Critics say an influential prediction of a 6ft rise in sea levels is flawed
Jonathan Leake
Climate science faces a new controversy after the Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit which suggested that global warming could raise sea levels by 6ft by 2100.
The research, published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, created headline news during the United Nations summit on climate change in Denmark last month.
It predicted an apocalyptic century in which rising seas could threaten coastal communities from England to Bangladesh and was the latest in a series of studies from Potsdam that has gained wide acceptance among governments and environmental campaigners.
Besides underpinning the Copenhagen talks, the research is also likely to be included in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would elevate it to the level of global policy-making.
However, the studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts.
Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: "These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory."
The row comes just weeks after the so-called climategate affair when emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit revealed how scientists tried to withhold data from public scrutiny.
The new controversy, which has no connection with Climategate, dates back to January 2007, when Science magazine published a research paper by Rahmstorf linking the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001 with a 0.7C rise in global temperature over the same period.
Most scientists accept those data and agree that sea levels will continue to rise. However, Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100 — when the world is projected to have warmed by up to 6.4C unless greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.
Based on the 7in increase in 1881-2001, Rahmstorf calculated that such a spike in temperature would raise sea levels by up to 74in — a jump that stunned other experts.
They say it is unsafe to use the relatively small increases in sea levels seen in the 19th and 20th centuries to predict such extreme changes in future.
Another critic is Simon Holgate, a sea-level expert at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Merseyside. He has written to Science magazine, attacking Rahmstorf's work as "simplistic".
"Rahmstorf is very good at publishing extreme papers just before big conferences like Copenhagen when they are guaranteed attention," said Holgate. "The problem is that his methods are biased to generate large numbers for sea-level rise which cannot be justified but which attract headlines."
One key problem cited by Holgate is that much of the 1881-2001 sea-level rise came from small glaciers melting in regions such as the Alps and Himalayas. Such glaciers are, however, disappearing fast and will be largely gone by 2050. It means further rises in sea levels would have to come from increased melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
These hold enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 200ft, but their recent contribution to sea-level rise has been negligible. Jonathan Gregory, a sea-level specialist at the Met Office, said: "We do not know enough about the physics of large ice sheets to predict how global temperature rise will affect them. My concern about these extreme predictions is that they could discredit the whole process because they are not backed up by solid science and that is vital in such a political area of research.”
Rahmstorf said he accepted the criticisms but his work was "the best system we have got". He added: “I agree that there has been too little research into the behaviour of ice sheets but that is exactly why I did this research. It uses simple measurements of historic changes in the real world to show a direct relationship between temperature rise and sea level increase and it works stunningly well.”
Rahmstorf said the last decade had, however, seen preliminary evidence suggesting that the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica were becoming unstable. He said: "In my heart I hope my critics are right because a rise of the kind my work predicts would be catastrophic," he said. "But as a scientist I have to look at the evidence . . . my figures for sea-level rise are likely to be an underestimate of what the world will face by 2100."
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Climate change: the true price of the warmists' folly is becoming clear
From the Met Office's mistakes to Gordon Brown's wind farms, the cost of 'green' policies is growing, warns Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker Published: 7:28PM GMT 09 Jan 2010
Impeccable was the timing of that announcement that directors of the Met Office were last year given pay rises of up to 33 per cent, putting its £200,000-a-year chief executive into a higher pay bracket than the Prime Minister. As Britain shivered through Arctic cold and its heaviest snowfalls for decades, our global-warming-obsessed Government machine was caught out in all directions.
For a start, we saw Met Office spokesmen trying to explain why it had got its seasonal forecasts hopelessly wrong for three cold winters and three cool summers in a row. The current cold snap, we were told with the aid of the BBC – itself facing an inquiry into its relentless obsession with “global warming” – was just a “regional” phenomenon, due to “natural” factors. No attempt was made to explain why the same freezing weather is affecting much of the northern hemisphere (with 1,200 places in the US alone last week reporting record snow and low temperatures). And this is the body on which, through its Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the discredited Climatic Research Unit, the world’s politicians rely for weather forecasting 100 years ahead.
Then, as councils across Britain ran out of salt for frozen roads, we had the Transport Minister, Lord Adonis, admitting that we entered this cold spell with only six days’ supply of grit. No mention of the fact that the Highways Agency and councils had been advised that there was no need for them to stockpile any more – let alone that many councils now have more “climate change officials” than gritters.
Then, with the leasing out of sites for nine giant offshore wind farms, there was Gordon Brown’s equally timely relaunch of his “£100 billion green revolution”, designed, in compliance with EU targets, to meet a third of Britain’s electricity needs. This coincided with windless days when Ofgem was showing that our 2,300 existing turbines were providing barely 1/200th of our power. In fact, 80 per cent of the electricity we used last week came either from coal-fired power stations, six of which are before long to be closed under an EU anti-pollution directive, or from gas, of which we only have less than two weeks’ stored supply and 80 per cent of which we will soon have to import on a fast-rising world market.
In every way, Mr Brown’s boast was fantasy. There is no way we could hope to install two giant £4 million offshore turbines every day between now and 2020, let alone that they could meet more than a fraction of our electricity needs. But the cost of whatever does get built will be paid by all of us through our already soaring electricity bills – which a new study last week predicted will quadruple during this decade to an average of £5,000 a year. This would drive well over half the households in Britain into “fuel poverty”, defined as those forced to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy.
Finally, following Mr Brown’s earlier boast that his “green revolution” will create “400,000 green jobs”, there was the revelation that more than 90 per cent of the £2 billion cost of Britain’s largest offshore wind farm project to date, the Thames Array, will go to companies abroad, because Britain has virtually no manufacturing capacity.
At last, in all directions, we are beginning to see the terrifying cost of that obsession with “global warming” and “green energy” which for nearly 20 years has had all our main political parties in its grip. For years governments, including the EU, have been shovelling millions of pounds into the coffers of “green” lobby groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the WWF, allowing them in return virtually to dictate our energy policy. Not for nothing is a former head of WWF-UK now chairman of the Met Office.
The bills for such follies are coming in thick and fast. Last winter’s abnormal cold pushed Britain’s death rate up to 40,000 above the average, more than the 35,000 deaths across Europe that warmists love to attribute to the heatwave of 2003. Heaven knows what this winter will bring. And remember that the cost of the Climate Change Act alone has been estimated by our Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband at £18 billion every year until 2050 – a law that only three MPs in this Rotten Parliament dared oppose. Truly have they all gone off their heads.
Christopher Booker’s 'The Real Global Warming Disaster' (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p&p
By Christopher Booker Published: 7:28PM GMT 09 Jan 2010
Impeccable was the timing of that announcement that directors of the Met Office were last year given pay rises of up to 33 per cent, putting its £200,000-a-year chief executive into a higher pay bracket than the Prime Minister. As Britain shivered through Arctic cold and its heaviest snowfalls for decades, our global-warming-obsessed Government machine was caught out in all directions.
For a start, we saw Met Office spokesmen trying to explain why it had got its seasonal forecasts hopelessly wrong for three cold winters and three cool summers in a row. The current cold snap, we were told with the aid of the BBC – itself facing an inquiry into its relentless obsession with “global warming” – was just a “regional” phenomenon, due to “natural” factors. No attempt was made to explain why the same freezing weather is affecting much of the northern hemisphere (with 1,200 places in the US alone last week reporting record snow and low temperatures). And this is the body on which, through its Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the discredited Climatic Research Unit, the world’s politicians rely for weather forecasting 100 years ahead.
Then, as councils across Britain ran out of salt for frozen roads, we had the Transport Minister, Lord Adonis, admitting that we entered this cold spell with only six days’ supply of grit. No mention of the fact that the Highways Agency and councils had been advised that there was no need for them to stockpile any more – let alone that many councils now have more “climate change officials” than gritters.
Then, with the leasing out of sites for nine giant offshore wind farms, there was Gordon Brown’s equally timely relaunch of his “£100 billion green revolution”, designed, in compliance with EU targets, to meet a third of Britain’s electricity needs. This coincided with windless days when Ofgem was showing that our 2,300 existing turbines were providing barely 1/200th of our power. In fact, 80 per cent of the electricity we used last week came either from coal-fired power stations, six of which are before long to be closed under an EU anti-pollution directive, or from gas, of which we only have less than two weeks’ stored supply and 80 per cent of which we will soon have to import on a fast-rising world market.
In every way, Mr Brown’s boast was fantasy. There is no way we could hope to install two giant £4 million offshore turbines every day between now and 2020, let alone that they could meet more than a fraction of our electricity needs. But the cost of whatever does get built will be paid by all of us through our already soaring electricity bills – which a new study last week predicted will quadruple during this decade to an average of £5,000 a year. This would drive well over half the households in Britain into “fuel poverty”, defined as those forced to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy.
Finally, following Mr Brown’s earlier boast that his “green revolution” will create “400,000 green jobs”, there was the revelation that more than 90 per cent of the £2 billion cost of Britain’s largest offshore wind farm project to date, the Thames Array, will go to companies abroad, because Britain has virtually no manufacturing capacity.
At last, in all directions, we are beginning to see the terrifying cost of that obsession with “global warming” and “green energy” which for nearly 20 years has had all our main political parties in its grip. For years governments, including the EU, have been shovelling millions of pounds into the coffers of “green” lobby groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the WWF, allowing them in return virtually to dictate our energy policy. Not for nothing is a former head of WWF-UK now chairman of the Met Office.
The bills for such follies are coming in thick and fast. Last winter’s abnormal cold pushed Britain’s death rate up to 40,000 above the average, more than the 35,000 deaths across Europe that warmists love to attribute to the heatwave of 2003. Heaven knows what this winter will bring. And remember that the cost of the Climate Change Act alone has been estimated by our Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband at £18 billion every year until 2050 – a law that only three MPs in this Rotten Parliament dared oppose. Truly have they all gone off their heads.
Christopher Booker’s 'The Real Global Warming Disaster' (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p&p
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Dash for wind power leaves Britain with £15bn funding blackhole
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Raf Sanchez
Britain's electricity network is not ready to cope with a plan announced today to massively expand offshore wind generation, experts have claimed.
A 'Super Grid', the first stage of which would cost £10-15bn to build, would be needed before the country's electricity network could deal with the huge peaks associated with wind power.
The Crown Estate today announced nine sites around Britain for wind power generation with the aim of producing up to 32 gigawatts - enough to power 20 million homes - from 6,400 offshore turbines.
But those close to the project warned that generating capacity was leaping ahead of plans to distribute the power.
Eddie O'Connor, chief executive of Mainsteam Renewables which today won the right to develop one of the biggest offshore windpower zones off the coast of Lincolnshire, said: "Britain has created an enormous lead in offshore wind but if there is a weakness it is in the grids built so far.
"If we are going to deliver on our vision for northern Europe we do need a 'Super Grid' and we really haven't seen coherent plans yet emerging from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
"We can't deliver on the 32 gigawatts without seeing the 'Super Grid'."
The 'Super Grid' would work by linking the electricity networks of Britain, Germany, Norway and Denmark to allow the power generated on windy days to be distributed across the countries.
On days when there is excess capacity the energy could stored or used to pump water at hydroelectric sites to create generating capacity when the wind drops.
Mr O'Connor added that a lobbying body pushing for the creation of the 'Super Grid' would be formed in March - it is to be called "Friends of the Super Grid".
It is unclear how the super grid will be financed and how much each country would contribute to what would eventually be a pan-European network of undersea cables.
The companies building the new wind farms would contribute a substantial proportion of the cost but they themselves will be supported by public subsidies for wind power paid for by homes and businesses through higher energy bills.
Mr O'Connor said the 'Super Grid' would be developed in stages and cost 750 billion Euros by 2050, when it would carry 40 per cent of Europe's electricity.
Gordon Brown said the world’s biggest expansion of offshore wind power, costing £75 billion, would create up to 70,000 jobs in Britain by 2020.
However, the Government has failed to persuade any of the major wind turbine manufacturers to open a factory in Britain and none of the companies granted licences today will be obliged to source any parts from domestic manufacturers. Most are expected to buy turbines made in Denmark or Germany.
A taskforce of officials from Downing Street, the Treasury and the business and energy departments has held talks with suppliers in recent months including Siemens, Vestas, Mitsubishi and General Electric, but none is yet willing to commit to manufacturing in Britain.
The country’s only turbine blade manufacturer — the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight — closed last summer after the company said that the British market for turbines had been too slow to develop.
Almost all the manufacturing contracts for London Array, the biggest wind farm in British waters approved before today, have been awarded overseas. Less than 10 per cent of the £1.7 billion investment will be spent in Britain. Clipper Windpower is developing one of the world’s biggest turbines at a research centre in Blyth, Northumberland, but it is several years away from starting commercial production.
The nine farms announced will generate enough electricity to power more than half of Britain’s homes, but only when the wind blows. The Government has said windpower has the potential to meet more than a quarter of Britain’s energy needs.
The turbines will be twice as large as those on land, typically rising 170m (557ft) from sea level to the tip of the blade. They will stand in up to 70m of water, compared with only 10-25m for existing offshore turbines.
They will also be much farther away from the coast, with the biggest, Dogger Bank, starting 130 miles off the North East coast. Residential platforms will be built near the turbines to accommodate hundreds of workers who will carry out servicing and repairs. Construction on each of the nine sites is expected to begin between 2013 and 2015.
The developers, which include E.ON, RWE Npower, Scottish Power and Centrica, have pledged to build enough turbines to create 25,000 megawatts of electricity, the equivalent of 21 Sizewell B nuclear power stations. There are currently 228 offshore turbines with a capacity of 688 megawatts.
The timetable for the construction will depend on how quickly the finance can be raised and what happens to the price of the fossil fuels with which wind energy competes. None of the farms is likely to be generating electricity before 2015.
The British Wind Energy Association said yesterday that the cost of building wind turbines had doubled in recent years, partly because of the fall in the value of sterling and a growing reliance on imports. Each megawatt of wind capacity announced today will cost up to £3.1 million, compared with £1.5 million for the first offshore wind farms approved a decade ago.
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The Government’s role is clear: train and equip Britain’s workforce to ensure that the thousands of jobs that will be created are filled by British workers, and provide the economic certainty investors need to complete these projects on time and on budget.”
Britain's electricity network is not ready to cope with a plan announced today to massively expand offshore wind generation, experts have claimed.
A 'Super Grid', the first stage of which would cost £10-15bn to build, would be needed before the country's electricity network could deal with the huge peaks associated with wind power.
The Crown Estate today announced nine sites around Britain for wind power generation with the aim of producing up to 32 gigawatts - enough to power 20 million homes - from 6,400 offshore turbines.
But those close to the project warned that generating capacity was leaping ahead of plans to distribute the power.
Eddie O'Connor, chief executive of Mainsteam Renewables which today won the right to develop one of the biggest offshore windpower zones off the coast of Lincolnshire, said: "Britain has created an enormous lead in offshore wind but if there is a weakness it is in the grids built so far.
"If we are going to deliver on our vision for northern Europe we do need a 'Super Grid' and we really haven't seen coherent plans yet emerging from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
"We can't deliver on the 32 gigawatts without seeing the 'Super Grid'."
The 'Super Grid' would work by linking the electricity networks of Britain, Germany, Norway and Denmark to allow the power generated on windy days to be distributed across the countries.
On days when there is excess capacity the energy could stored or used to pump water at hydroelectric sites to create generating capacity when the wind drops.
Mr O'Connor added that a lobbying body pushing for the creation of the 'Super Grid' would be formed in March - it is to be called "Friends of the Super Grid".
It is unclear how the super grid will be financed and how much each country would contribute to what would eventually be a pan-European network of undersea cables.
The companies building the new wind farms would contribute a substantial proportion of the cost but they themselves will be supported by public subsidies for wind power paid for by homes and businesses through higher energy bills.
Mr O'Connor said the 'Super Grid' would be developed in stages and cost 750 billion Euros by 2050, when it would carry 40 per cent of Europe's electricity.
Gordon Brown said the world’s biggest expansion of offshore wind power, costing £75 billion, would create up to 70,000 jobs in Britain by 2020.
However, the Government has failed to persuade any of the major wind turbine manufacturers to open a factory in Britain and none of the companies granted licences today will be obliged to source any parts from domestic manufacturers. Most are expected to buy turbines made in Denmark or Germany.
A taskforce of officials from Downing Street, the Treasury and the business and energy departments has held talks with suppliers in recent months including Siemens, Vestas, Mitsubishi and General Electric, but none is yet willing to commit to manufacturing in Britain.
The country’s only turbine blade manufacturer — the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight — closed last summer after the company said that the British market for turbines had been too slow to develop.
Almost all the manufacturing contracts for London Array, the biggest wind farm in British waters approved before today, have been awarded overseas. Less than 10 per cent of the £1.7 billion investment will be spent in Britain. Clipper Windpower is developing one of the world’s biggest turbines at a research centre in Blyth, Northumberland, but it is several years away from starting commercial production.
The nine farms announced will generate enough electricity to power more than half of Britain’s homes, but only when the wind blows. The Government has said windpower has the potential to meet more than a quarter of Britain’s energy needs.
The turbines will be twice as large as those on land, typically rising 170m (557ft) from sea level to the tip of the blade. They will stand in up to 70m of water, compared with only 10-25m for existing offshore turbines.
They will also be much farther away from the coast, with the biggest, Dogger Bank, starting 130 miles off the North East coast. Residential platforms will be built near the turbines to accommodate hundreds of workers who will carry out servicing and repairs. Construction on each of the nine sites is expected to begin between 2013 and 2015.
The developers, which include E.ON, RWE Npower, Scottish Power and Centrica, have pledged to build enough turbines to create 25,000 megawatts of electricity, the equivalent of 21 Sizewell B nuclear power stations. There are currently 228 offshore turbines with a capacity of 688 megawatts.
The timetable for the construction will depend on how quickly the finance can be raised and what happens to the price of the fossil fuels with which wind energy competes. None of the farms is likely to be generating electricity before 2015.
The British Wind Energy Association said yesterday that the cost of building wind turbines had doubled in recent years, partly because of the fall in the value of sterling and a growing reliance on imports. Each megawatt of wind capacity announced today will cost up to £3.1 million, compared with £1.5 million for the first offshore wind farms approved a decade ago.
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The Government’s role is clear: train and equip Britain’s workforce to ensure that the thousands of jobs that will be created are filled by British workers, and provide the economic certainty investors need to complete these projects on time and on budget.”
£75bn for UK's biggest offshore wind programme signals new era for renewables
Crown Estate has revealed successful bidders for nine windfarm sites expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs and help the UK meet clean energy and carbon emission targets
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 January 2010 11.57 GMT
The UK government announced a £75bn programme today to build thousands of offshore wind turbines that will kickstart the next phase of renewable power generation in Britain.
The Crown Estate revealed the successful bidders for at least 25GW of windfarms across nine zones in the seas around the UK.
The nine winning bidders are: Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd, SeaGreen Wind Energy Ltd, the Forewind Consortium equally owned by each of SSE Renewables, RWE Npower Renewables, Statoil and Statkraft, Siemens Project Ventures and Mainstream Renewable Power, East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd equally owned by Scottish Power Renewables and Vattenfall Vindkraft, Eon Climate and Renewables UK, Eneco New Energy, RWE Npower Renewables and Centrica Renewable Energy and involving RES Group.
The developments could create tens of thousands of new jobs, which will be crucial if the UK is to meet its targets for clean energy and carbon emission cuts.
Gordon Brown said: "This new round of licences provides a substantial new platform for investing in UK industrial capacity. The offshore wind industry is at the heart of the UK economy's shift to low carbon and could be worth £75bn and support up to 70,000 jobs by 2020."
The UK has the biggest wind resource in Europe – some estimates put the UK's share at one-third of the continent's total. Secretary of state for energy Ed Miliband said: "Today's news shows we're creating the right conditions for the energy industry to invest in harnessing it." Taking advantage of the country's potential wind power will be critical in meeting the targets set by government for the UK to meet 15% of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2020.
Round three will be the biggest wind programme announced by the Crown Estate so far and aims to accelerate the deployment of wind energy on a massive scale.
The nine sites in line for development include Dogger Bank, the Bristol Channel, the seas off Norfolk and the Firth of Forth. The proposed windfarms will be further away from the coast and in deeper waters than any existing offshore project, and therefore more challenging to build.
According to Greenpeace, Britain already leads the world in the deployment of offshore wind and has more projects installed, in planning or in construction than any other country. Almost 700MW of offshore turbines are already installed across nine projects, with around another 1.2GW under construction and a further 3.5GW in planning stages. By comparison, a large coal-fired power station generates about 1GW of electricity.
In advance of today's announcement, Greenpeace executive director, John Sauven, said: "Throughout its history Britain has shown the determination and ingenuity to tackle the great industrial challenges of each era. In the 21st century these qualities are being called on once again, to enable the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of energy. Our country is home to some of the best engineers, mechanics and construction professionals in the world. Their expertise will be crucial if we are to harness the massive potential that new technologies like offshore wind have to offer."
The winning consortia will face several challenges, including a lack of offshore connections to the national electricity grid and limited capacity in the supply and installation chain for windfarms. "The scale of round three will require a dramatic increase in manufacturing capacity for offshore wind, such as turbines, foundations, offshore electrics and installation vessels," said the British Wind Energy Association. It estimates that more than 55,000 jobs could be created in the planning, construction and maintenance of the thousands of wind turbines that will be built in the next decade.
However, Britain currently has no commercial-scale wind turbine manufacturing plants, following the closure of the Vestas plant on the Isle of Wight last year.
Another issue is that existing subsidies for offshore wind are only guaranteed until 2014, but very few of the round three projects will have begun operating by then.
The winning developers
• Moray Firth Zone, Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd which is 75% owned by EDP Renovaveis and 25% owned by SeaEnergy Renewables – 1.3 GW• Firth of Forth Zone, SeaGreen Wind Energy Ltd equally owned by SSE Renewables and Fluor – 3.5 GW• Dogger Bank Zone, the Forewind Consortium equally owned by each of SSE Renewables, RWE Npower Renewables, Statoil and Statkraft – 9 GW• Hornsea Zone, Siemens Project Ventures and Mainstream Renewable Power, a consortium equally owned by Mainstream Renewable Power and Siemens Project Ventures and involving Hochtief Construction – 4 GW• Norfolk Bank Zone, East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd equally owned by Scottish Power Renewables and Vattenfall Vindkraft – 7.2 GW• Hastings Zone, Eon Climate and Renewables UK – 0.6 GW• West of Isle of Wight Zone, Eneco New Energy – 0.9 GW• Bristol Channel Zone, RWE Npower Renewables, the UK subsidiary of RWE Innogy – 1.5 GW• Irish Sea Zone, Centrica Renewable Energy and involving RES Group – 4.2 GW
UK plans for most ambitious offshore wind project in the world will need 'supergrid'
Britain will have to be connected to a 'supergrid' with northern Europe to realise Gordon Brown's plans to provide more than a quarter of electricity needs from offshore wind.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 09 Jan 2010
More than 6,000 turbines will be built around the coast of Britain. Photo: Reuters
The most ambitious offshore wind project in the world would see 6,400 turbines built around the coast by 2020 – the equivalent of building almost two turbines every day for the next ten years.
In the most significant boost for industry in the UK since the exploration of North Sea oil in the 1970s, the Prime Minister announced the power companies that will raise around £100bn to construct the new turbines including major players like E. ON, RWE Npower, Scottish Power and Centrica.
The turbines will be built in nine zones including sites in the Irish Sea, the Bristol Channel, the Moray Firth, the Firth of Forth, off the coast of Norfolk and west of the Isle of Wight. Construction could begin by 2013.
Mr Brown said the project could provide 32GW of power, enough to meet more than a quarter of the country's electricity needs and replace the power lost as ageing coal and nuclear plants close down.
But energy companies have warned that the only way to transport the electricity to land is to build a massive "supergrid" in the North Sea with Denmark, Germany and Norway. The multi-billion pound grid will also deal with the peaks and troughs caused by the intermittent nature of wind by spreading the supply of energy across a greater area when the wind blows and taking advantage from back up supplies when it is still.
Energy experts also said the UK will need to build a "gigantic new harbour", somewhere like the Humber Estuary, to deal with the equipment needed to build the turbines as well as new boats and an apprenticeship programme to deal with the skills shortage in engineering.
However Mr Brown was confident that Britain could provide the infrastructure to unlock "one of the great untapped resources of the world".
In a bid to boost his industry credentials before the election, the Labour leader said the Government would encourage manufacturers to build component parts in Britain, invest in research and construct the necessary equipment like new ports.
"Our policies in support of offshore wind energy have already put us ahead of every other country in the whorl," he said. "This new round of licences provides a substantial new platform for investing in UK industrial capacity.
"The offshore wind industry is at the heart of the UK economy's shift to low carbon and could be worth £75 billion and support up to 70,000 jobs by 2020."
Eddie O' Connor, Chief Executive of Mainstream Renewable Power, one of the companies that will be building turbines, said the UK will also have to be part or a "supergrid" with the rest of Europe to transport the energy to shore. The network, made up of thousands of miles of highly efficient undersea cables, would initially be a basic connection with other countries off the North Sea to enable the wind power to start flowing from 2020. Eventually it could spread across the whole of northern Europe and cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Mr O'Conner was confident the wind industry could deliver in "record time" as long as the necessary infrastructure is in place.
"To see this vision realised we need a commitment to a new supergrid, the skills shortage needs to be addressed and we need a gigantic new harbour," he said.
The UK Government is in discussion with other European countries, including France, Ireland and Sweden, about setting up the supergrid.
Energy companies, environment groups and trade unions as a whole welcomed the announcement as an opportunity to boost manufacturing and jobs whilst helping the UK meet climate change targets to cut emissions from fossil fuels.
However there were concerns over the cost of the project, especially as energy companies are heavily indebted and subsidies for wind are not laid out until 2020. After Britain's only wind turbine plant, Vestas on the Isle of Wight, closed last year there were also concerns jobs would go abroad because of a lack of capacity.
Dr Neil Bentley, CBI Director of Business Environment, said wind development could be as important as North Sea oil to the economy - if it is done right.
“Although the development of the UK’s offshore wind market could potentially create huge opportunities, there are a number of supply chain challenges," he said. "These include the shortage of skilled engineers, ramping up turbine manufacturing capacity to meet demand, and getting the turbines connected to the grid.”
Nick Rau, Friends of the Earth's renewable energy campaigner, said the Government must do more to support green technology.
"Plans to build thousands of offshore turbines are fantastic news – but the Government must do more to develop the UK's vast wind energy potential and ensure that Britain reaps the benefits of creating thousands of new green jobs," he said.
Greg Clark, Tory spokesman on energy and climate change, said much of the manufacturing will go abroad.
"Offshore wind can make a significant contribution to reducing our carbon emissions and providing home-grown energy," he said.
“Labour’s boasts about green jobs ring hollow however as much of the money will be spent overseas.
“Britain has some of the best natural resources in the world for wave, tidal and wind power but Labour’s lack of action on renewable energy means that Britain has lost its leading position and is now losing jobs and business too.”
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 09 Jan 2010
More than 6,000 turbines will be built around the coast of Britain. Photo: Reuters
The most ambitious offshore wind project in the world would see 6,400 turbines built around the coast by 2020 – the equivalent of building almost two turbines every day for the next ten years.
In the most significant boost for industry in the UK since the exploration of North Sea oil in the 1970s, the Prime Minister announced the power companies that will raise around £100bn to construct the new turbines including major players like E. ON, RWE Npower, Scottish Power and Centrica.
The turbines will be built in nine zones including sites in the Irish Sea, the Bristol Channel, the Moray Firth, the Firth of Forth, off the coast of Norfolk and west of the Isle of Wight. Construction could begin by 2013.
Mr Brown said the project could provide 32GW of power, enough to meet more than a quarter of the country's electricity needs and replace the power lost as ageing coal and nuclear plants close down.
But energy companies have warned that the only way to transport the electricity to land is to build a massive "supergrid" in the North Sea with Denmark, Germany and Norway. The multi-billion pound grid will also deal with the peaks and troughs caused by the intermittent nature of wind by spreading the supply of energy across a greater area when the wind blows and taking advantage from back up supplies when it is still.
Energy experts also said the UK will need to build a "gigantic new harbour", somewhere like the Humber Estuary, to deal with the equipment needed to build the turbines as well as new boats and an apprenticeship programme to deal with the skills shortage in engineering.
However Mr Brown was confident that Britain could provide the infrastructure to unlock "one of the great untapped resources of the world".
In a bid to boost his industry credentials before the election, the Labour leader said the Government would encourage manufacturers to build component parts in Britain, invest in research and construct the necessary equipment like new ports.
"Our policies in support of offshore wind energy have already put us ahead of every other country in the whorl," he said. "This new round of licences provides a substantial new platform for investing in UK industrial capacity.
"The offshore wind industry is at the heart of the UK economy's shift to low carbon and could be worth £75 billion and support up to 70,000 jobs by 2020."
Eddie O' Connor, Chief Executive of Mainstream Renewable Power, one of the companies that will be building turbines, said the UK will also have to be part or a "supergrid" with the rest of Europe to transport the energy to shore. The network, made up of thousands of miles of highly efficient undersea cables, would initially be a basic connection with other countries off the North Sea to enable the wind power to start flowing from 2020. Eventually it could spread across the whole of northern Europe and cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Mr O'Conner was confident the wind industry could deliver in "record time" as long as the necessary infrastructure is in place.
"To see this vision realised we need a commitment to a new supergrid, the skills shortage needs to be addressed and we need a gigantic new harbour," he said.
The UK Government is in discussion with other European countries, including France, Ireland and Sweden, about setting up the supergrid.
Energy companies, environment groups and trade unions as a whole welcomed the announcement as an opportunity to boost manufacturing and jobs whilst helping the UK meet climate change targets to cut emissions from fossil fuels.
However there were concerns over the cost of the project, especially as energy companies are heavily indebted and subsidies for wind are not laid out until 2020. After Britain's only wind turbine plant, Vestas on the Isle of Wight, closed last year there were also concerns jobs would go abroad because of a lack of capacity.
Dr Neil Bentley, CBI Director of Business Environment, said wind development could be as important as North Sea oil to the economy - if it is done right.
“Although the development of the UK’s offshore wind market could potentially create huge opportunities, there are a number of supply chain challenges," he said. "These include the shortage of skilled engineers, ramping up turbine manufacturing capacity to meet demand, and getting the turbines connected to the grid.”
Nick Rau, Friends of the Earth's renewable energy campaigner, said the Government must do more to support green technology.
"Plans to build thousands of offshore turbines are fantastic news – but the Government must do more to develop the UK's vast wind energy potential and ensure that Britain reaps the benefits of creating thousands of new green jobs," he said.
Greg Clark, Tory spokesman on energy and climate change, said much of the manufacturing will go abroad.
"Offshore wind can make a significant contribution to reducing our carbon emissions and providing home-grown energy," he said.
“Labour’s boasts about green jobs ring hollow however as much of the money will be spent overseas.
“Britain has some of the best natural resources in the world for wave, tidal and wind power but Labour’s lack of action on renewable energy means that Britain has lost its leading position and is now losing jobs and business too.”
'Climate change resistant crops' move nearer after gene breakthrough
Crops resistant to climate change have come a step closer after British scientists discovered the key gene which allows plants to react to temperatures around them.
Published: 7:30AM GMT 08 Jan 2010
In a breakthrough that has the potential to help feed billions of people, scientists from the John Innes Centre in Norwich have found the "thermometer gene" which plants use to sense temperature.
Laboratory tests on a mustard seed plant showed that the gene that plants use in order to know when to grow in the warmer months can be manipulated by taking away a histone protein.
The protein normally binds to DNA and wraps it around them which then controls which genes are turned on.
When the histone protein was taken away from plants, all the genes in the plants reacted as if they were experiencing high temperatures even when the temperature in the lab was turned down very low.
The findings could pave the way for climate change resistant crops within 10 years.
The new super crops would be able to cope with the increased heat expected as the earth's temperature rises and the research could also help grow plants in much colder climates.
Dr Philip Wigge, one of the researchers, said the discovery, published in the journal Cell, was groundbreaking.
"Climate change will have a huge effect on crop productivity and that's something we feel gives added impetus to our research," he said.
"By 2030 the world will need to increase global food production by 50 per cent as population grows and people expect a higher standard of living.
"Wheat and rice, which provide most of the world's calories, are sensitive to high heat during their growing process.
"Now we understand how plants modify temperatures we can modify how we grow plants in high temperatures."
Published: 7:30AM GMT 08 Jan 2010
In a breakthrough that has the potential to help feed billions of people, scientists from the John Innes Centre in Norwich have found the "thermometer gene" which plants use to sense temperature.
Laboratory tests on a mustard seed plant showed that the gene that plants use in order to know when to grow in the warmer months can be manipulated by taking away a histone protein.
The protein normally binds to DNA and wraps it around them which then controls which genes are turned on.
When the histone protein was taken away from plants, all the genes in the plants reacted as if they were experiencing high temperatures even when the temperature in the lab was turned down very low.
The findings could pave the way for climate change resistant crops within 10 years.
The new super crops would be able to cope with the increased heat expected as the earth's temperature rises and the research could also help grow plants in much colder climates.
Dr Philip Wigge, one of the researchers, said the discovery, published in the journal Cell, was groundbreaking.
"Climate change will have a huge effect on crop productivity and that's something we feel gives added impetus to our research," he said.
"By 2030 the world will need to increase global food production by 50 per cent as population grows and people expect a higher standard of living.
"Wheat and rice, which provide most of the world's calories, are sensitive to high heat during their growing process.
"Now we understand how plants modify temperatures we can modify how we grow plants in high temperatures."
Friday, 8 January 2010
EPA Proposes Tighter, Costlier Smog Limits
Agency Argues Changes Will Improve Health; Business Groups Warn of Pending 'Punch in the Nose' for Struggling Economy
By MARK W. PETERS and STEPHEN POWER
Reuters
Smog covers downtown Los Angeles in April 2009.
The Obama administration on Thursday proposed tougher standards for reducing smog in a move it said would save lives and reduce respiratory illness, but businesses said the change would inflict new costs on employers and consumers in a weak economy.
The proposal is the latest shift toward stricter standards promised by the White House, which environmentalists have applauded but industry groups dislike.
The new smog standards, proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, could compel power plants, refineries, gas stations and other businesses to take steps to reduce emissions of chemicals that help form smog. The EPA estimated that the costs of complying with the new standards could range between $19 billion and $90 billion annually, depending on the final standard. Much of the cost will be in the form of new technologies.
The standards could also lead to new restrictions on construction, farming and other activities that generate what is known as ground-level ozone, a primary cause of smog.
The proposal would lower the permitted level for ground-level ozone, which has been linked to respiratory illnesses. By reducing smog, the EPA hopes to reduce the incidence of asthma, particularly in children, whose developing lungs are more sensitive to smog.
WSJ's Joe White reports the EPA is cracking down on smog, which he tells Simon Constable will affect business costs throughout the nation. Plus, the future of 3-D comes into focus at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Under the proposal, the EPA would set the acceptable ozone level in the air between 0.06 and 0.07 parts per million, stricter than the current 0.075 ppm. EPA officials and public-health groups claim the new standards would mean fewer visits to the emergency room for children with asthma, and longer lives for people with chronic lung disease -- saving the U.S. $13 billion to $100 billion annually. "Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long-overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.
According to the agency, more than twice the 322 counties that violate current federal ozone standards would fail to comply if the new standard were set at 0.06 ppm. For areas thrown into noncompliance for the first time, the standards could result in new pollution controls on large factories, or requirements for retail gasoline outlets to sell cleaner-burning fuel. Under federal law, states are required to submit plans to the EPA that detail how they will comply with the government's ozone standards. Those that don't submit such plans or fail to implement them risk losing highway funds.
Business groups were quick to challenge the EPA proposal and said it could lead to unnecessary energy-cost increases and job losses at large facilities such as refineries and factories, as well as small businesses. "States will have to cast a very wide net when targeting sources for emissions cuts, in part because utilities already have made substantial reductions in ozone-related emissions," said John Kinsman, senior director for the environment at the Edison Electric
The National Association of Manufacturers, citing EPA data that show a 25% fall in smog concentrations nationwide from 1980 to 2008, said the announcement shows that "with EPA, no good deed goes unpunished."
Chemical makers complain the standards are too tough to be met with existing technology. They fear this will make the process of obtaining permits to expand or modify their facilities virtually impossible. "This will absolutely present a permitting challenge," said Christina Wisdom, general counsel for the Texas Chemical Council, a trade group.
Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association in Washington, called the new rules "a stop sign on the road to economic recovery." He said the added costs associated with the tighter ozone standards will limit the ability of refineries and petrochemical plants -- which make plastics and materials for a variety of manufactured goods -- to expand their output when the economy revives.
"When you start getting down to these levels, it is going to be an across-the-board punch in the nose to everybody -- big business and small business -- and all of it will impact the everyday consumer," he said.
Supporters of the new standards argue the EPA is more likely to overstate the costs of compliance, partly because of the difficulty of projecting how quickly the costs of pollution controls will fall. They note that when Congress debated the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 -- legislation establishing a system to curb sulfur-dioxide emissions that cause acid rain -- studies from the EPA estimated the legislation's annual costs at between $2.7 and $4 billion a year. A decade later, an EPA analysis determined reaching the sulfur-dioxide goals set by the 1990 law cost an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion a year.
"Agencies tend to use worst-case scenarios," said William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. "When it's time for the industry to comply, they find the cheapest way possible."
Ground-level ozone is created by a reaction between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which come from a variety of sources including unburned fuels emitted by vehicles. Leading emitters of ozone-creating pollutants are industrial facilities, coal-fired power plants and motor vehicles. The power sector, for example, accounts for around 20% of nitrogen-oxide emissions in the U.S.
The EPA plans to issue final standards by the end of August. Then, the federal and state governments will spend the next three-and-a-half years putting in place plans to meet the new standards.—Ann Davis and Ana Campoy contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
By MARK W. PETERS and STEPHEN POWER
Reuters
Smog covers downtown Los Angeles in April 2009.
The Obama administration on Thursday proposed tougher standards for reducing smog in a move it said would save lives and reduce respiratory illness, but businesses said the change would inflict new costs on employers and consumers in a weak economy.
The proposal is the latest shift toward stricter standards promised by the White House, which environmentalists have applauded but industry groups dislike.
The new smog standards, proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, could compel power plants, refineries, gas stations and other businesses to take steps to reduce emissions of chemicals that help form smog. The EPA estimated that the costs of complying with the new standards could range between $19 billion and $90 billion annually, depending on the final standard. Much of the cost will be in the form of new technologies.
The standards could also lead to new restrictions on construction, farming and other activities that generate what is known as ground-level ozone, a primary cause of smog.
The proposal would lower the permitted level for ground-level ozone, which has been linked to respiratory illnesses. By reducing smog, the EPA hopes to reduce the incidence of asthma, particularly in children, whose developing lungs are more sensitive to smog.
WSJ's Joe White reports the EPA is cracking down on smog, which he tells Simon Constable will affect business costs throughout the nation. Plus, the future of 3-D comes into focus at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Under the proposal, the EPA would set the acceptable ozone level in the air between 0.06 and 0.07 parts per million, stricter than the current 0.075 ppm. EPA officials and public-health groups claim the new standards would mean fewer visits to the emergency room for children with asthma, and longer lives for people with chronic lung disease -- saving the U.S. $13 billion to $100 billion annually. "Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long-overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.
According to the agency, more than twice the 322 counties that violate current federal ozone standards would fail to comply if the new standard were set at 0.06 ppm. For areas thrown into noncompliance for the first time, the standards could result in new pollution controls on large factories, or requirements for retail gasoline outlets to sell cleaner-burning fuel. Under federal law, states are required to submit plans to the EPA that detail how they will comply with the government's ozone standards. Those that don't submit such plans or fail to implement them risk losing highway funds.
Business groups were quick to challenge the EPA proposal and said it could lead to unnecessary energy-cost increases and job losses at large facilities such as refineries and factories, as well as small businesses. "States will have to cast a very wide net when targeting sources for emissions cuts, in part because utilities already have made substantial reductions in ozone-related emissions," said John Kinsman, senior director for the environment at the Edison Electric
The National Association of Manufacturers, citing EPA data that show a 25% fall in smog concentrations nationwide from 1980 to 2008, said the announcement shows that "with EPA, no good deed goes unpunished."
Chemical makers complain the standards are too tough to be met with existing technology. They fear this will make the process of obtaining permits to expand or modify their facilities virtually impossible. "This will absolutely present a permitting challenge," said Christina Wisdom, general counsel for the Texas Chemical Council, a trade group.
Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association in Washington, called the new rules "a stop sign on the road to economic recovery." He said the added costs associated with the tighter ozone standards will limit the ability of refineries and petrochemical plants -- which make plastics and materials for a variety of manufactured goods -- to expand their output when the economy revives.
"When you start getting down to these levels, it is going to be an across-the-board punch in the nose to everybody -- big business and small business -- and all of it will impact the everyday consumer," he said.
Supporters of the new standards argue the EPA is more likely to overstate the costs of compliance, partly because of the difficulty of projecting how quickly the costs of pollution controls will fall. They note that when Congress debated the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 -- legislation establishing a system to curb sulfur-dioxide emissions that cause acid rain -- studies from the EPA estimated the legislation's annual costs at between $2.7 and $4 billion a year. A decade later, an EPA analysis determined reaching the sulfur-dioxide goals set by the 1990 law cost an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion a year.
"Agencies tend to use worst-case scenarios," said William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. "When it's time for the industry to comply, they find the cheapest way possible."
Ground-level ozone is created by a reaction between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which come from a variety of sources including unburned fuels emitted by vehicles. Leading emitters of ozone-creating pollutants are industrial facilities, coal-fired power plants and motor vehicles. The power sector, for example, accounts for around 20% of nitrogen-oxide emissions in the U.S.
The EPA plans to issue final standards by the end of August. Then, the federal and state governments will spend the next three-and-a-half years putting in place plans to meet the new standards.—Ann Davis and Ana Campoy contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Obama administration proposes strict new smog standards
EPA scraps lax Bush-era regulations that outraged environmental groups and state governments
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 January 2010 19.17 GMT
The Obama administration proposed tough new smog standards today, scrapping a lax Bush-era regulation that had outraged both environmental groups and state governments.
The new standard - once eventually approved - would compel state and local authorities to act to reduce smog, which is produced when pollutants from factories, power plants and cars, including ozone and nitrogen oxide, react to sunlight.
The airborne stew has been linked to asthma and other lung diseases, which are especially dangerous to children and the elderly. It also travels hundreds of miles, spreading out from cities and industrial parks to damage wilderness areas.
"Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long-overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier," the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement.
"EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face."
The proposed new standard would set the acceptable ozone limit in the air at between 0.06 and 0.07 parts per million. That is roughly what scientists recommended. But in early 2008 George Bush personally intervened to override the unanimous opinion of a scientific advisory panel that the EPA needed stronger smog controls. The agency then set the cap at 0.075 parts per million.
Today's proposal would offer significantly stronger protections for human health as well as plants and trees which are damaged by smog, environmental organisations said. Cleaning up smog would also contribute to fighting climate change. A major source of smog are ageing coal power plants, which are also responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.
"This rule will help ensure that all major sources of pollution get cleaned up; it is another indication that the Obama administration sees the big picture and is working hard to put safeguards in place to build the clean energy future," the Sierra Club said in a statement.
The proposal now undergoes 60 days of public comment before becoming final - and oil industry organisations were already mobilising to defeat it today. Once it is enacted, the new regulation - depending on its stringency - will have huge implications for local governments which will be charged with ensuring industry and even motor vehicles come into line.
The EPA estimates the costs of introducing stronger smog controls from $19bn to $90bn a year by 2020, but these would be offset by savings between $13bn and $100bn on healthcare costs each year.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 January 2010 19.17 GMT
The Obama administration proposed tough new smog standards today, scrapping a lax Bush-era regulation that had outraged both environmental groups and state governments.
The new standard - once eventually approved - would compel state and local authorities to act to reduce smog, which is produced when pollutants from factories, power plants and cars, including ozone and nitrogen oxide, react to sunlight.
The airborne stew has been linked to asthma and other lung diseases, which are especially dangerous to children and the elderly. It also travels hundreds of miles, spreading out from cities and industrial parks to damage wilderness areas.
"Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long-overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier," the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement.
"EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face."
The proposed new standard would set the acceptable ozone limit in the air at between 0.06 and 0.07 parts per million. That is roughly what scientists recommended. But in early 2008 George Bush personally intervened to override the unanimous opinion of a scientific advisory panel that the EPA needed stronger smog controls. The agency then set the cap at 0.075 parts per million.
Today's proposal would offer significantly stronger protections for human health as well as plants and trees which are damaged by smog, environmental organisations said. Cleaning up smog would also contribute to fighting climate change. A major source of smog are ageing coal power plants, which are also responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.
"This rule will help ensure that all major sources of pollution get cleaned up; it is another indication that the Obama administration sees the big picture and is working hard to put safeguards in place to build the clean energy future," the Sierra Club said in a statement.
The proposal now undergoes 60 days of public comment before becoming final - and oil industry organisations were already mobilising to defeat it today. Once it is enacted, the new regulation - depending on its stringency - will have huge implications for local governments which will be charged with ensuring industry and even motor vehicles come into line.
The EPA estimates the costs of introducing stronger smog controls from $19bn to $90bn a year by 2020, but these would be offset by savings between $13bn and $100bn on healthcare costs each year.
CME Details Plans for Its Carbon Market
By JACOB BUNGE
CME Group Inc. announced plans Thursday to launch its standalone emissions-trading exchange in the first quarter of 2010, amid continuing efforts to kick-start the U.S. carbon market.
Green Exchange Holdings LLC, a joint venture between CME and a group of banks and brokers, would take over a number of products handled by the Chicago group's New York Mercantile Exchange unit, according to a company notice.
The Green Exchange plan was launched with much fanfare in late 2007, aiming to tap what some industry observers say could become one of the largest asset classes in derivatives, driven by efforts to combat global warming.
While emissions trading is relatively vibrant in Europe, the U.S. market remains small and voluntary as Congress continues to debate a cap-and-trade plan to price and ultimately reduce the release of greenhouse gases.
The Green Exchange still requires U.S. regulatory approval, and its backers are also seeking clearance from U.K. authorities.
The rival Chicago Climate Exchange, owned by Climate Exchange PLC, runs the dominant European emissions platform.
Former Ameritrade chief executive Thomas Lewis was tapped last year as CEO of the Green Exchange, charged with building an executive team and securing additional equity partners in the venture.
The platform's current roster of products routed through Nymex include futures and options on European Union Allowances, carbon allowances tied to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and other greenhouse gas markets.
Write to Jacob Bunge at jacob.bunge@dowjones.com
CME Group Inc. announced plans Thursday to launch its standalone emissions-trading exchange in the first quarter of 2010, amid continuing efforts to kick-start the U.S. carbon market.
Green Exchange Holdings LLC, a joint venture between CME and a group of banks and brokers, would take over a number of products handled by the Chicago group's New York Mercantile Exchange unit, according to a company notice.
The Green Exchange plan was launched with much fanfare in late 2007, aiming to tap what some industry observers say could become one of the largest asset classes in derivatives, driven by efforts to combat global warming.
While emissions trading is relatively vibrant in Europe, the U.S. market remains small and voluntary as Congress continues to debate a cap-and-trade plan to price and ultimately reduce the release of greenhouse gases.
The Green Exchange still requires U.S. regulatory approval, and its backers are also seeking clearance from U.K. authorities.
The rival Chicago Climate Exchange, owned by Climate Exchange PLC, runs the dominant European emissions platform.
Former Ameritrade chief executive Thomas Lewis was tapped last year as CEO of the Green Exchange, charged with building an executive team and securing additional equity partners in the venture.
The platform's current roster of products routed through Nymex include futures and options on European Union Allowances, carbon allowances tied to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and other greenhouse gas markets.
Write to Jacob Bunge at jacob.bunge@dowjones.com
Energy companies will stop UK hitting CO2 targets
Energy, utilities and materials companies in the FTSE 100 will prevent the UK from hitting its 2020 emissions reductions targets for another decade, according to a new report.
By Rowena Mason, City Reporter (Energy)Published: 6:16PM GMT 07 Jan 2010
The Carbon Disclosure Project , which audits company emissions, has found that these key sectors will need to double their efforts to cut greenhouse gases if the UK is to meet its commitments.
Just 24 energy, utilities and materials companies are responsible for almost 90pc of the FTSE 100's total emissions. Their annual CO2 reduction rate is just 1.2pc, but they will need to raise this to 2.4pc to meet national targets.
"If we continue on this trajectory, we will not deliver in line with government requirements for 2020, until 2030," the report said.
Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the project, said there was a "carbon chasm" between the emissions being cut and what needs to be done by big companies.
"It is crucial that those sectors responsible for nearly 90pc of FTSE 100 reported emissions set aggressive reduction targets," he said.
"Although we see some individual companies setting strong targets, the sector-average reduction targets for materials, energy and utilities sectors are lagging behind what is required to meet UK government targets."
The materials sector, responsible for more than a quarter of reported emissions, will actually be responsible for a 1.5pc increase in emissions.
Energy companies, accounting for 29pc of emissions, have a reduction rate of 2pc, and utilities businesses, with almost a third of the emissions, are only making cuts at a rate of 1.8pc
The report comes after European leaders backed down from tightening the 2020 targets from a 20pc reduction in CO2 to a 30pc cut at the Copenhagen climate change conference . However, utility companies are expected to cut their emissions gradually over the next decade as a new raft of nuclear and renewable power stations are built
By Rowena Mason, City Reporter (Energy)Published: 6:16PM GMT 07 Jan 2010
The Carbon Disclosure Project , which audits company emissions, has found that these key sectors will need to double their efforts to cut greenhouse gases if the UK is to meet its commitments.
Just 24 energy, utilities and materials companies are responsible for almost 90pc of the FTSE 100's total emissions. Their annual CO2 reduction rate is just 1.2pc, but they will need to raise this to 2.4pc to meet national targets.
"If we continue on this trajectory, we will not deliver in line with government requirements for 2020, until 2030," the report said.
Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the project, said there was a "carbon chasm" between the emissions being cut and what needs to be done by big companies.
"It is crucial that those sectors responsible for nearly 90pc of FTSE 100 reported emissions set aggressive reduction targets," he said.
"Although we see some individual companies setting strong targets, the sector-average reduction targets for materials, energy and utilities sectors are lagging behind what is required to meet UK government targets."
The materials sector, responsible for more than a quarter of reported emissions, will actually be responsible for a 1.5pc increase in emissions.
Energy companies, accounting for 29pc of emissions, have a reduction rate of 2pc, and utilities businesses, with almost a third of the emissions, are only making cuts at a rate of 1.8pc
The report comes after European leaders backed down from tightening the 2020 targets from a 20pc reduction in CO2 to a 30pc cut at the Copenhagen climate change conference . However, utility companies are expected to cut their emissions gradually over the next decade as a new raft of nuclear and renewable power stations are built
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
