, is also eyeing grant funding to help achieve its goals.McAdam admitted the firm faced "very significant prototype costs", but argued that wave energy was a "vast untapped resource" with better reliability than solar or wind power.He said: "At this early stage, we would not be that cost effective. However, the goal in three years' time – through lower engineering and fabrication costs – is to be competitive with offshore wind."
Wind-powered stations to reach profitability by 2017
Wind-powered stations are likely to be profitable in the UK by 2017, according to the chief executive of Siemens Renewable Energy.
By Rowena MasonPublished: 5:55PM BST 20 Sep 2009
The energy source is currently heavily subsidised by the Government as it rushes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce 20pc of all power from renewables by 2020 in line with European climate change targets.
However, Rene Umlauft, chief executive of the Siemens division, believes that the rising price of gas and other fossil fuels will make wind farms commercially viable within eight years.
Wind power is already operating without subsidies in New Zealand, where the weather conditions make windmills more efficient than in other parts of the world.
The wind is also strong enough in Mexico and Brazil to make wind power near profitable in these countries over the next year.
Mr Umlauft's forecast comes as Siemens, the German wind-turbine maker, and Dong Energy, the Danish wind-farm owner, opened the world's largest offshore wind farm off the coast of Denmark last Thursday.
The Horns Rev 2 farm, which has 91 turbines and can generate 209 megawatts of electricity, will increase Denmark's wind power to more than 20pc of the country's total energy consumption.
But this will be vastly overshadowed when the London Array wind farm is built in the Thames Estuary off the coast of Kent with 341 turbines.
The project, funded by Dong, E.ON and Masdar, an Abu Dhabi company, could be ready to generate power for the London 2012 Olympics if it is given final approval on schedule later this year.
Siemens is also considering whether to open a new factory manufacturing turbines in the UK following the closure of a plant by Vestas, the Danish turbine maker, on the Isle of Wight earlier this year.
It has shortlisted locations in Germany, Britain and Denmark, as these countries have the largest order books for offshore wind farms in Europe.
By Rowena MasonPublished: 5:55PM BST 20 Sep 2009
The energy source is currently heavily subsidised by the Government as it rushes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce 20pc of all power from renewables by 2020 in line with European climate change targets.
However, Rene Umlauft, chief executive of the Siemens division, believes that the rising price of gas and other fossil fuels will make wind farms commercially viable within eight years.
Wind power is already operating without subsidies in New Zealand, where the weather conditions make windmills more efficient than in other parts of the world.
The wind is also strong enough in Mexico and Brazil to make wind power near profitable in these countries over the next year.
Mr Umlauft's forecast comes as Siemens, the German wind-turbine maker, and Dong Energy, the Danish wind-farm owner, opened the world's largest offshore wind farm off the coast of Denmark last Thursday.
The Horns Rev 2 farm, which has 91 turbines and can generate 209 megawatts of electricity, will increase Denmark's wind power to more than 20pc of the country's total energy consumption.
But this will be vastly overshadowed when the London Array wind farm is built in the Thames Estuary off the coast of Kent with 341 turbines.
The project, funded by Dong, E.ON and Masdar, an Abu Dhabi company, could be ready to generate power for the London 2012 Olympics if it is given final approval on schedule later this year.
Siemens is also considering whether to open a new factory manufacturing turbines in the UK following the closure of a plant by Vestas, the Danish turbine maker, on the Isle of Wight earlier this year.
It has shortlisted locations in Germany, Britain and Denmark, as these countries have the largest order books for offshore wind farms in Europe.
Battery backup keeps Chinese mobile telephone companies in power
Carbon trading is back in focus, much to the delight of the many carbon-related companies on Aim.
By Josephine MouldsPublished: 5:35PM BST 20 Sep 2009
In between the fiery debates about health care, the US Senate is discussing a carbon emissions trading scheme, which would limit the amount of carbon that companies can emit.
Under such a scheme, if companies choose to exceed those limits, they must buy carbon offsets, known as Certified Emission Reduction certificates (CERs), which trade like a commodity on specialised exchanges.
Last year the price of a certificate to offset a tonne of carbon was around €25 (£22). It then plunged to a low of €8 and has gradually climbed back up again to €15.
Neil Eckert, chief executive of Climate Exchange, a trading exchange for environmental financial products, points out that this roughly follows the trajectory of the oil price, which reached a high of $150 (£92) a barrel only to fall to $40, climbing up to trade around $70 in recent weeks.
The two commodities are driven by the same factors. As companies use less oil, they emit less carbon, and so require fewer carbon offsets.
But carbon, unlike oil, is a very new and immature market. The introduction of an emissions trading scheme in the US would signify a major leap forward in its development.
The US is one of the few industrialised nations that did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to reduce emissions that has spawned emissions trading schemes across the world. The largest is currently in Europe but that would be dwarfed by a US scheme.
Mike Wilkins, head of carbon markets at Standard & Poor's, says it is 50/50 whether the Senate will pass the bill: "We are in the middle of an economic downturn. The appetite among large industry players and lobby groups to incur more costs and cut emissions is pretty low, but there is a very strong political will to bring the US in line with the rest of the world."
This is all happening as environmental companies gear up for the global climate change conference in Copenhagen this December.
These conferences happen every year but Copenhagen is particularly significant. It is seen as the last chance to renew the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The goal is to get rich nations to sign up to deeper emissions cuts than the 20pc agreed under Kyoto, while offering greater assistance to developing countries to help them curb greenhouse gas pollution.
The way they can currently do this is by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which sees companies in developed countries pay for carbon reduction programmes in developing countries in exchange for the carbon offsets. That framework expires with Kyoto, meaning there is considerable uncertainty regarding the future of the carbon markets beyond 2012.
By Josephine MouldsPublished: 5:35PM BST 20 Sep 2009
In between the fiery debates about health care, the US Senate is discussing a carbon emissions trading scheme, which would limit the amount of carbon that companies can emit.
Under such a scheme, if companies choose to exceed those limits, they must buy carbon offsets, known as Certified Emission Reduction certificates (CERs), which trade like a commodity on specialised exchanges.
Last year the price of a certificate to offset a tonne of carbon was around €25 (£22). It then plunged to a low of €8 and has gradually climbed back up again to €15.
Neil Eckert, chief executive of Climate Exchange, a trading exchange for environmental financial products, points out that this roughly follows the trajectory of the oil price, which reached a high of $150 (£92) a barrel only to fall to $40, climbing up to trade around $70 in recent weeks.
The two commodities are driven by the same factors. As companies use less oil, they emit less carbon, and so require fewer carbon offsets.
But carbon, unlike oil, is a very new and immature market. The introduction of an emissions trading scheme in the US would signify a major leap forward in its development.
The US is one of the few industrialised nations that did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to reduce emissions that has spawned emissions trading schemes across the world. The largest is currently in Europe but that would be dwarfed by a US scheme.
Mike Wilkins, head of carbon markets at Standard & Poor's, says it is 50/50 whether the Senate will pass the bill: "We are in the middle of an economic downturn. The appetite among large industry players and lobby groups to incur more costs and cut emissions is pretty low, but there is a very strong political will to bring the US in line with the rest of the world."
This is all happening as environmental companies gear up for the global climate change conference in Copenhagen this December.
These conferences happen every year but Copenhagen is particularly significant. It is seen as the last chance to renew the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The goal is to get rich nations to sign up to deeper emissions cuts than the 20pc agreed under Kyoto, while offering greater assistance to developing countries to help them curb greenhouse gas pollution.
The way they can currently do this is by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which sees companies in developed countries pay for carbon reduction programmes in developing countries in exchange for the carbon offsets. That framework expires with Kyoto, meaning there is considerable uncertainty regarding the future of the carbon markets beyond 2012.
The G20: Bankers and the global economy
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 September 2009 23.37 BST
The UN roadshow moves to Pittsburgh on Thursday and Friday, where Obama will face delicate negotiations over the global economy, bankers' pay and climate change.
Top of the agenda will be the global economic slowdown. Obama has described the meeting as an opportunity for a "check-up" on countries' initiatives to counter the recession. Along with Gordon Brown, he is keen for progress on a blueprint for international regulation of the financial markets.
But the US faces a confrontation with other European Union countries over calls to restrict multimillion-pound bonuses in the financial industry. Some European leaders want a cap on bankers' pay, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has threatened to walk out of the summit unless the US moves on the issue. The White House, deeply reluctant to alienate Wall Street, favours far more modest measures to discourage pay deals viewed as encouraging excessive risk-taking.
Emphasising his environmental credentials, Obama has been tipped to use his position as the G20 host to call on member countries to end all subsidies for electricity generated by fossil fuels.
Anti-war, environmental and anti-poverty groups plan to demonstrate in Pittsburgh, with one group marching from a working-class suburb in a "people's uprising". Some 4,000 police reinforcements have been drafted. The city was chosen as the venue to showcase its strength in shifting from heavy manufacturing to production of hi-tech and green goods.
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 September 2009 23.37 BST
The UN roadshow moves to Pittsburgh on Thursday and Friday, where Obama will face delicate negotiations over the global economy, bankers' pay and climate change.
Top of the agenda will be the global economic slowdown. Obama has described the meeting as an opportunity for a "check-up" on countries' initiatives to counter the recession. Along with Gordon Brown, he is keen for progress on a blueprint for international regulation of the financial markets.
But the US faces a confrontation with other European Union countries over calls to restrict multimillion-pound bonuses in the financial industry. Some European leaders want a cap on bankers' pay, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has threatened to walk out of the summit unless the US moves on the issue. The White House, deeply reluctant to alienate Wall Street, favours far more modest measures to discourage pay deals viewed as encouraging excessive risk-taking.
Emphasising his environmental credentials, Obama has been tipped to use his position as the G20 host to call on member countries to end all subsidies for electricity generated by fossil fuels.
Anti-war, environmental and anti-poverty groups plan to demonstrate in Pittsburgh, with one group marching from a working-class suburb in a "people's uprising". Some 4,000 police reinforcements have been drafted. The city was chosen as the venue to showcase its strength in shifting from heavy manufacturing to production of hi-tech and green goods.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
UN plans 'shock therapy' for world leaders on environment
Pared-down summit will force heads of rich states to listen to those of third world in hope of kickstarting radical action
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Observer, Sunday 20 September 2009
The United Nations is planning a form of diplomatic shock therapy for world leaders this week in the hope of injecting badly needed urgency into negotiations for a climate change treaty that, it is now widely acknowledged, are dangerously adrift.
UN chief Ban Ki-Moon and negotiators say that unless they can convert world leaders into committed advocates of radical action, it will be very hard to reach a credible and enforceable agreement to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change.
As the digital counter ticking off the hours to the Copenhagen summit – which had been supposed to seal the deal on climate change – hit 77 days today, progress at the UN summit in New York is seen as vital. Nearly 100 heads of state and government are to attend the summit, for which a pared-down format has been devised.
"We need these leaders to go outside their usual comfort zones," said one diplomat. "Our sense is that leaders have got a little too cosy and comfortable. They really have to hear from countries that are vulnerable and suffering."
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore, agreed. Commenting on the leaders attending the G20 summit in Pittsburgh next week, he said: "We need to remind these people about impacts of climate change – the fact that they are inequitable and fall very heavily on some of the poorest people in the world. We are likely to see a large number of failed states if we don't act in time."
The heads of state attending the UN summit are to be stripped of their entourages. Each will be allowed just one aide, generally their country's environment minister, in the sessions.
Instead of set-piece speeches, leaders will be paired off to chair discussion groups. Britain will be with Guyana, Tuvalu with the Netherlands, and Mongolia with the European commission.
The leaders will also lunch with environmental activists and chief executives of corporations who have been pressing their governments for action. At dinner, the leaders of the biggest polluting countries will dine with the leaders of Bangladesh, Kiribati and Costa Rica – which are among the primary victims of climate change.
By the end of the day, the rationale goes, the leaders will be imbued with a new sense of purpose. Leaders of rich countries will have been galvanised to take on the big emissions cuts – 25-40% over the next decade, 80% by 2050 – needed to keep temperatures from rising more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, the temperature set by science to avoid the most calamitous effects of climate change.
The leaders will also, it is hoped, have some understanding of the threat to poorer countries. And, at the very least, they will have more of a common purpose in tackling the problem. "We need to gather together. We don't want to blame or point fingers at each other," said Yaqoub al-Sanada, counsellor at the Kuwaiti mission to the UN. Kuwait – one of the biggest producers of oil – will co-chair a discussion session with Finland.
The UN is hoping for help from Barack Obama. The US president will speak at the session, and there is anticipation he will deliver a strong signal that America is committed to action. There is growing anxiety for those kinds of reassurances, especially as opposition to Obama's green agenda grows in Congress. "The first question I get any time I meet with anybody is, 'Where's the legislation? How's it going?'," Todd Stern, the State Department's climate change envoy, said. There are also reports that China's president, Hu Jintao, in his first appearance at the UN, will announce new commitments to curb pollution – the kind of signal that will be crucial to boost negotiations in the days leading up to Copenhagen.
"We can get a successful outcome from Copenhagen. It is achievable, but at the moment it's in the balance," said John Ashton, Britain's climate change envoy. "We need to close the gaps."
Those gaps grew over the summer. There is what Ashton called the "ambition gap" – the failure of leaders of the big polluting countries to sign on to the deep emissions cuts needed. Then there is the "finance gap" – the failure of industrialised states to come up with a package on how to compensate poor countries that will suffer the most devastating consequences.
Britain came forward last June with an estimate of £61bn a year by 2020. Negotiators are frustrated that major industrialised states have not set clear figures on how much they are willing to commit, or how they will provide the funding.
Some climate change experts and negotiators have already begun planning a fallback position should the December Copenhagen summit fail to produce a strong enough agreement.
In Washington, Obama administration officials now talk openly about negotiating beyond Copenhagen. "Let's not make that one particular time the be-all and end-all, and say that if it doesn't happen we are doomed," Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told reporters.
Thinktanks are already starting to work on what is being called "Plan B" – scenarios for how the world could come up with an action plan before it is too late. But some are not holding their breath.
"It seems to me that Copenhagen is not the end of this," said Tim Wirth, the president of the UN Foundation, and the man who, in the 1980s, helped to write the first cap-and-trade plan for acid rain. He added: "We are going to have Copenhagens for the rest of our lives."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Observer, Sunday 20 September 2009
The United Nations is planning a form of diplomatic shock therapy for world leaders this week in the hope of injecting badly needed urgency into negotiations for a climate change treaty that, it is now widely acknowledged, are dangerously adrift.
UN chief Ban Ki-Moon and negotiators say that unless they can convert world leaders into committed advocates of radical action, it will be very hard to reach a credible and enforceable agreement to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change.
As the digital counter ticking off the hours to the Copenhagen summit – which had been supposed to seal the deal on climate change – hit 77 days today, progress at the UN summit in New York is seen as vital. Nearly 100 heads of state and government are to attend the summit, for which a pared-down format has been devised.
"We need these leaders to go outside their usual comfort zones," said one diplomat. "Our sense is that leaders have got a little too cosy and comfortable. They really have to hear from countries that are vulnerable and suffering."
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore, agreed. Commenting on the leaders attending the G20 summit in Pittsburgh next week, he said: "We need to remind these people about impacts of climate change – the fact that they are inequitable and fall very heavily on some of the poorest people in the world. We are likely to see a large number of failed states if we don't act in time."
The heads of state attending the UN summit are to be stripped of their entourages. Each will be allowed just one aide, generally their country's environment minister, in the sessions.
Instead of set-piece speeches, leaders will be paired off to chair discussion groups. Britain will be with Guyana, Tuvalu with the Netherlands, and Mongolia with the European commission.
The leaders will also lunch with environmental activists and chief executives of corporations who have been pressing their governments for action. At dinner, the leaders of the biggest polluting countries will dine with the leaders of Bangladesh, Kiribati and Costa Rica – which are among the primary victims of climate change.
By the end of the day, the rationale goes, the leaders will be imbued with a new sense of purpose. Leaders of rich countries will have been galvanised to take on the big emissions cuts – 25-40% over the next decade, 80% by 2050 – needed to keep temperatures from rising more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, the temperature set by science to avoid the most calamitous effects of climate change.
The leaders will also, it is hoped, have some understanding of the threat to poorer countries. And, at the very least, they will have more of a common purpose in tackling the problem. "We need to gather together. We don't want to blame or point fingers at each other," said Yaqoub al-Sanada, counsellor at the Kuwaiti mission to the UN. Kuwait – one of the biggest producers of oil – will co-chair a discussion session with Finland.
The UN is hoping for help from Barack Obama. The US president will speak at the session, and there is anticipation he will deliver a strong signal that America is committed to action. There is growing anxiety for those kinds of reassurances, especially as opposition to Obama's green agenda grows in Congress. "The first question I get any time I meet with anybody is, 'Where's the legislation? How's it going?'," Todd Stern, the State Department's climate change envoy, said. There are also reports that China's president, Hu Jintao, in his first appearance at the UN, will announce new commitments to curb pollution – the kind of signal that will be crucial to boost negotiations in the days leading up to Copenhagen.
"We can get a successful outcome from Copenhagen. It is achievable, but at the moment it's in the balance," said John Ashton, Britain's climate change envoy. "We need to close the gaps."
Those gaps grew over the summer. There is what Ashton called the "ambition gap" – the failure of leaders of the big polluting countries to sign on to the deep emissions cuts needed. Then there is the "finance gap" – the failure of industrialised states to come up with a package on how to compensate poor countries that will suffer the most devastating consequences.
Britain came forward last June with an estimate of £61bn a year by 2020. Negotiators are frustrated that major industrialised states have not set clear figures on how much they are willing to commit, or how they will provide the funding.
Some climate change experts and negotiators have already begun planning a fallback position should the December Copenhagen summit fail to produce a strong enough agreement.
In Washington, Obama administration officials now talk openly about negotiating beyond Copenhagen. "Let's not make that one particular time the be-all and end-all, and say that if it doesn't happen we are doomed," Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told reporters.
Thinktanks are already starting to work on what is being called "Plan B" – scenarios for how the world could come up with an action plan before it is too late. But some are not holding their breath.
"It seems to me that Copenhagen is not the end of this," said Tim Wirth, the president of the UN Foundation, and the man who, in the 1980s, helped to write the first cap-and-trade plan for acid rain. He added: "We are going to have Copenhagens for the rest of our lives."
We saved the economy; now for the world
There is a fault line between the developed and developing worlds over attitudes to carbon emissions
Editorial
The Observer, Sunday 20 September 2009
THE UNITED Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December is sometimes described as a last chance to avert catastrophe on a global scale; and that is on the less extreme end of the debate.
While it can be unhelpful to cast green issues always in terms of impending apocalypse, it is important to state how much rides on the success of the summit, especially since, as the Observer reports today, the prospects of a deal are receding.
The Copenhagen conference is supposed to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the landmark deal that first bound nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Its provisions start expiring in 2012.
There is scientific consensus that Kyoto's successor should cut carbon emissions to the point that average temperatures do not rise by more than two degrees Celsius. Any more than that would risk ecological changes of devastating proportions. In practical terms, that means binding targets so that the rate of emissions stops growing immediately and starts falling by 2015. By 2050, say UN scientists, they should be cut by 80%.
There are various obstacles in the negotiations, but the main one is a global fault line between developed and developing worlds. Countries with massive industrial potential still unfulfilled – mainly China and India – will not take moral instruction in eco-austerity from countries that have already industrialised and left a legacy of carbon in the atmosphere as a result.
The industrialised countries, meanwhile, are reluctant to bind themselves to targets that do not also restrain countries they see as competitors.
The theoretical framework for a compromise is broadly in place: the developed world must accept its responsibility for old pollution and make amends by subsidising low-carbon energy in the developing world. In exchange for redistribution of green technology from rich to poor, the developing world would accept significant emissions targets.
Turning that framework into a treaty will be hard. But global leaders have shown in their response to the financial crisis that fear of catastrophe can galvanise co-ordinated and collective action. They ought to fear climate catastrophe and they are running out of time to act.
Editorial
The Observer, Sunday 20 September 2009
THE UNITED Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December is sometimes described as a last chance to avert catastrophe on a global scale; and that is on the less extreme end of the debate.
While it can be unhelpful to cast green issues always in terms of impending apocalypse, it is important to state how much rides on the success of the summit, especially since, as the Observer reports today, the prospects of a deal are receding.
The Copenhagen conference is supposed to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the landmark deal that first bound nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Its provisions start expiring in 2012.
There is scientific consensus that Kyoto's successor should cut carbon emissions to the point that average temperatures do not rise by more than two degrees Celsius. Any more than that would risk ecological changes of devastating proportions. In practical terms, that means binding targets so that the rate of emissions stops growing immediately and starts falling by 2015. By 2050, say UN scientists, they should be cut by 80%.
There are various obstacles in the negotiations, but the main one is a global fault line between developed and developing worlds. Countries with massive industrial potential still unfulfilled – mainly China and India – will not take moral instruction in eco-austerity from countries that have already industrialised and left a legacy of carbon in the atmosphere as a result.
The industrialised countries, meanwhile, are reluctant to bind themselves to targets that do not also restrain countries they see as competitors.
The theoretical framework for a compromise is broadly in place: the developed world must accept its responsibility for old pollution and make amends by subsidising low-carbon energy in the developing world. In exchange for redistribution of green technology from rich to poor, the developing world would accept significant emissions targets.
Turning that framework into a treaty will be hard. But global leaders have shown in their response to the financial crisis that fear of catastrophe can galvanise co-ordinated and collective action. They ought to fear climate catastrophe and they are running out of time to act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
