Barack Obama will also propose a tripling of government funding for new nuclear reactors to more than $54bn
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 17.57 GMT
Barack Obama used his presidential authority to help advance his climate change agenda today, announcing that the US federal government and agencies would cut their giant carbon footprints by 28% by 2020.
The announcement was held up by administration officials as evidence of Obama's commitment to his climate and energy agenda, which has run into opposition in Congress and from coal, oil and manufacturing groups.
The White House said the targets – which are set against 2008 emissions levels – would reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by 80m metric tons by 2020, and save the government between $8bn (£5bn) and $11bn in energy costs.
Obama will also propose a tripling of government loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors to more than $54bn, an administration official said, a move sure to win over some Republican lawmakers who want more nuclear power to be part of climate change legislation.
The loan guarantees, which follow Obama's pledge in his State of the Union address to work to expand nuclear power production, will be announced as part of his budget proposal on Monday, the official said.
The federal goverment is the largest single user of fuel and electricity in the country and is responsible for emissions to match. Including the department of defence, it owns nearly 500,000 buildings, more than 600,000 vehicles, and it purchases $500bn in goods and services every year.
"As the largest energy consumer in the US, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient," said President Obama. "Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy."
The White House ordered federal government departments last October to begin measuring their use of electricity and fuel, and make energy savings.
Nancy Sutley, the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the effort was an important show of leadership. "It shows the commitment of federal government to lead by example and to take on its responsibility to reduce pollution and help stimulate clean energy economy," she said.
The cuts will come from across 35 government agencies and departments. The Treasury department pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33%. The department of Defence – which operates 300,000 of those government buildings – pledged to cut its emissions by 34%. However, that effort excludes combat operations, and would cover just 40% of DoD greenhouse gas emissions.
Sutley said government departments across the country were already taking action, installing solar panels and wind turbines. The National Renewable Energy Labs in Denver was aiming to reduce energy use of its data centre by 65%.
Today's announcement covers only direct emissions from electricity in government office buildings and military installations, and petrol for government cars. Departments are to report back in 2010 about other potential areas of energy savings, including workers' commutes. The order also does not cover government contractors, officials said.
The initiative comes at a time when the Obama administration is determined to demonstrate its commitment to action on climate change. Obama in his State of the Union address pledged to work to help build Republican support for climate change proposals now under discussion in the Senate. But most observers think getting a climate bill through Congress in 2010 still remains a long shot.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals
Experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, but call for 'closer examination' of the way computer models consider water vapour
David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday 29 January 2010
Scientists have underestimated the role that water vapour plays in determining global temperature changes, according to a new study that could fuel further attacks on the science of climate change.
The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.
The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.
The new research comes at a difficult time for climate scientists, who have been forced to defend their predictions in the face of an embarrassing mistake in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which included false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. There has also been heavy criticism over the way climate scientists at the University of East Anglia apparently tried to prevent the release of data requested under Freedom of Information laws.
The new research, led by Susan Solomon, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who co-chaired the 2007 IPCC report on the science of global warming, is published today in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world.
Solomon said the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. "Not to my mind it doesn't," she said. "It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another."
She would not comment on the mistake in the IPCC report - which was published in a separate section on likely impacts - or on calls for Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, to step down.
"What I will say, is that this [new study] shows there are climate scientists round the world who are trying very hard to understand and to explain to people openly and honestly what has happened over the last decade."
The new study analysed water vapour in the stratosphere, about 10 miles up, where it acts as a potent greenhouse gas and traps heat at the Earth's surface.
Satellite measurements were used to show that water vapour levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When the scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
They conclude: "The decline in stratospheric water vapour after 2000 should be expected to have significantly contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend in the last decade."
Solomon said: "We call this the 10, 10, 10 problem. A 10% drop in water vapour, 10 miles up has had an effect on global warming over the last 10 years." Until now, scientists have struggled to explain the temperature slowdown in the years since 2000, a problem climate sceptics have exploited.
The scientists also looked at the earlier period, from 1980 to 2000, though cautioned this was based on observations of the atmosphere made by a single weather balloon. They found likely increases in water vapour in the stratosphere, enough to enhance the rate of global warming by about 30% above what would have been expected.
"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change," the scientists say. They say it should lead to a "closer examination of the representation of stratospheric water vapour changes in climate models".
Solomon said it was not clear why the water vapour levels had swung up and down, but suggested it could be down to changes in sea surface temperature, which drives convection currents and can move air around in the high atmosphere.
She said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a natural shift, or if it was a consequence of a warming world. If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.
David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday 29 January 2010
Scientists have underestimated the role that water vapour plays in determining global temperature changes, according to a new study that could fuel further attacks on the science of climate change.
The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.
The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.
The new research comes at a difficult time for climate scientists, who have been forced to defend their predictions in the face of an embarrassing mistake in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which included false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. There has also been heavy criticism over the way climate scientists at the University of East Anglia apparently tried to prevent the release of data requested under Freedom of Information laws.
The new research, led by Susan Solomon, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who co-chaired the 2007 IPCC report on the science of global warming, is published today in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world.
Solomon said the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. "Not to my mind it doesn't," she said. "It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another."
She would not comment on the mistake in the IPCC report - which was published in a separate section on likely impacts - or on calls for Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, to step down.
"What I will say, is that this [new study] shows there are climate scientists round the world who are trying very hard to understand and to explain to people openly and honestly what has happened over the last decade."
The new study analysed water vapour in the stratosphere, about 10 miles up, where it acts as a potent greenhouse gas and traps heat at the Earth's surface.
Satellite measurements were used to show that water vapour levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When the scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
They conclude: "The decline in stratospheric water vapour after 2000 should be expected to have significantly contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend in the last decade."
Solomon said: "We call this the 10, 10, 10 problem. A 10% drop in water vapour, 10 miles up has had an effect on global warming over the last 10 years." Until now, scientists have struggled to explain the temperature slowdown in the years since 2000, a problem climate sceptics have exploited.
The scientists also looked at the earlier period, from 1980 to 2000, though cautioned this was based on observations of the atmosphere made by a single weather balloon. They found likely increases in water vapour in the stratosphere, enough to enhance the rate of global warming by about 30% above what would have been expected.
"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change," the scientists say. They say it should lead to a "closer examination of the representation of stratospheric water vapour changes in climate models".
Solomon said it was not clear why the water vapour levels had swung up and down, but suggested it could be down to changes in sea surface temperature, which drives convection currents and can move air around in the high atmosphere.
She said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a natural shift, or if it was a consequence of a warming world. If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.
Osama bin Laden lends unwelcome support in fight against climate change
Drudge, Fox News and other right-wing media seize on al-Qaida leader's taped comments reportedly sent to al-Jazeera
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 16.23 GMT
Climate science is under assault, progress towards a treaty to end global warming is shuddering to a halt, and Barack Obama is struggling to press on with his clean energy agenda.
This was the last conversion to the environmental cause that anybody would have wanted.
In a new audiotape that surfaced today on the al-Jazeera network, Osama bin Laden has pronounced himself a believer in climate change and blames America and other industrialised economies for failing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the atmosphere.
"Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury — the phenomenon is an actual fact," the tape says according to al-Jazeera. "All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis."
The utterance immediately got star billing on the right-wing blog Drudge Report as well as a mention on Fox News - both repositories of opposition to action on global warming. And the Conservative RedState website asked, "What is the difference between Bin Laden and Al Gore?"
The tape whose authenticity has yet to be confirmed by intelligence agencies, is the second purported message from the al-Qaida leader in a week. In the latest recording, he calls out developed world economies for continuing to produce global warming pollution even after signing on to the Kyoto protocol. America stayed outside Kyoto, which Osama noted.
"George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs."
"They are also behind 'globalisation and its tragic implications'. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money."
The al-Qaida leaders also calls on the global economy to stop using the US dollar, and praises the political analysis of Noam Chomsky.
Osama's concern for the environment is not exactly new-found, but it is intermittent. In a 2002 letter to the American people, Bin Ladenwrote: "You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries."
His latest pronouncement comes at a time when the Obama administration might be compelled to retreat on its pledge to bring the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to trial in a Manhattan courtroom, which has run into intense opposition.
The administration is also trying to find ways of moving ahead on its climate change and energy agenda despite paralysis in Congress.
Obama, in his state of the union address this week, promised to incorporate two cherished Republican energy options — expanding offshore drilling and building more nuclear plants — into his energy plan.
Meanwhile, the White House is doing what it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — even if Congress fails to bring in climate change legislation.
The White House today announced that it had directed all federal government departments to reduce emissions by 28% over 2008 levels by 2020. That is a more ambitious target than America's official position in the global climate change negotiations — a reduction of 17% over 2005 levels by 2020.
The White House said the action would save 205 million barrels of oil and was the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is set to formally declare on Monday that it will take climate change into account in its long-term strategic thinking. The new focus on climate change comes as part of the quadrennial defence review, which is presented to Congress every four years.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 16.23 GMT
Climate science is under assault, progress towards a treaty to end global warming is shuddering to a halt, and Barack Obama is struggling to press on with his clean energy agenda.
This was the last conversion to the environmental cause that anybody would have wanted.
In a new audiotape that surfaced today on the al-Jazeera network, Osama bin Laden has pronounced himself a believer in climate change and blames America and other industrialised economies for failing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the atmosphere.
"Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury — the phenomenon is an actual fact," the tape says according to al-Jazeera. "All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis."
The utterance immediately got star billing on the right-wing blog Drudge Report as well as a mention on Fox News - both repositories of opposition to action on global warming. And the Conservative RedState website asked, "What is the difference between Bin Laden and Al Gore?"
The tape whose authenticity has yet to be confirmed by intelligence agencies, is the second purported message from the al-Qaida leader in a week. In the latest recording, he calls out developed world economies for continuing to produce global warming pollution even after signing on to the Kyoto protocol. America stayed outside Kyoto, which Osama noted.
"George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs."
"They are also behind 'globalisation and its tragic implications'. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money."
The al-Qaida leaders also calls on the global economy to stop using the US dollar, and praises the political analysis of Noam Chomsky.
Osama's concern for the environment is not exactly new-found, but it is intermittent. In a 2002 letter to the American people, Bin Ladenwrote: "You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries."
His latest pronouncement comes at a time when the Obama administration might be compelled to retreat on its pledge to bring the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to trial in a Manhattan courtroom, which has run into intense opposition.
The administration is also trying to find ways of moving ahead on its climate change and energy agenda despite paralysis in Congress.
Obama, in his state of the union address this week, promised to incorporate two cherished Republican energy options — expanding offshore drilling and building more nuclear plants — into his energy plan.
Meanwhile, the White House is doing what it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — even if Congress fails to bring in climate change legislation.
The White House today announced that it had directed all federal government departments to reduce emissions by 28% over 2008 levels by 2020. That is a more ambitious target than America's official position in the global climate change negotiations — a reduction of 17% over 2005 levels by 2020.
The White House said the action would save 205 million barrels of oil and was the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is set to formally declare on Monday that it will take climate change into account in its long-term strategic thinking. The new focus on climate change comes as part of the quadrennial defence review, which is presented to Congress every four years.
Climate change: sailing through the perfect storm
Tomorrow is the deadline for countries to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord, says Geoffrey Lean
By Geoffrey Lean Published: 8:49PM GMT 29 Jan 2010
Yes, I know it has become a cliché, rightly discouraged by newspaper editors, but it seems so apposite that I am going to inflict it on you anyway. Climate change seems to have been hit by a perfect storm in the past two and a half months. And tomorrow we will get a first indication of how much damage has been done.
It came out of a relatively blue sky. Back in November, environmentalists could look forward to a forecast of increasing sun and favourable breezes. The science of global warming was not seriously challenged, though public concern had been falling off with the recession. Prospects for the Copenhagen climate summit looked bright: country after top polluting country was making pledges to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". And there even seemed to be a reasonable prospect that the US Congress would pass a climate Bill.
That forecast proved to be as spot-on as the Met Office's recent predictions. First, the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia caused unprecedented public doubts about the climate science, which were later compounded by the discovery that the latest report of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained the wildly inaccurate prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Copenhagen fell apart, only rescued from complete collapse by a hastily negotiated "accord" between key world leaders. And finally US legislation became hopelessly bogged down in the Senate – even before Barack Obama lost the majority needed to pass it in the snows of Massachusetts.
Tomorrow, however, marks a key moment, for it is the deadline for countries to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord and make their pledges official. So this may be a good time to assess the effects of the storm. And peering through the fog of hype and misinformation from parts of both sides of the debate suggests a surprising conclusion; so far, much less damage than might be expected has actually been done.
Despite the sceptics' best efforts, for example, the basic edifice of global- warming science remains intact. Nothing in the so-called Climategate emails damages it. The most quoted one – about using a "trick" to "hide the decline" – has been widely, but inaccurately, taken to refer to trying to cover up a supposed drop in temperatures since the anomalously hot year of 1998: in fact, it refers to a relatively technical issue over tree-ring measurements from Siberia in the 1960s which suggested the thermometer was falling when it was in fact going the other way.
The scientists' disgraceful failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and the Himalayan glacier debacle are much more serious. One was rightly condemned by the Information Commissioner last week; the other reveals sloppiness at the IPCC. But again, neither touches the basic science; the Himalayan howler concerns a predicted effect of global warming, rather than the climate change itself. The obituaries of the science proclaimed daily by sceptics so far are not even premature.
Tomorrow, furthermore, is likely to reveal remarkably little damage to international structures. The UN says it will not announce who has endorsed the Accord for some days, but all the main polluting countries – accounting for 80 per cent of emissions worldwide – are expected to do so. This is a surprise. Western governments thought that the big, rapidly industrialising countries would refuse to join, but they have.
The prospects for a new treaty are dimmer than before the storm broke: despite official optimism, there is little chance of one even by the end of this year. But action to reduce emissions – in the main developing countries, at least – is actually occurring faster than expected. In the few weeks since Copenhagen, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia have all taken important steps.
Even in the United States, more remains standing than at first appears. Obama's State of the Union speech actually elevated climate above health- care in his priorities, largely because of the job-creating potential of measures to improve energy efficiency and boost reneweable sources of power. He also promised to include an expansion of nuclear energy, which has infuriated environmentalists but increases the chances of some Republican support for a bill. True, any legislation is unlikely to contain its hitherto core measures for capping and trading emissions, but many environmentalists believe that more could be done by using existing powers under the US Clean Air Act.
So perhaps it wasn't a perfect storm after all. Or not yet. Either way, I promise, I won't inflict the phrase on you again.
Miliband must empower us all
Boy wonder Ed Miliband has attracted plaudits for saving the Copenhagen climate summit from total disaster (he got an adjournment just as the hopeless chairman – Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen – appeared to be about to concede failure, and when the proceedings restarted someone else had mysteriously been put in charge). This week will show whether he can do proactive as well as pre-emptive.
He is to announce details of schemes to allow householders and communities to generate their own electricity and heat from renewable energy. This has huge potential; one government report says a third of Britain’s electricity could be provided this way by 2020, giving families and the country energy security. But Mr Miliband’s plans so far aim for just two per cent and are correspondingly mean with the incentives to encourage it.
Britain has an appalling record on renewables, despite having Europe’s best resources. Only Malta produces a smaller proportion of its energy from them – zero.
And for decades,
officials have especially resisted encouraging families to install renewables, such as solar panels, preferring to control things themselves.
A YouGov poll now shows that two thirds of Britons think Mr Miliband’s plans are not ambitious enough, and that even more are ready to pay bigger power bills to improve them.
The Tories understand this, and promise to do better. Here’s hoping.
Will rhinos heed the call of the wild?
Conservationists will fight over just about anything, and lately a row has been rocking the small world of the northern white rhinoceros. It’s small because there are precious few of this
sub-species, the world’s most endangered mammal. They are thought to be extinct in the wild, with just eight in captivity: two in San Diego, California, and six in the Czech Republic’s Dvur Králové Zoo.
Or there were. Four of the European ones – two males and two females – have just been shipped back to Africa in the hope that a touch of the sun will stimulate their sex drives, and save the species. Their attempts at mating have been “abysmal”, according to experts, possibly because they were always being watched.
The “Last Chance to Survive” project – costing $300,000 – was mainly put up by the charities Flora and Fauna International and Back to Africa.
The animals are now settling in at the Ol Pejeta private reserve in the shadow of Mt Kenya, where it is hoped they will feel horny despite their prized appendages being removed to deter poachers.
Czech activists and the European Association of Zoos protested that the transfer endangered the rhinos by exposing them to the wild, but the Czech zoo said: “We must offer them the last chance.”
In addition, our own Prince William has lent his support to the project. As the product of centuries of arranged partnerings, he is presumably well qualified to pass an opinion.
By Geoffrey Lean Published: 8:49PM GMT 29 Jan 2010
Yes, I know it has become a cliché, rightly discouraged by newspaper editors, but it seems so apposite that I am going to inflict it on you anyway. Climate change seems to have been hit by a perfect storm in the past two and a half months. And tomorrow we will get a first indication of how much damage has been done.
It came out of a relatively blue sky. Back in November, environmentalists could look forward to a forecast of increasing sun and favourable breezes. The science of global warming was not seriously challenged, though public concern had been falling off with the recession. Prospects for the Copenhagen climate summit looked bright: country after top polluting country was making pledges to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". And there even seemed to be a reasonable prospect that the US Congress would pass a climate Bill.
That forecast proved to be as spot-on as the Met Office's recent predictions. First, the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia caused unprecedented public doubts about the climate science, which were later compounded by the discovery that the latest report of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained the wildly inaccurate prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Copenhagen fell apart, only rescued from complete collapse by a hastily negotiated "accord" between key world leaders. And finally US legislation became hopelessly bogged down in the Senate – even before Barack Obama lost the majority needed to pass it in the snows of Massachusetts.
Tomorrow, however, marks a key moment, for it is the deadline for countries to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord and make their pledges official. So this may be a good time to assess the effects of the storm. And peering through the fog of hype and misinformation from parts of both sides of the debate suggests a surprising conclusion; so far, much less damage than might be expected has actually been done.
Despite the sceptics' best efforts, for example, the basic edifice of global- warming science remains intact. Nothing in the so-called Climategate emails damages it. The most quoted one – about using a "trick" to "hide the decline" – has been widely, but inaccurately, taken to refer to trying to cover up a supposed drop in temperatures since the anomalously hot year of 1998: in fact, it refers to a relatively technical issue over tree-ring measurements from Siberia in the 1960s which suggested the thermometer was falling when it was in fact going the other way.
The scientists' disgraceful failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and the Himalayan glacier debacle are much more serious. One was rightly condemned by the Information Commissioner last week; the other reveals sloppiness at the IPCC. But again, neither touches the basic science; the Himalayan howler concerns a predicted effect of global warming, rather than the climate change itself. The obituaries of the science proclaimed daily by sceptics so far are not even premature.
Tomorrow, furthermore, is likely to reveal remarkably little damage to international structures. The UN says it will not announce who has endorsed the Accord for some days, but all the main polluting countries – accounting for 80 per cent of emissions worldwide – are expected to do so. This is a surprise. Western governments thought that the big, rapidly industrialising countries would refuse to join, but they have.
The prospects for a new treaty are dimmer than before the storm broke: despite official optimism, there is little chance of one even by the end of this year. But action to reduce emissions – in the main developing countries, at least – is actually occurring faster than expected. In the few weeks since Copenhagen, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia have all taken important steps.
Even in the United States, more remains standing than at first appears. Obama's State of the Union speech actually elevated climate above health- care in his priorities, largely because of the job-creating potential of measures to improve energy efficiency and boost reneweable sources of power. He also promised to include an expansion of nuclear energy, which has infuriated environmentalists but increases the chances of some Republican support for a bill. True, any legislation is unlikely to contain its hitherto core measures for capping and trading emissions, but many environmentalists believe that more could be done by using existing powers under the US Clean Air Act.
So perhaps it wasn't a perfect storm after all. Or not yet. Either way, I promise, I won't inflict the phrase on you again.
Miliband must empower us all
Boy wonder Ed Miliband has attracted plaudits for saving the Copenhagen climate summit from total disaster (he got an adjournment just as the hopeless chairman – Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen – appeared to be about to concede failure, and when the proceedings restarted someone else had mysteriously been put in charge). This week will show whether he can do proactive as well as pre-emptive.
He is to announce details of schemes to allow householders and communities to generate their own electricity and heat from renewable energy. This has huge potential; one government report says a third of Britain’s electricity could be provided this way by 2020, giving families and the country energy security. But Mr Miliband’s plans so far aim for just two per cent and are correspondingly mean with the incentives to encourage it.
Britain has an appalling record on renewables, despite having Europe’s best resources. Only Malta produces a smaller proportion of its energy from them – zero.
And for decades,
officials have especially resisted encouraging families to install renewables, such as solar panels, preferring to control things themselves.
A YouGov poll now shows that two thirds of Britons think Mr Miliband’s plans are not ambitious enough, and that even more are ready to pay bigger power bills to improve them.
The Tories understand this, and promise to do better. Here’s hoping.
Will rhinos heed the call of the wild?
Conservationists will fight over just about anything, and lately a row has been rocking the small world of the northern white rhinoceros. It’s small because there are precious few of this
sub-species, the world’s most endangered mammal. They are thought to be extinct in the wild, with just eight in captivity: two in San Diego, California, and six in the Czech Republic’s Dvur Králové Zoo.
Or there were. Four of the European ones – two males and two females – have just been shipped back to Africa in the hope that a touch of the sun will stimulate their sex drives, and save the species. Their attempts at mating have been “abysmal”, according to experts, possibly because they were always being watched.
The “Last Chance to Survive” project – costing $300,000 – was mainly put up by the charities Flora and Fauna International and Back to Africa.
The animals are now settling in at the Ol Pejeta private reserve in the shadow of Mt Kenya, where it is hoped they will feel horny despite their prized appendages being removed to deter poachers.
Czech activists and the European Association of Zoos protested that the transfer endangered the rhinos by exposing them to the wild, but the Czech zoo said: “We must offer them the last chance.”
In addition, our own Prince William has lent his support to the project. As the product of centuries of arranged partnerings, he is presumably well qualified to pass an opinion.
U.S. electric carmaker Tesla files for IPO
Reuters, Saturday January 30 2010
* Files for IPO for up to $100 mln
* In '09 thru Sept, had $93.4 mln rev, $31.5 mln loss
* IPO timing capitalizes on environmental enthusiasm (Recasts with investor interest, paragraph 1; adds details of pay, private plane use, paragraphs 20-23)
By Poornima Gupta
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 29 (Reuters) - U.S. electric sports car maker Tesla Motors filed for an initial public offering of up to $100 million, aiming to cash in on growing investor interest in battery-powered vehicles and green technology.
The IPO filing on Friday from the six-year-old start-up, best known for its $109,000 all-electric Roadster, marks the first public offering from a U.S. automaker since Henry Ford's Ford Motor Co made its share debut in 1956.
It also represents a landmark in the resurgence of electric car technology that most carmakers until recently had dismissed as impractical.
Tesla's IPO, with underwriters including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank Securities, should generate enthusiasm for IPOs generally, analysts said.
"People are going to be watching this one move through the pipeline," said Matt Therian, analyst with Connecticut-based IPO research firm Renaissance Capital. "It's probably a good sign for the IPO market."
Ben Holmes, founder of Morningnotes.com, said an IPO is sometimes the best form of advertising, especially if the deal is successful, for companies like Tesla.
"Venture-backed deals were kind of derailed and this might be what we call a bell cow -- a deal that's so steady and so well-done and so impressive it brings other deals to market that were waiting," he said.
Reuters reported in November that Tesla was preparing to file for an IPO. ID:nN20238220
In the nine months ended Sept. 30, Tesla said, it lost $31.5 million, down from a loss of $57.3 million in the same period a year earlier. Revenue jumped to $93.4 million from $580,000.
The company said it would continue to post losses until it begins making "significant" deliveries of the Model S, which is not expected to launch until 2012.
Tesla, in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, did not provide details on IPO pricing or its timing.
COMPETING WITH ESTABLISHED AUTOMAKERS
Tesla will compete with established carmakers such as Ford, General Motors and Nissan Motor Co Ltd, all of which are racing to launch electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Tesla is a small player with a high-end market and limited production, but hopes the Model S electric sedan will broaden its potential market.
It has received about 2,000 reservations for the car, which is being designed as a four-door, five-passenger premium sedan with an additional third row with two rear-facing child seats. It has a base price of $49,900.
The appetite for IPOs has picked up since mid-September this year, with a robust pace of new filings.
Tesla's IPO would follow the successful debut of lithium-ion battery maker A123 Systems Inc, whose shares rallied 50 percent on their first day of trading on Sept. 25.
The company, named after scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla, said in the filing it had sold 937 Roadsters in 18 countries since it was founded.
Chairman Elon Musk has often expressed a desire to take his company public and had previously targeted late 2008 or 2009, but financial market turmoil after Lehman Brothers collapsed in late 2008 virtually shut down the IPO market.
Musk, an entrepreneur who made hundreds of millions as co-founder of online payments service PayPal and whose current ventures include space exploration company SpaceX, makes a base salary of just $33,280 a year, according to the filing.
But he took $175,000 in reimbursements from Tesla for using his private jet.
Tensions between shareholders, regulators and company executives over perceptions of inflated salaries for managers have risen in the recession. But Tesla's filing showed that Musk had used his own plane without compensation since 2009's second quarter.
"From time to time, Elon Musk uses his private airplane for Tesla business travel. Beginning in the second quarter of 2009, we agreed to pay for certain third-party operation expenses incurred in connection with the use of Mr. Musk's private plane," the filing read.
"These operation expenses include fuel charges, landing fees and other related expenses. Through December 31, 2009, we paid approximately $175,000 for such expenses. Prior to the second quarter of 2009, Mr. Musk paid for such business travel expenses without reimbursement."
Tesla's investors include Google Inc founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
Others include Daimler AG; Abu Dhabi-based Aabar Investments, which owns a Daimler stake; and venture capital funds Draper Fisher Jurvetson, DraperValor Equity Partners, Technology Partners, The Westly Group and Compass Venture Partners. (Additional reporting by Laura Isensee and Alexander Haislip in Los Angeles; editing by Leslie Gevirtz, Gary Hill)
* Files for IPO for up to $100 mln
* In '09 thru Sept, had $93.4 mln rev, $31.5 mln loss
* IPO timing capitalizes on environmental enthusiasm (Recasts with investor interest, paragraph 1; adds details of pay, private plane use, paragraphs 20-23)
By Poornima Gupta
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 29 (Reuters) - U.S. electric sports car maker Tesla Motors filed for an initial public offering of up to $100 million, aiming to cash in on growing investor interest in battery-powered vehicles and green technology.
The IPO filing on Friday from the six-year-old start-up, best known for its $109,000 all-electric Roadster, marks the first public offering from a U.S. automaker since Henry Ford's Ford Motor Co made its share debut in 1956.
It also represents a landmark in the resurgence of electric car technology that most carmakers until recently had dismissed as impractical.
Tesla's IPO, with underwriters including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank Securities, should generate enthusiasm for IPOs generally, analysts said.
"People are going to be watching this one move through the pipeline," said Matt Therian, analyst with Connecticut-based IPO research firm Renaissance Capital. "It's probably a good sign for the IPO market."
Ben Holmes, founder of Morningnotes.com, said an IPO is sometimes the best form of advertising, especially if the deal is successful, for companies like Tesla.
"Venture-backed deals were kind of derailed and this might be what we call a bell cow -- a deal that's so steady and so well-done and so impressive it brings other deals to market that were waiting," he said.
Reuters reported in November that Tesla was preparing to file for an IPO. ID:nN20238220
In the nine months ended Sept. 30, Tesla said, it lost $31.5 million, down from a loss of $57.3 million in the same period a year earlier. Revenue jumped to $93.4 million from $580,000.
The company said it would continue to post losses until it begins making "significant" deliveries of the Model S, which is not expected to launch until 2012.
Tesla, in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, did not provide details on IPO pricing or its timing.
COMPETING WITH ESTABLISHED AUTOMAKERS
Tesla will compete with established carmakers such as Ford, General Motors and Nissan Motor Co Ltd, all of which are racing to launch electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Tesla is a small player with a high-end market and limited production, but hopes the Model S electric sedan will broaden its potential market.
It has received about 2,000 reservations for the car, which is being designed as a four-door, five-passenger premium sedan with an additional third row with two rear-facing child seats. It has a base price of $49,900.
The appetite for IPOs has picked up since mid-September this year, with a robust pace of new filings.
Tesla's IPO would follow the successful debut of lithium-ion battery maker A123 Systems Inc, whose shares rallied 50 percent on their first day of trading on Sept. 25.
The company, named after scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla, said in the filing it had sold 937 Roadsters in 18 countries since it was founded.
Chairman Elon Musk has often expressed a desire to take his company public and had previously targeted late 2008 or 2009, but financial market turmoil after Lehman Brothers collapsed in late 2008 virtually shut down the IPO market.
Musk, an entrepreneur who made hundreds of millions as co-founder of online payments service PayPal and whose current ventures include space exploration company SpaceX, makes a base salary of just $33,280 a year, according to the filing.
But he took $175,000 in reimbursements from Tesla for using his private jet.
Tensions between shareholders, regulators and company executives over perceptions of inflated salaries for managers have risen in the recession. But Tesla's filing showed that Musk had used his own plane without compensation since 2009's second quarter.
"From time to time, Elon Musk uses his private airplane for Tesla business travel. Beginning in the second quarter of 2009, we agreed to pay for certain third-party operation expenses incurred in connection with the use of Mr. Musk's private plane," the filing read.
"These operation expenses include fuel charges, landing fees and other related expenses. Through December 31, 2009, we paid approximately $175,000 for such expenses. Prior to the second quarter of 2009, Mr. Musk paid for such business travel expenses without reimbursement."
Tesla's investors include Google Inc founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
Others include Daimler AG; Abu Dhabi-based Aabar Investments, which owns a Daimler stake; and venture capital funds Draper Fisher Jurvetson, DraperValor Equity Partners, Technology Partners, The Westly Group and Compass Venture Partners. (Additional reporting by Laura Isensee and Alexander Haislip in Los Angeles; editing by Leslie Gevirtz, Gary Hill)
Friday, 29 January 2010
Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor
By GAUTAM NAIK
Climatologists have puzzled over why global average temperatures have stayed roughly flat in the past decade, despite a long-term warming trend. New research suggests that lower levels of water vapor in the stratosphere may partly explain the anomaly.
The study, appearing in the journal Science, points out that the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere has dropped about 10% in the past decade, triggered by unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics. The study concludes that in the last decade the decline in water vapor slowed the rate of rising temperatures by about 25%, thus partly negating the heat-trapping effect of increasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.
The recent fluctuation—the flattening of temperatures since the year 2000—isn't merely of academic interest. Those skeptical of man-made global warming say the temperature anomaly supports their case. Others say it is merely a blip, and that warming remains the long-term trend.
"There is slow warming that has taken place over the last 100 years," says Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. "But from one decade to another, there can be fluctuations in the warming trend," such as those caused by water vapor and other factors.
Separate findings suggest that fleeting changes in ocean currents and alterations in solar activity may partly explain the recent flat-temperature trend. The study in Science uses fresh and more-accurate satellite data to conclude that water vapor also likely contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend since 2000.
Not only is water vapor the planet's most abundant greenhouse gas, it also is known to amplify the warming effect of other such gases, including carbon dioxide. Scientists refer to the process as a positive feedback loop: Higher temperatures lead to higher concentrations of water vapor, which then absorbs more thermal energy radiated from the Earth, which further warms the atmosphere.
Water vapor is formed through evaporation from the Earth's bodies of water. A key factor that affects how much water vapor enters the stratosphere is the coldest temperature that air encounters as it rises from the Earth.
Most of this upward movement occurs in the tropics—a region where "cold point" temperatures have dropped in the past decade.
As a result of these lower temperatures, less water vapor ended up in the stratosphere. That, in turn, helped lower the warming rate, the study concludes.
The overall picture is still far from complete. Water vapor's role may be important, but "it doesn't rule out other contributing factors," such as changes in ocean currents and solar activity, says Dr. Solomon.
Nor do current warming models fully account for all the complexities of water-vapor shifts in the stratosphere. And scientists have yet to pin down why cold point temperatures in the tropics fell in the past decade.
Climatologists have puzzled over why global average temperatures have stayed roughly flat in the past decade, despite a long-term warming trend. New research suggests that lower levels of water vapor in the stratosphere may partly explain the anomaly.
The study, appearing in the journal Science, points out that the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere has dropped about 10% in the past decade, triggered by unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics. The study concludes that in the last decade the decline in water vapor slowed the rate of rising temperatures by about 25%, thus partly negating the heat-trapping effect of increasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.
The recent fluctuation—the flattening of temperatures since the year 2000—isn't merely of academic interest. Those skeptical of man-made global warming say the temperature anomaly supports their case. Others say it is merely a blip, and that warming remains the long-term trend.
"There is slow warming that has taken place over the last 100 years," says Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. "But from one decade to another, there can be fluctuations in the warming trend," such as those caused by water vapor and other factors.
Separate findings suggest that fleeting changes in ocean currents and alterations in solar activity may partly explain the recent flat-temperature trend. The study in Science uses fresh and more-accurate satellite data to conclude that water vapor also likely contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend since 2000.
Not only is water vapor the planet's most abundant greenhouse gas, it also is known to amplify the warming effect of other such gases, including carbon dioxide. Scientists refer to the process as a positive feedback loop: Higher temperatures lead to higher concentrations of water vapor, which then absorbs more thermal energy radiated from the Earth, which further warms the atmosphere.
Water vapor is formed through evaporation from the Earth's bodies of water. A key factor that affects how much water vapor enters the stratosphere is the coldest temperature that air encounters as it rises from the Earth.
Most of this upward movement occurs in the tropics—a region where "cold point" temperatures have dropped in the past decade.
As a result of these lower temperatures, less water vapor ended up in the stratosphere. That, in turn, helped lower the warming rate, the study concludes.
The overall picture is still far from complete. Water vapor's role may be important, but "it doesn't rule out other contributing factors," such as changes in ocean currents and solar activity, says Dr. Solomon.
Nor do current warming models fully account for all the complexities of water-vapor shifts in the stratosphere. And scientists have yet to pin down why cold point temperatures in the tropics fell in the past decade.
Words alone are not enough
David Wighton: Business Editor’s Commentary
Davos has an image problem. Outside the international economic elite, it is widely seen as a glitzy talking shop where corporate bosses can spend a few days posturing about improving the state of the world before going straight back to improving the state of their profits.
For many outside observers, the financial crisis was the last straw. Investment bank bosses had spent years talking about corporate social responsibility at Davos, only for their employees to act with such extraordinary social irresponsibility that they brought the financial world to its knees.
Some Davos insiders believe this illustrates the more general gulf between corporate rhetoric and corporate behaviour.
As Maurice Levy, head of the media giant Publicis, said yesterday, there often seems to be a big gap between what companies do and what they say about ethics and the environment in their annual reports. Enraged by the financial crisis, the public is now demanding change and Mr Levy warned that if companies did not respond, they would pay a heavy price. He was referring particularly to companies’ commitment to sustainability. But many of his fellow chief executives believe it extends to companies’ wider role in society.
To be fair, many companies are taking their responsibilities seriously and are challenging the Anglo-Saxon orthodoxy about the pursuit of shareholder value. Many chief executives would agree with Unilever’s Paul Polman about the need to resist pressure from short-term shareholders, even if they would not have the nerve to express it so forcefully.
Critics of Davos claim that most of the promises made here are never kept. Insiders admit there is some truth to this, which is why many of the Davos initiatives — such as the sustainability programme in which Unilever is involved — are now focused on turning words into actions.
That is essential not only for the future of Davos but for public confidence in business as a whole.
Davos has an image problem. Outside the international economic elite, it is widely seen as a glitzy talking shop where corporate bosses can spend a few days posturing about improving the state of the world before going straight back to improving the state of their profits.
For many outside observers, the financial crisis was the last straw. Investment bank bosses had spent years talking about corporate social responsibility at Davos, only for their employees to act with such extraordinary social irresponsibility that they brought the financial world to its knees.
Some Davos insiders believe this illustrates the more general gulf between corporate rhetoric and corporate behaviour.
As Maurice Levy, head of the media giant Publicis, said yesterday, there often seems to be a big gap between what companies do and what they say about ethics and the environment in their annual reports. Enraged by the financial crisis, the public is now demanding change and Mr Levy warned that if companies did not respond, they would pay a heavy price. He was referring particularly to companies’ commitment to sustainability. But many of his fellow chief executives believe it extends to companies’ wider role in society.
To be fair, many companies are taking their responsibilities seriously and are challenging the Anglo-Saxon orthodoxy about the pursuit of shareholder value. Many chief executives would agree with Unilever’s Paul Polman about the need to resist pressure from short-term shareholders, even if they would not have the nerve to express it so forcefully.
Critics of Davos claim that most of the promises made here are never kept. Insiders admit there is some truth to this, which is why many of the Davos initiatives — such as the sustainability programme in which Unilever is involved — are now focused on turning words into actions.
That is essential not only for the future of Davos but for public confidence in business as a whole.
Davos: Funding switch threatens aid to developing world, campaigner warns
Larry Elliott in Davos
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 15.58 GMT
Rich countries are raiding their aid budgets to bankroll a new global fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change, one of the world's leading development campaign groups warned today.
Jamie Drummond, executive director of the One group co-founded by the rock stars Bono and Bob Geldof, said the west was being "dishonest" about the $30bn (£18bn) of fast-track finance proposed in Copenhagen last month to persuade developing countries to agree a deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Drummond said the proposal to spend $10bn a year over the next three years involved no additional money, but was instead being diverted from existing budgets.
The impact, he said, would be to divert funds from health and education spending in Africa to infrastructure projects in Asia and Latin America.
"Development promises are under threat. There is double counting going on. The $30bn is not new money and nor is the $100bn promised for 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change."
Speaking in Davos, Drummond said One was lobbying world leaders to "come clean" about what they were doing. Similar concerns were expressed earlier this week by Bill Gates, who has used part of his personal fortune to fund health programmes in Africa.
Drummond admitted that it was hard for rich countries to stump up more money during a tough recession, but said the solution was to explore innovative ways of raising finance – including a transaction tax, a levy on aviation travel and selling part of the International Monetary Fund's gold reserve.
Poor countries, he added, would not be prepared to sign up to a climate change deal unless there was additional money for adaptation and mitigation.
Many countries, including Britain, have pledged to raise aid budgets to 0.7% of GDP, but Drummond said that "we may need to look at new goals and proposals like Sir Nicholas Stern's proposal for 1%, incorporating both development and climate finance".
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 15.58 GMT
Rich countries are raiding their aid budgets to bankroll a new global fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change, one of the world's leading development campaign groups warned today.
Jamie Drummond, executive director of the One group co-founded by the rock stars Bono and Bob Geldof, said the west was being "dishonest" about the $30bn (£18bn) of fast-track finance proposed in Copenhagen last month to persuade developing countries to agree a deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Drummond said the proposal to spend $10bn a year over the next three years involved no additional money, but was instead being diverted from existing budgets.
The impact, he said, would be to divert funds from health and education spending in Africa to infrastructure projects in Asia and Latin America.
"Development promises are under threat. There is double counting going on. The $30bn is not new money and nor is the $100bn promised for 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change."
Speaking in Davos, Drummond said One was lobbying world leaders to "come clean" about what they were doing. Similar concerns were expressed earlier this week by Bill Gates, who has used part of his personal fortune to fund health programmes in Africa.
Drummond admitted that it was hard for rich countries to stump up more money during a tough recession, but said the solution was to explore innovative ways of raising finance – including a transaction tax, a levy on aviation travel and selling part of the International Monetary Fund's gold reserve.
Poor countries, he added, would not be prepared to sign up to a climate change deal unless there was additional money for adaptation and mitigation.
Many countries, including Britain, have pledged to raise aid budgets to 0.7% of GDP, but Drummond said that "we may need to look at new goals and proposals like Sir Nicholas Stern's proposal for 1%, incorporating both development and climate finance".
Keeping climate change alive
In his state of the union address, Obama seemed willing to trade nuclear power and offshore drilling for climate bill votes
A guest blog by Suzanne Goldenberg, the Guardian's US environment correspondent
Greens probably didn't reckon the "change you can believe in" would mean building more nuclear power plants when Barack Obama was first elected. But that is what they are going to get – in return for getting a climate change bill through Congress.
Last night Obama delivered the signal Congress – and much of the world – had been watching for that the White House is ready to throw itself into the effort to get a climate change bill through the Senate.
But what kind of bill? One deliberately crafted to prise off at least a handful of Republican votes – which means expanding nuclear power, offshore drilling, and money for clean coal technology."That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies," Obama said in his state of the union address.
That is not a recipe to make the enviros happy. But Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham who are trying to craft a compromise bill are going to be relieved.
The two told reporters earlier today there was no hope of getting a bill through the Senate without getting a few Republicans on side and in their wake – hopefully – a few of those Democrats from coal, oil and old industrial states.
The appeal to conservaties is probably why Obama only once uttered the words "climate change", let alone "global warming". But there were enough references to "clean energy jobs" to remove any doubts that Obama still sees green investment as key to America's economic future.
The president also endorsed a "comprehensive energy and climate bill" – code in Washington for a broad set of proposals that would also include establishment of a cap and trade programme.
"And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
And he said he wanted a bill through the Senate in 2010 – timing that is seen as crucial both for the prospects of energy reform in America and for getting a global change deal.
"This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate," he said."
Before the speech, Hill rats had put the chances of getting a bill through the Senate at between 0 and 40%. Maybe it went up a tick tonight.
A guest blog by Suzanne Goldenberg, the Guardian's US environment correspondent
Greens probably didn't reckon the "change you can believe in" would mean building more nuclear power plants when Barack Obama was first elected. But that is what they are going to get – in return for getting a climate change bill through Congress.
Last night Obama delivered the signal Congress – and much of the world – had been watching for that the White House is ready to throw itself into the effort to get a climate change bill through the Senate.
But what kind of bill? One deliberately crafted to prise off at least a handful of Republican votes – which means expanding nuclear power, offshore drilling, and money for clean coal technology."That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies," Obama said in his state of the union address.
That is not a recipe to make the enviros happy. But Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham who are trying to craft a compromise bill are going to be relieved.
The two told reporters earlier today there was no hope of getting a bill through the Senate without getting a few Republicans on side and in their wake – hopefully – a few of those Democrats from coal, oil and old industrial states.
The appeal to conservaties is probably why Obama only once uttered the words "climate change", let alone "global warming". But there were enough references to "clean energy jobs" to remove any doubts that Obama still sees green investment as key to America's economic future.
The president also endorsed a "comprehensive energy and climate bill" – code in Washington for a broad set of proposals that would also include establishment of a cap and trade programme.
"And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
And he said he wanted a bill through the Senate in 2010 – timing that is seen as crucial both for the prospects of energy reform in America and for getting a global change deal.
"This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate," he said."
Before the speech, Hill rats had put the chances of getting a bill through the Senate at between 0 and 40%. Maybe it went up a tick tonight.
Barack Obama commits to climate change bill
President Obama pledges to help pass 'comprehensive' climate change law, but also backed nuclear power and drilling
Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 05.50 GMT
Barack Obama put himself firmly behind the effort to get a climate change bill through Congress last night – but said it must include a new generation of nuclear power.
The brief passage on energy and climate in Obama's state of the union address did deliver the signal Congress and much of the world had been seeking that the White House is ready to throw itself into the effort to pass legislation.
"This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate," he said.
But Obama made it clear that he supported a "bipartisan" effort which would incorporate energy policies that are popular among Republicans – and fiercely opposed by the liberal wing of his own party."That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies," Obama said.
The endorsement for nuclear power and especially offshore drilling will be difficult for some Democratic voters to swallow.
Most of the instant reaction to the speech from environmental groups was positive – though few commented directly on Obama's support for nuclear power or drilling.
However, the Centre for Biological Diversity was scathing. "A clean energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas," the centre's director, Kieran Suckling said in a statement."The president failed tonight, as he failed over the past twelve months, to use his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. "
Obama's endorsement of a nuclear renaissance – 30 years since the last new nuclear plant – was calculated to help the efforts of Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham craft a compromise bill that could get broad support in the Senate.
The house narrowly passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has bogged down in the Senate.
The two Senators told reporters earlier Wednesday that they were closely focused on pulling in Republican support, and damping down fears among Democratic senators from oil, coal and heavy manufacturing states that energy reform would hurt local economies.
Obama hewed closely to the same strategy, peppering his speech with references to new "clean energy" jobs and the "profitable kind of energy". He uttered the words "climate change" precisely once, referring to America assuming a leadership role in the negotiations to get a global deal to halt warming.
But the president did voice support for a "comprehensive" Senate bill – code in Washington for a broad set of proposals that would also include establishment of a cap and trade programme.The nod for a "comprehensive" bill could help head off attempts to get the Senate to scale back its ambitions, and pass a narrowly focused energy bill that would not attempt to establish a carbon market.
And he said he wanted a bill through the Senate in 2010 – timing that is seen as crucial both for the prospects of energy reform in America and for getting a global change deal.
Obama also took a shot at climate change deniers, which brought some mutterings from Republicans.
"I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change," he said. "But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future."
Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 05.50 GMT
Barack Obama put himself firmly behind the effort to get a climate change bill through Congress last night – but said it must include a new generation of nuclear power.
The brief passage on energy and climate in Obama's state of the union address did deliver the signal Congress and much of the world had been seeking that the White House is ready to throw itself into the effort to pass legislation.
"This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate," he said.
But Obama made it clear that he supported a "bipartisan" effort which would incorporate energy policies that are popular among Republicans – and fiercely opposed by the liberal wing of his own party."That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies," Obama said.
The endorsement for nuclear power and especially offshore drilling will be difficult for some Democratic voters to swallow.
Most of the instant reaction to the speech from environmental groups was positive – though few commented directly on Obama's support for nuclear power or drilling.
However, the Centre for Biological Diversity was scathing. "A clean energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas," the centre's director, Kieran Suckling said in a statement."The president failed tonight, as he failed over the past twelve months, to use his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. "
Obama's endorsement of a nuclear renaissance – 30 years since the last new nuclear plant – was calculated to help the efforts of Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham craft a compromise bill that could get broad support in the Senate.
The house narrowly passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has bogged down in the Senate.
The two Senators told reporters earlier Wednesday that they were closely focused on pulling in Republican support, and damping down fears among Democratic senators from oil, coal and heavy manufacturing states that energy reform would hurt local economies.
Obama hewed closely to the same strategy, peppering his speech with references to new "clean energy" jobs and the "profitable kind of energy". He uttered the words "climate change" precisely once, referring to America assuming a leadership role in the negotiations to get a global deal to halt warming.
But the president did voice support for a "comprehensive" Senate bill – code in Washington for a broad set of proposals that would also include establishment of a cap and trade programme.The nod for a "comprehensive" bill could help head off attempts to get the Senate to scale back its ambitions, and pass a narrowly focused energy bill that would not attempt to establish a carbon market.
And he said he wanted a bill through the Senate in 2010 – timing that is seen as crucial both for the prospects of energy reform in America and for getting a global change deal.
Obama also took a shot at climate change deniers, which brought some mutterings from Republicans.
"I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change," he said. "But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
