— The EditorsSanta Fe, New Mexico
Hmmm...it seems like you need some educating, here. And being the jackbooted, card-carrying henchman of the liberal media--and author of the white-knuckle-ride non-fiction biofuel thriller entitled Greasy Rider--that I am, I'm just the person to provide it. In fact, I'll go beyond simply defining "biofuels" and "biodiesel." I'm going to give you the Ultimate Glossary of Sustainable Energy for Huggers of Tall Perennial Woody Plants That Consist of a Main Trunk and Branches. I promise that it will be as unbiased as Webster's Dictionary. Almost.
Alternative energyA term cleverly hijacked by the nuclear and coal industries to lump themselves together with biofuels, solar, geothermal, and wind as "alternatives" to oil. The correct phrase to use when referring to green power is "renewable energy" (see entry below). Unfortunately, the PR flacks for coal and nuclear have been so successful in their efforts that "alternative energy" has become a part of the lexicon. Its use instantly sends Sierra Club types into seizures.
BiofuelsFuel (either liquid or solid) created from organic, renewable materials (usually plant matter). Common biofuels include ethanol (which I explain below as evil in most forms), biodiesel, cow farts, and even wood chips. The drawback to biofuels is when they're produced from food crops, like corn or soybeans because this creates a competition between energy producers and the starving masses for the same commodities. The result can be a rise in food prices, placing a heavy burden on the poor and people in Third World countries. That's why biofuels from sources like algae hold so much promise. I use biofuel in my veggie-powered car, but it's a recycled waste product--a.k.a. french-fry grease that comes from restaurant deep-fat fryers.
BiodieselDiesel fuel that's made from renewable organic sources such as algae, vegetable oils, or animal fats. It can be pumped straight into the fuel tank of a diesel vehicle. Most of the time, it's mixed with traditional dino-diesel. A sign at the gas pump for B2 fuel, for instance, indicates that the contents are two percent biodiesel and 98 percent fossil fuel. B20 is 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent traditional diesel. B99 is as close to the pure, uncut Grade A stuff as you can get.
Clean coalThe words "clean" and "coal" go about as well together as "benign" and "Death Star." No such technology exists, no matter how much politicians pandering to voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia like to talk about it. Around 47 percent of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal, and coal power accounts for about 42 percent of the world's carbon emissions (otherwise known as greenhouse-gas emissions). It's the most carbon-spewing fuel we've got. Making it "clean" largely involves capturing the carbon it emits and burying it underground or beneath the sea.
EthanolEthanol is simply pure alcohol, like what you can extract from beer, wine, or vodka. It's generally made from corn, which is very bad. Here's why: Corn is a highly water- and fertilizer-intensive crop that encourages erosion of the topsoil (even though it tastes so damn good on the cob). When corn-based ethanol is in demand, it shoots up the price of corn, and farmers plant fewer other crops, like soybeans and wheat, which also become costlier. On top of that, huge natural gas-fired plants are needed to distill ethanol from corn. The real promise of ethanol comes from potentially getting it from algae or plant waste like sawdust, grass, and corn stalks.
Do you have a question of your own?
Nuclear powerThere's been a big push to promote nuclear power as a clean source of energy (discounting the tens of thousands of tons of radioactive waste from nuclear plants that we're already sitting on in the U.S.) because it doesn't produce greenhouse gases. As distasteful as the prospect may seem to environmentalists, though, this form of energy may be a necessary ingredient in dramatically reducing emissions in the near term.
Renewable energySimply put, energy created from natural sources--like solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels. Unlike fossil fuels, you can never run out of renewable energy (at least not until eight billion years from now, when the sun expands into a red giant and swallows the earth like a guppy).
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Military leaders testify about energy efficiency
National security is at stake, state panel told
By Onell R. Soto, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:30 p.m.
Cutting Americans’ addiction to fossil fuel isn’t a tree-hugger issue but a national security one, a retired Navy vice admiral told state lawmakers yesterday.
The United States consumes a quarter of the world’s oil, and much of that comes from countries that aren’t friendly to us. Meanwhile, we have a military that increasingly marches on oil, to the point where long convoys must cross dangerous territory to deliver fuel for troops in vehicles that get 3 miles a gallon.
Two top military leaders told state senators that the armed forces are taking energy issues seriously — by working on ways to make their operations at home and abroad more efficient.
The testimony, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, was part of a hearing by a state Senate committee on climate change designed to gather more information on how energy use affects national security.
Getting more oil within the United States is not a solution, said retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, a consultant on energy security issues.
“We cannot drill our way to sustainable prosperity and security,” he said.
And because oil is a commodity, deciding to avoid buying it from countries that don’t like us doesn’t solve the problem, because other people will.
Whenever we gas up, he said, “part of that money inevitably is getting to states that fund terrorism.”
Oil extraction in developing countries causes instability between haves and have-nots, he said, showing a slide of an impoverished fishing village next to an oil terminal in Nigeria.
And global warming can lead to fights over scarce resources like arable land.
“The pressure of climate change, left unchecked, will create many more Darfurs,” he said.
For the Marine Corps, a big issue is making sure that fighting forces are supplied with the fuel and energy they need to move around and communicate, said Maj. Gen. Anthony M. Jackson, who commands Marine Corps Installations West, including Camp Pendleton.
“It is critical to those Marines and soldiers to accomplish the missions this country sends them on,” he said.
Modern warfare has increased energy use dramatically. Fighting vehicles have to be heavier to survive roadside bombs and as a result, use more fuel.
Troops are equipped with GPS, night-vision goggles, radios and other devices, all with batteries that must be charged.
“It is energy-intensive,” Jackson said.
Half of the tonnage in supply lines, he said, is fuel, and nearly a third is water. Getting fuel into a place like Afghanistan makes it cost about $15 a gallon, and that jumps dramatically, to $400, to get it to troops in forward operating bases.
To deal with that, the Marines are looking at using water purifiers and solar chargers, plus making their vehicles more efficient, he said.
The Navy, meanwhile, is also working on lowering its energy usage, said Rear Adm. William French, commander of Naval Region Southwest. He oversees installations in California and Nevada, where conservation efforts have reduced energy usage by 18 percent since 2003.
The Navy is working on using biofuels in new ships, he said, plus generating power from the sun and the wind on its bases.
The state’s climate change laws — designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions — are under attack from politicians who say they should be put on hold until the economy recovers.
The Democratic senators who put together yesterday’s hearing, Christine Kehoe of San Diego and Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills, disagree.
“We have no time to waste,” Kehoe said.
Onell Soto: (619) 293-1280; onell.soto@uniontrib.com
By Onell R. Soto, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:30 p.m.
Cutting Americans’ addiction to fossil fuel isn’t a tree-hugger issue but a national security one, a retired Navy vice admiral told state lawmakers yesterday.
The United States consumes a quarter of the world’s oil, and much of that comes from countries that aren’t friendly to us. Meanwhile, we have a military that increasingly marches on oil, to the point where long convoys must cross dangerous territory to deliver fuel for troops in vehicles that get 3 miles a gallon.
Two top military leaders told state senators that the armed forces are taking energy issues seriously — by working on ways to make their operations at home and abroad more efficient.
The testimony, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, was part of a hearing by a state Senate committee on climate change designed to gather more information on how energy use affects national security.
Getting more oil within the United States is not a solution, said retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, a consultant on energy security issues.
“We cannot drill our way to sustainable prosperity and security,” he said.
And because oil is a commodity, deciding to avoid buying it from countries that don’t like us doesn’t solve the problem, because other people will.
Whenever we gas up, he said, “part of that money inevitably is getting to states that fund terrorism.”
Oil extraction in developing countries causes instability between haves and have-nots, he said, showing a slide of an impoverished fishing village next to an oil terminal in Nigeria.
And global warming can lead to fights over scarce resources like arable land.
“The pressure of climate change, left unchecked, will create many more Darfurs,” he said.
For the Marine Corps, a big issue is making sure that fighting forces are supplied with the fuel and energy they need to move around and communicate, said Maj. Gen. Anthony M. Jackson, who commands Marine Corps Installations West, including Camp Pendleton.
“It is critical to those Marines and soldiers to accomplish the missions this country sends them on,” he said.
Modern warfare has increased energy use dramatically. Fighting vehicles have to be heavier to survive roadside bombs and as a result, use more fuel.
Troops are equipped with GPS, night-vision goggles, radios and other devices, all with batteries that must be charged.
“It is energy-intensive,” Jackson said.
Half of the tonnage in supply lines, he said, is fuel, and nearly a third is water. Getting fuel into a place like Afghanistan makes it cost about $15 a gallon, and that jumps dramatically, to $400, to get it to troops in forward operating bases.
To deal with that, the Marines are looking at using water purifiers and solar chargers, plus making their vehicles more efficient, he said.
The Navy, meanwhile, is also working on lowering its energy usage, said Rear Adm. William French, commander of Naval Region Southwest. He oversees installations in California and Nevada, where conservation efforts have reduced energy usage by 18 percent since 2003.
The Navy is working on using biofuels in new ships, he said, plus generating power from the sun and the wind on its bases.
The state’s climate change laws — designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions — are under attack from politicians who say they should be put on hold until the economy recovers.
The Democratic senators who put together yesterday’s hearing, Christine Kehoe of San Diego and Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills, disagree.
“We have no time to waste,” Kehoe said.
Onell Soto: (619) 293-1280; onell.soto@uniontrib.com
Wind turbine training tower opens
Published Date: 19 March 2010
The UK's first wind turbine training tower has been opened in Northumberland.
Built at the New and Renewable Energy Centre (Narec) in Blyth, the 27 metre high facility is designed to allow education and training for technicians working in the wind industry and at height, both onshore and offshore.It is hoped the facility, which was the result of a training partnership, backed by regional development agency One North East, between Northumberland College, Mainstream Renewable Power and Narec, will lead to an increase in the number of technicians suitably qualified to install, operate and maintain new and existing farms.One North East director of business and industry Ian Williams said: "Firms across North East England have already won over £150m of offshore wind contracts with the biggest opportunities from the Round 3 development still to come. "The creation of the wind turbine training tower and the developing training partnership will ensure the North East has skills to capitalise on the £100bn investment that will be made over the next decade."One North East established Narec to build on the region's existing strengths in energy and engineering and our funding for the new tower, Narec's 100m blade testing facility and drive train test rig, together with investment by firms like Clipper Windpower and JDR Cables have helped make North East England a leader in the development of offshore wind."Rachel Ellis-Jones, chief executive of Northumberland College said: "The Training Tower will help to ensure that the students on the wind technician training programme at Northumberland College are trained to British and European industrial standards. "The specification of the tower and the equipment within it will also allow us to develop new training modules which will enable us to meet the skills needs of the wind energy industry."
The UK's first wind turbine training tower has been opened in Northumberland.
Built at the New and Renewable Energy Centre (Narec) in Blyth, the 27 metre high facility is designed to allow education and training for technicians working in the wind industry and at height, both onshore and offshore.It is hoped the facility, which was the result of a training partnership, backed by regional development agency One North East, between Northumberland College, Mainstream Renewable Power and Narec, will lead to an increase in the number of technicians suitably qualified to install, operate and maintain new and existing farms.One North East director of business and industry Ian Williams said: "Firms across North East England have already won over £150m of offshore wind contracts with the biggest opportunities from the Round 3 development still to come. "The creation of the wind turbine training tower and the developing training partnership will ensure the North East has skills to capitalise on the £100bn investment that will be made over the next decade."One North East established Narec to build on the region's existing strengths in energy and engineering and our funding for the new tower, Narec's 100m blade testing facility and drive train test rig, together with investment by firms like Clipper Windpower and JDR Cables have helped make North East England a leader in the development of offshore wind."Rachel Ellis-Jones, chief executive of Northumberland College said: "The Training Tower will help to ensure that the students on the wind technician training programme at Northumberland College are trained to British and European industrial standards. "The specification of the tower and the equipment within it will also allow us to develop new training modules which will enable us to meet the skills needs of the wind energy industry."
Damage to peat bogs driving climate change
Some of the most beautiful areas of England are releasing millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year because of damage to peat bogs, environment watchdogs have warned.
By Louise GrayPublished: 7:00AM GMT 18 Mar 2010
Peatlands in beauty spots like Exmoor and the Peak District store carbon dioxide in ancient deposits of rotted vegetation.
However a report by Natural England found farming practices such as ploughing the earth and burning heather means three quarters of the deep peat area in England is now damaged.
This is causing three million tonnes of carbon dioxide stored in the soil to be released every year, the equivalent to the average emissions of 350,000 households.
Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said preserving peatlands could help the UK meet its target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
She is calling for peatlands to be preserved by allowing the land to flood, blocking gullies to retain water in bogs and creating nature reserves.
"England's peatlands are a crucial buffer against climate change but have been extensively damaged by centuries of inappropriate management. We have to stop the rot and ensure that peatlands are properly looked after as one of our most precious environment resources," she said.
It is estimated that globally, peat stores twice as much carton as forest, and the UK contains about 15 per cent of the world's peatlands.
By Louise GrayPublished: 7:00AM GMT 18 Mar 2010
Peatlands in beauty spots like Exmoor and the Peak District store carbon dioxide in ancient deposits of rotted vegetation.
However a report by Natural England found farming practices such as ploughing the earth and burning heather means three quarters of the deep peat area in England is now damaged.
This is causing three million tonnes of carbon dioxide stored in the soil to be released every year, the equivalent to the average emissions of 350,000 households.
Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said preserving peatlands could help the UK meet its target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
She is calling for peatlands to be preserved by allowing the land to flood, blocking gullies to retain water in bogs and creating nature reserves.
"England's peatlands are a crucial buffer against climate change but have been extensively damaged by centuries of inappropriate management. We have to stop the rot and ensure that peatlands are properly looked after as one of our most precious environment resources," she said.
It is estimated that globally, peat stores twice as much carton as forest, and the UK contains about 15 per cent of the world's peatlands.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Renewables investment to breach $200bn in 2010?
London, 18 March: New investment in clean energy is set to recover to at least $175 billion-200 billion this year, according to projections from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
But while the analysis firm is forecasting that current policies will drive $200 billion of investments in physical clean energy generating assets by 2030 (not including initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions, etc), this is far below the $500 billion/year it says will be needed by that date to avoid dangerous climate change.
Yesterday, BNEF published revised historical figures to reflect revisions to its methodology. It found that $162 billion was invested in 2009 across the financing spectrum, from corporate R&D and venture capital through to asset financing. This figure was down 6.4% from the revised 2008 figure of $173 billion.
Speaking to reporters before the start of a BNEF conference in London yesterday, CEO Michael Liebreich said that investment this year “could be as high as 2008 … given that [government] stimulus money is now coming through at the project level”.
While he gave a range of $175 billion-200 billion, he added that “if our past record is anything to go by, I’m more likely to be surprised on the upside.”
However, a long-term projection from a new economic model built by BNEF forecasts that investments in renewable energy generating assets will only reach $150 billion by 2020 and $200 billion by 2030, based on existing policies and measures, up from $90 billion in 2009. This would mean that renewables account for 22% of the world’s installed power generation base by 2020, up from 13% today, and 31% by 2030.
“These figures must increase significantly in order to avert the worst effects of climate change and achieve an average of 2 t CO2 [tonnes of carbon dioxide] per head by 2050,” the company says – namely to $230 billion by 2020 and $500 billion by 2030.
Guy Turner, director of carbon markets at BNEF, said that a global carbon price of $65/tCO2 by 2013, rising to $100/t by 2030, would be sufficient to drive this increased level of investment. “We would get there – we’ve got the technology, all we need is the willpower,” he said.
However, current carbon prices in Europe are at around $15/t, and the US and China – the world’s two largest emitters – appear extremely reluctant to begin putting a price on carbon. Nonetheless, Turner insisted that the price on carbon is “affordable – $100/t won’t destroy our way of life”.
Liebreich said he was unfazed by the failure of the Copenhagen conference to make much progress on securing a post-2012 international climate change deal. “The focus on Copenhagen and Mexico [where UN climate talks will continue, in December], is a distraction, compared with what’s actually happening on the ground,” with national and regional legislation and policies to support low-carbon investment.
“We’ll be negotiating on climate for the next 50 years,” he said, noting that “whole other areas of global policy-making”, around tariffs and trade, and national and international product standards, are likely to become more important in promoting low-carbon technologies and emission reductions.
But while the analysis firm is forecasting that current policies will drive $200 billion of investments in physical clean energy generating assets by 2030 (not including initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions, etc), this is far below the $500 billion/year it says will be needed by that date to avoid dangerous climate change.
Yesterday, BNEF published revised historical figures to reflect revisions to its methodology. It found that $162 billion was invested in 2009 across the financing spectrum, from corporate R&D and venture capital through to asset financing. This figure was down 6.4% from the revised 2008 figure of $173 billion.
Speaking to reporters before the start of a BNEF conference in London yesterday, CEO Michael Liebreich said that investment this year “could be as high as 2008 … given that [government] stimulus money is now coming through at the project level”.
While he gave a range of $175 billion-200 billion, he added that “if our past record is anything to go by, I’m more likely to be surprised on the upside.”
However, a long-term projection from a new economic model built by BNEF forecasts that investments in renewable energy generating assets will only reach $150 billion by 2020 and $200 billion by 2030, based on existing policies and measures, up from $90 billion in 2009. This would mean that renewables account for 22% of the world’s installed power generation base by 2020, up from 13% today, and 31% by 2030.
“These figures must increase significantly in order to avert the worst effects of climate change and achieve an average of 2 t CO2 [tonnes of carbon dioxide] per head by 2050,” the company says – namely to $230 billion by 2020 and $500 billion by 2030.
Guy Turner, director of carbon markets at BNEF, said that a global carbon price of $65/tCO2 by 2013, rising to $100/t by 2030, would be sufficient to drive this increased level of investment. “We would get there – we’ve got the technology, all we need is the willpower,” he said.
However, current carbon prices in Europe are at around $15/t, and the US and China – the world’s two largest emitters – appear extremely reluctant to begin putting a price on carbon. Nonetheless, Turner insisted that the price on carbon is “affordable – $100/t won’t destroy our way of life”.
Liebreich said he was unfazed by the failure of the Copenhagen conference to make much progress on securing a post-2012 international climate change deal. “The focus on Copenhagen and Mexico [where UN climate talks will continue, in December], is a distraction, compared with what’s actually happening on the ground,” with national and regional legislation and policies to support low-carbon investment.
“We’ll be negotiating on climate for the next 50 years,” he said, noting that “whole other areas of global policy-making”, around tariffs and trade, and national and international product standards, are likely to become more important in promoting low-carbon technologies and emission reductions.
Carbon traders voice fears over recycled carbon credits
Resale of surrendered Certified Emission Reduction credits by Hungarian government prompts warning that "double counting" could damage the integrity of the EU emissions trading scheme. From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 09.46 GMT
The integrity of the EU's emissions trading scheme could be badly undermined unless governments resist the temptation to sell on "recycled" certified emission reduction (CERs) credits that have already been surrendered by businesses.
That is the stark warning from the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), after the Hungarian government last week agreed to sell on two million "recycled" CERs to an undisclosed intermediary.
Government officials confirmed the CERs had been provided by Hungarian companies that had surrendered the UN-approved carbon offset credits to help them comply with the emission caps imposed on them through the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The government subsequently swapped the CERs with Assigned Amount Units, cheaper carbon credits traded between governments and used to demonstrate their compliance with Kyoto targets. It then signed a deal to sell the CERs on to an undisclosed trading firm, which is expected to sell them on to businesses in Japan.
IETA president Henry Derwent said the arrangement set a potentially dangerous precedent. "If Member States 'recycle' credits, they will place companies and other organisations at risk of purchasing CERs… on the international carbon market that have been already submitted to compliance authorities," he said. " This apparent double-counting could damage the reputation of the EU-ETS."
The practice means that firms outside the EU could use the CERs to demonstrate that they have offset their carbon emissions, despite the fact that Hungarian companies have already used them once to demonstrate that they have funded emission reductions.
Moreover, the CERs could even be sold back into the EU where firms purchasing them would discover that they cannot be submitted to EU authorities for a second time to help count towards their emission reduction targets.
Derwent said that if the EU is to retain confidence in the CER market it is essential for any government considering recycling surrendered credits to attach a "due diligence" letter that explains their status to the buyer and which contractually obliges the buyer to pass the letter on in the case of further resales.
He added that the EU was working on legislative measures designed to close the loophole that allows double counting.
But Stig Scholset, senior analyst at research firm Point Carbon, told BusinessGreen.com that it could take years for the loophole to be completely closed. "New legislation that is expected to come into effect in August will make it impossible for any surrendered CER to be held by a European account," he said. "But there is nothing to stop surrendered CERs being traded outside the EU, and if the EU does want to close the loophole completely it will have to start over with the development of new rules."
He added that only a relatively small number of surrendered CERs were likely to be traded, with just a handful of eastern European government expressing interest in the practice. But he agreed that if CER recycling continues unchecked it could undermine confidence in the integrity of emission trading and curb demand for new CERs from emission reduction project developers.
James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 09.46 GMT
The integrity of the EU's emissions trading scheme could be badly undermined unless governments resist the temptation to sell on "recycled" certified emission reduction (CERs) credits that have already been surrendered by businesses.
That is the stark warning from the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), after the Hungarian government last week agreed to sell on two million "recycled" CERs to an undisclosed intermediary.
Government officials confirmed the CERs had been provided by Hungarian companies that had surrendered the UN-approved carbon offset credits to help them comply with the emission caps imposed on them through the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The government subsequently swapped the CERs with Assigned Amount Units, cheaper carbon credits traded between governments and used to demonstrate their compliance with Kyoto targets. It then signed a deal to sell the CERs on to an undisclosed trading firm, which is expected to sell them on to businesses in Japan.
IETA president Henry Derwent said the arrangement set a potentially dangerous precedent. "If Member States 'recycle' credits, they will place companies and other organisations at risk of purchasing CERs… on the international carbon market that have been already submitted to compliance authorities," he said. " This apparent double-counting could damage the reputation of the EU-ETS."
The practice means that firms outside the EU could use the CERs to demonstrate that they have offset their carbon emissions, despite the fact that Hungarian companies have already used them once to demonstrate that they have funded emission reductions.
Moreover, the CERs could even be sold back into the EU where firms purchasing them would discover that they cannot be submitted to EU authorities for a second time to help count towards their emission reduction targets.
Derwent said that if the EU is to retain confidence in the CER market it is essential for any government considering recycling surrendered credits to attach a "due diligence" letter that explains their status to the buyer and which contractually obliges the buyer to pass the letter on in the case of further resales.
He added that the EU was working on legislative measures designed to close the loophole that allows double counting.
But Stig Scholset, senior analyst at research firm Point Carbon, told BusinessGreen.com that it could take years for the loophole to be completely closed. "New legislation that is expected to come into effect in August will make it impossible for any surrendered CER to be held by a European account," he said. "But there is nothing to stop surrendered CERs being traded outside the EU, and if the EU does want to close the loophole completely it will have to start over with the development of new rules."
He added that only a relatively small number of surrendered CERs were likely to be traded, with just a handful of eastern European government expressing interest in the practice. But he agreed that if CER recycling continues unchecked it could undermine confidence in the integrity of emission trading and curb demand for new CERs from emission reduction project developers.
Airbus gets a crafty upgrade by flying the flag for biodiversity
A380 airliner to feature official logo for UN, despite aviation being a major source of emissions that threaten biodiversity
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 14.51 GMT
Who do you think might just have been granted the right to display the official logo of the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity? A conservation body, perhaps. Or a new brand of organic food?
Well, no. It's an aircraft manufacturer, actually. The world's largest aircraft manufacturer: Airbus Industries. The European company that is doing more than anyone else, Boeing included, to increase the number of flights we take, and thus the airline industry's contribution to climate change.
During 2010, the logo will appear on the side of Airbus's latest airliner, the A380, on scheduled services with the world's airlines. The largest passenger aircraft is specially designed for those long-haul flights across oceans and from Europe to the far east, where a single flight can more than double your annual CO2 emissions.
Airbus has won this green accolade by dint of hard cash. Airbus is helping fund a cherished project of the secretariat of the UN Convention on Biodiversity to educate young people across the world about the virtues of biodiversity, called the Green Wave Initiative. Airbus did not respond to questions from the Guardian about how much money is involved in the partnership, but the UN Environment Programme has described it as a "huge gesture of support".
The Green Wave is a neat idea. To mark the International Day of Biodiversity on 22 May, young people will be asked to plant a tree at 10am local time wherever they are in the world. Thus they will create a "green wave" that will spread from east to west round the planet.
But it is an even neater idea for Airbus, the current trailblazer for an industry whose year-on-year carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than any other. At a time when climate change is widely recognised by ecologists as a leading cause of species loss around the world, Airbus's adoption of a green mantle courtesy of a major UN conservation organisation might seem, well, ironic.
Airbus has increased its cuddlability quotient by partnering with National Geographic on the green wave project. National Geographic is an organisation with a sky-high green image. The duo got a special thank you from UN secretary-general Ban ki-Moon when they announceed the partnership last June.
Airbus has an answer to those who accuse it of greenwash. The company says that it is "pioneering greener flight". And it is undoubtedly true that the Airbus A380 superjumbo has got its emissions down, thanks to lighter materials and smarter flying technology.
Airbus says it will reduce emissions to less than 75 grams of CO2 for every passenger kilometre. But that will not apply if its wide open spaces are filled with extra business and first-class seats as many purchasing airlines promise. Look out for Singapore Airline's super-first class on the A380, with private suites, double beds and wardrobes and wide-screen TVs.
But even if Airbus achieves those low figures per passenger-kilometre in real operation, the big problem is that passenger-kilometres are going up far faster than aircraft efficiency is improving.
Emissions from the airline industry continue to rise by about 3% a year, taking up an ever greater share of total global man-made emissions. So a little humility might be in order from the world's most prolific manufacturer of new planes. But, no.
Announcing the adoption of the logo this month, Airbus's senior vice-president for public affairs and communications, Rainer Ohler baldly claimed that the aviation industry had "already reduced aircraft emissions by 70% in the last 40 years."
You don't need to be a statistician to spot the trick here. Not so much "hide the decline" as "hide the increase". Ohler meant airlines had cut emissions per passenger-kilometre by 70% since the days before jumbo jets. But, to be clear, aircraft emissions are soaring. In Britain, for instance, they have risen since 1970 by between four- and five-fold.
They will continue to soar, while the likes of Airbus continues to fill the skies with chunks of flying metal the size of a football pitch. And whatever logo they put on the side of their planes, species will continue to go extinct as a result.
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 14.51 GMT
Who do you think might just have been granted the right to display the official logo of the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity? A conservation body, perhaps. Or a new brand of organic food?
Well, no. It's an aircraft manufacturer, actually. The world's largest aircraft manufacturer: Airbus Industries. The European company that is doing more than anyone else, Boeing included, to increase the number of flights we take, and thus the airline industry's contribution to climate change.
During 2010, the logo will appear on the side of Airbus's latest airliner, the A380, on scheduled services with the world's airlines. The largest passenger aircraft is specially designed for those long-haul flights across oceans and from Europe to the far east, where a single flight can more than double your annual CO2 emissions.
Airbus has won this green accolade by dint of hard cash. Airbus is helping fund a cherished project of the secretariat of the UN Convention on Biodiversity to educate young people across the world about the virtues of biodiversity, called the Green Wave Initiative. Airbus did not respond to questions from the Guardian about how much money is involved in the partnership, but the UN Environment Programme has described it as a "huge gesture of support".
The Green Wave is a neat idea. To mark the International Day of Biodiversity on 22 May, young people will be asked to plant a tree at 10am local time wherever they are in the world. Thus they will create a "green wave" that will spread from east to west round the planet.
But it is an even neater idea for Airbus, the current trailblazer for an industry whose year-on-year carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than any other. At a time when climate change is widely recognised by ecologists as a leading cause of species loss around the world, Airbus's adoption of a green mantle courtesy of a major UN conservation organisation might seem, well, ironic.
Airbus has increased its cuddlability quotient by partnering with National Geographic on the green wave project. National Geographic is an organisation with a sky-high green image. The duo got a special thank you from UN secretary-general Ban ki-Moon when they announceed the partnership last June.
Airbus has an answer to those who accuse it of greenwash. The company says that it is "pioneering greener flight". And it is undoubtedly true that the Airbus A380 superjumbo has got its emissions down, thanks to lighter materials and smarter flying technology.
Airbus says it will reduce emissions to less than 75 grams of CO2 for every passenger kilometre. But that will not apply if its wide open spaces are filled with extra business and first-class seats as many purchasing airlines promise. Look out for Singapore Airline's super-first class on the A380, with private suites, double beds and wardrobes and wide-screen TVs.
But even if Airbus achieves those low figures per passenger-kilometre in real operation, the big problem is that passenger-kilometres are going up far faster than aircraft efficiency is improving.
Emissions from the airline industry continue to rise by about 3% a year, taking up an ever greater share of total global man-made emissions. So a little humility might be in order from the world's most prolific manufacturer of new planes. But, no.
Announcing the adoption of the logo this month, Airbus's senior vice-president for public affairs and communications, Rainer Ohler baldly claimed that the aviation industry had "already reduced aircraft emissions by 70% in the last 40 years."
You don't need to be a statistician to spot the trick here. Not so much "hide the decline" as "hide the increase". Ohler meant airlines had cut emissions per passenger-kilometre by 70% since the days before jumbo jets. But, to be clear, aircraft emissions are soaring. In Britain, for instance, they have risen since 1970 by between four- and five-fold.
They will continue to soar, while the likes of Airbus continues to fill the skies with chunks of flying metal the size of a football pitch. And whatever logo they put on the side of their planes, species will continue to go extinct as a result.
Bolivia creates a new opportunity for climate talks that failed at Copenhagen
Bolivia will host an international meeting on climate change next month because it is not prepared to 'betray its people'
Pablo Solón Romero
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 March 2010 07.00 GMT
In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a "step in the right direction". This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change can not be addressed by half measures. We can't make compromises with nature.
Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhagen marked a backwards step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, against strong pressure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to "betray our people for 30 pieces of silver".
Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.
In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen (pdf), the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2% and 17.8% in emissions reductions by 2020 – far below the required 40%-plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.
The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called "banking of surplus emission budgets" and "accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry". The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.
This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they want without a binding commitment.
This dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.
The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions. Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius – a level that many scientists consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.
For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussions about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducing carbon emissions.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritised the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.
To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore hosting a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.
We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don't expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn't happen in Copenhagen.
• Pablo Solón is Ambassador to the UN for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. He is a sociologist and economist, was active in Bolivia's social movements before entering government, and is an expert on issues of trade, integration, natural resources and water.
Pablo Solón Romero
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 March 2010 07.00 GMT
In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a "step in the right direction". This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change can not be addressed by half measures. We can't make compromises with nature.
Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhagen marked a backwards step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, against strong pressure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to "betray our people for 30 pieces of silver".
Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.
In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen (pdf), the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2% and 17.8% in emissions reductions by 2020 – far below the required 40%-plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.
The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called "banking of surplus emission budgets" and "accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry". The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.
This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they want without a binding commitment.
This dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.
The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions. Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius – a level that many scientists consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.
For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussions about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducing carbon emissions.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritised the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.
To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore hosting a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.
We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don't expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn't happen in Copenhagen.
• Pablo Solón is Ambassador to the UN for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. He is a sociologist and economist, was active in Bolivia's social movements before entering government, and is an expert on issues of trade, integration, natural resources and water.
Feed-in tariffs are not suppressing innovation in Germany or the UK
George Monbiot is still trying wage class war on a false premise
Jeremy Leggett
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 10.40 GMT
The Energy Roof at the Vauxhall Cross bus interchange in London uses Solarcentury technology
George Monbiot's third article on government grants for domestic solar panels ignores the errors that I and others have protested about in the opening assertion in his first article. He alleged that the UK government's feed-in tariff regime is "about to transfer £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes". In saying that, he managed to get three things wrong. The actual sum raised from the tariff levy from all electricity consumers, not just households, to 2030 will be £6.7bn; it will be spread over 20 years; and it will be more than offset – if the government is true to its word – by energy efficiency savings stimulated in parallel market-building schemes.
Yet we see no retraction in George's latest, much less an apology for trying to turn feed-in tariffs into a new form of class war on a false premise.
That was just where the problems began in the first article. In his third, he rewords many of his original mistaken views. I address those one by one on my website.
The main new item in George's latest involves using a report from what he calls the "Ruhr University" to back his assault on the German feed-in tariff programme. He did not tell his readers – maybe he didn't know – that this study's "editorial office" is RWI, an organisation well known for being a thinktank helpful to the big German energy companies. There is an irony in a campaigner such as George deploying arguments against other campaigners using such a source. Elsewhere in his article George declares that "I detest the big energy companies that give us our electricity".
Here is what the German ministry for environment, nature conservation and nuclear safety has to say about RWI's arguments against the feed-in tariffs (or the EEG, as they are known in Germany): "Whereas the International Energy Agency and the European Commission comment that the EEG is an effective and efficient tool, and dozens of countries in the EU and beyond are following the German example, RWI remains stuck in its old way of thinking."
One of George's restated arguments, echoing RWI, is that
"we have to ensure that we get the biggest available bang for our buck: in other words the greatest cut in greenhouse gas production from the money we spend."
Let me reword my original retort, which he chooses to ignore. We need to think about how the photovoltaic (PV) bang for buck changes over time as economies of scale reduce costs, and we need to think about spawning a mix of survival technologies, not just one or two that happen to be the cheapest in March 2010.
Then there is the question of the relative investments in the feed-in regime and other carbon-cutting options, compared to the prize available. If government and business do nothing together to make the UK solar and other tariffs cost-neutral as promised – an unlikely assumption - the tariffs for all technologies will add a few hundred million pounds a year to the nation's electricity bills. Other forms of energy market support will add billions per year to taxpayers bills, with little or no chance of being rendered cost-neutral. Nuclear waste alone will add more than £3bn a year.
I asked Dr Rob Gross, a director of the UK Energy Research Centre and co-author of an immense study for the UK government on the cost-effectiveness of low-carbon technologies, to comment on George's latest. He said: "It is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about technologies and innovation that PV is one of the most promising in terms of long run cost reductions … The impact of feed-in tariffs on consumers will be very small compared to the cost of big investments in CCS, grid, nuclear and offshore."
George argues that the German feed-in tariffs have done little to stimulate innovation in the German solar industry.
"In fact, the (Ruhr) paper shows the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market."
If George had ever visited a German solar factory, he would have seen plenty of innovation under way. When he speaks of "clunky old cells" he offers a telling insight into how little he understands of what is going on in the PV industry.
I asked Professor Eicke Weber, director of the Fraunhofer Institute, Germany's premier solar research institute, to comment on George's argument that research and development was preferable to feed-in tariffs. Weber responded that it is vital to understand that "the decreasing prices of PV are driven down not merely by R&D but rather by the increasing market. The learning curve is cost versus total installed volume and shows … that with each doubling of the globally installed volume, the price comes down by about 20%. This is of course driven by progress in R&D, but this is driven very strongly by market forces".
If we waited until R&D had produced PV capable of generating electricity at today's prices, says Weber, "it would never happen".
There has been innovation in the German PV industry, and there will be yet more, leading to further incremental improvements in efficiency, design and delivery. But that is always the case in a business revolution. If one had waited for improvements to end in the digital revolution one would still be waiting. So it will be in the solar revolution.
George sees little scope for German export of PV, and
"the UK's prospects of building the major export industry Jeremy dreams of are even slighter, as it will now have to take on Germany as well as China and Japan. We've missed the boat by years".The amount of solar PV installed around the world in 2009, despite the fast growth of the PV industry, was a mere 7 gigawatts last year: the equivalent of around seven typical coal-fired power plants. To say that the UK could not catch up with other nations if we had the will to develop a domestic industry, in a global market still this small, is plainly wrong.
Today, in a UK PV market a fraction of 1% the size of the German one, we already have a PV export industry of sorts. Crystallox manufactures ingots and wafers – the raw materials for cells - and exports worldwide. Sharp and Romag manufacture modules for export beyond the currently small domestic market. My company, Solarcentury, manufactures PV tiles and slates for the domestic market and export into Europe. George has ignored all Solarcentury's invitations to visit and see all this. If he had, he would appreciate that there is plenty of scope for British companies to expand into this industry.
The most eminent venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, Vinod Khosla, recently said the place will have to be named "Solar Valley" within 10 years. This is because the practitioners of the digital revolution are switching en masse into the embryonic solar revolution in the factories that are springing up around Sunnyvale. Given our national design and technology skills, what's to stop a big slug of that revolution being sited in the UK?
George makes much of the fact that Asian manufacturers are now exporting cheap PV into Germany. True, the Germans are under great pricing pressure now from the industries they have themselves helped create, with their attractive domestic feed-in tariff, in Asia. But that is globalisation at work. Whether this is a good idea, in a world approaching peak oil, is a whole other debate, and one wherein George and I might find a lot to agree on. But peak oil and the downsides of globalisation actually provide another compelling reason for trying as hard as we can to develop a variety of fully-integrated domestic renewables industries in the UK. And for that we will need feed-in tariffs, for a while.
Finally, let me comment on George's premise that anyone who has entered the world of business cannot be trusted, or should have their views discounted compared to "independents" such as himself. "I have no horses in this race," George announces, "I have no products to sell."
If we believe in the horrors that await a world making little or no effort to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, we all have to back horses. I have gone so far as to set up a company and a charity to back one of my (numerous) favoured horses. As George put it in his book Heat,
"while I (Monbiot) sit on my backside telling people what to do, he (Leggett) spends his time doing it."That was then. Now George seeks to wear the fact that he has "no products to sell" as a badge of superior credibility. Referee!
Jeremy Leggett
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010 10.40 GMT
The Energy Roof at the Vauxhall Cross bus interchange in London uses Solarcentury technology
George Monbiot's third article on government grants for domestic solar panels ignores the errors that I and others have protested about in the opening assertion in his first article. He alleged that the UK government's feed-in tariff regime is "about to transfer £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes". In saying that, he managed to get three things wrong. The actual sum raised from the tariff levy from all electricity consumers, not just households, to 2030 will be £6.7bn; it will be spread over 20 years; and it will be more than offset – if the government is true to its word – by energy efficiency savings stimulated in parallel market-building schemes.
Yet we see no retraction in George's latest, much less an apology for trying to turn feed-in tariffs into a new form of class war on a false premise.
That was just where the problems began in the first article. In his third, he rewords many of his original mistaken views. I address those one by one on my website.
The main new item in George's latest involves using a report from what he calls the "Ruhr University" to back his assault on the German feed-in tariff programme. He did not tell his readers – maybe he didn't know – that this study's "editorial office" is RWI, an organisation well known for being a thinktank helpful to the big German energy companies. There is an irony in a campaigner such as George deploying arguments against other campaigners using such a source. Elsewhere in his article George declares that "I detest the big energy companies that give us our electricity".
Here is what the German ministry for environment, nature conservation and nuclear safety has to say about RWI's arguments against the feed-in tariffs (or the EEG, as they are known in Germany): "Whereas the International Energy Agency and the European Commission comment that the EEG is an effective and efficient tool, and dozens of countries in the EU and beyond are following the German example, RWI remains stuck in its old way of thinking."
One of George's restated arguments, echoing RWI, is that
"we have to ensure that we get the biggest available bang for our buck: in other words the greatest cut in greenhouse gas production from the money we spend."
Let me reword my original retort, which he chooses to ignore. We need to think about how the photovoltaic (PV) bang for buck changes over time as economies of scale reduce costs, and we need to think about spawning a mix of survival technologies, not just one or two that happen to be the cheapest in March 2010.
Then there is the question of the relative investments in the feed-in regime and other carbon-cutting options, compared to the prize available. If government and business do nothing together to make the UK solar and other tariffs cost-neutral as promised – an unlikely assumption - the tariffs for all technologies will add a few hundred million pounds a year to the nation's electricity bills. Other forms of energy market support will add billions per year to taxpayers bills, with little or no chance of being rendered cost-neutral. Nuclear waste alone will add more than £3bn a year.
I asked Dr Rob Gross, a director of the UK Energy Research Centre and co-author of an immense study for the UK government on the cost-effectiveness of low-carbon technologies, to comment on George's latest. He said: "It is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about technologies and innovation that PV is one of the most promising in terms of long run cost reductions … The impact of feed-in tariffs on consumers will be very small compared to the cost of big investments in CCS, grid, nuclear and offshore."
George argues that the German feed-in tariffs have done little to stimulate innovation in the German solar industry.
"In fact, the (Ruhr) paper shows the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market."
If George had ever visited a German solar factory, he would have seen plenty of innovation under way. When he speaks of "clunky old cells" he offers a telling insight into how little he understands of what is going on in the PV industry.
I asked Professor Eicke Weber, director of the Fraunhofer Institute, Germany's premier solar research institute, to comment on George's argument that research and development was preferable to feed-in tariffs. Weber responded that it is vital to understand that "the decreasing prices of PV are driven down not merely by R&D but rather by the increasing market. The learning curve is cost versus total installed volume and shows … that with each doubling of the globally installed volume, the price comes down by about 20%. This is of course driven by progress in R&D, but this is driven very strongly by market forces".
If we waited until R&D had produced PV capable of generating electricity at today's prices, says Weber, "it would never happen".
There has been innovation in the German PV industry, and there will be yet more, leading to further incremental improvements in efficiency, design and delivery. But that is always the case in a business revolution. If one had waited for improvements to end in the digital revolution one would still be waiting. So it will be in the solar revolution.
George sees little scope for German export of PV, and
"the UK's prospects of building the major export industry Jeremy dreams of are even slighter, as it will now have to take on Germany as well as China and Japan. We've missed the boat by years".The amount of solar PV installed around the world in 2009, despite the fast growth of the PV industry, was a mere 7 gigawatts last year: the equivalent of around seven typical coal-fired power plants. To say that the UK could not catch up with other nations if we had the will to develop a domestic industry, in a global market still this small, is plainly wrong.
Today, in a UK PV market a fraction of 1% the size of the German one, we already have a PV export industry of sorts. Crystallox manufactures ingots and wafers – the raw materials for cells - and exports worldwide. Sharp and Romag manufacture modules for export beyond the currently small domestic market. My company, Solarcentury, manufactures PV tiles and slates for the domestic market and export into Europe. George has ignored all Solarcentury's invitations to visit and see all this. If he had, he would appreciate that there is plenty of scope for British companies to expand into this industry.
The most eminent venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, Vinod Khosla, recently said the place will have to be named "Solar Valley" within 10 years. This is because the practitioners of the digital revolution are switching en masse into the embryonic solar revolution in the factories that are springing up around Sunnyvale. Given our national design and technology skills, what's to stop a big slug of that revolution being sited in the UK?
George makes much of the fact that Asian manufacturers are now exporting cheap PV into Germany. True, the Germans are under great pricing pressure now from the industries they have themselves helped create, with their attractive domestic feed-in tariff, in Asia. But that is globalisation at work. Whether this is a good idea, in a world approaching peak oil, is a whole other debate, and one wherein George and I might find a lot to agree on. But peak oil and the downsides of globalisation actually provide another compelling reason for trying as hard as we can to develop a variety of fully-integrated domestic renewables industries in the UK. And for that we will need feed-in tariffs, for a while.
Finally, let me comment on George's premise that anyone who has entered the world of business cannot be trusted, or should have their views discounted compared to "independents" such as himself. "I have no horses in this race," George announces, "I have no products to sell."
If we believe in the horrors that await a world making little or no effort to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, we all have to back horses. I have gone so far as to set up a company and a charity to back one of my (numerous) favoured horses. As George put it in his book Heat,
"while I (Monbiot) sit on my backside telling people what to do, he (Leggett) spends his time doing it."That was then. Now George seeks to wear the fact that he has "no products to sell" as a badge of superior credibility. Referee!
Global Warming on Trial
By Dexter Wright
In 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton wrote a book of fiction called State of Fear. The plot of the storyline is the exposé of the fraudulent science behind the global warming theory in the middle of a fictitious court case. The book was a bestseller, and in a strange twist of circumstances, it landed Dr. Crichton in front of a Senate committee. Now it seems that life is indeed imitating art.
In the past few years, there have been many court cases concerning the actions of governments to the alleged threat of global warming. The latest has been filed by Texas against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the Endangerment Finding of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Texas has filed two petitions in federal court. The first is a request for review of the endangerment finding, which is intended to examine the science behind global warming. The second is a petition for reconsideration of the finding. These court cases were brought about in the wake of the Climategate scandal. Climategate has revealed that significant portions of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) were based on fraudulent science.
The crux of the matter is that the EPA based the endangerment finding on the now-discredited IPCC report. To date, the IPCC have admitted to two significant erroneous claims. First, they admitted to the fact that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting away, and secondly, they have stated that the claim of the trends of natural disasters attributed to global warming is overstated. Subsequently, the IPCC have been prompted to publicly state that they are reviewing their own quality assurance procedures in light of these admissions.
But now all of this is going to be examined in a court of law. It should be noted that the laws of governments and the laws of science differ very significantly. For example, governments can repeal laws, like in the case of prohibition. By contrast, science cannot repeal the law of gravity. It is this kind of cold, hard fact that lawyers typically are not used to dealing with. If the case of Texas versus the EPA is decided on the scientific facts, as it should be, then the EPA will lose.
So what are the facts? The two graphs below show the transmittance of two gasses in the Infrared (IR) wavelength. One is CO2, and the other is water vapor (H2O). The dips in these graphs show where the two substances absorb the IR energy. Clearly, H2O absorbs more than ten times the amount of energy in the IR spectrum as does CO2. Furthermore, H2O is more than one hundred times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. The conclusion is that H2O is more than one thousand times as potent a greenhouse gas (GHG) as CO2.With such immutable facts facing the EPA, how will they explain their stance that CO2 is a greater danger to the public than water vapor? What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Scientific honesty is at the very heart of the global warming debate, and it will likely be the centerpiece for the legal questions to be presented in the dramatic setting of a federal courtroom. The weakness of the endangerment finding stops not with these two graphs, but with the entire methodology used in producing all of the IPCC reports, including AR4, on which the finding was based.
In Senate testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dr. Crichton stated that the verification techniques used in climate research did not meet the basic standard of independent verification. In explaining the scientific method to the committee, Dr. Crichton stated the following:
In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid -- and merits universal acceptance -- only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.
He went on to say:
For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.
Now that the horse is out, the IPCC is trying to close the barn door by establishing some sort of scientific standard in the wake of significant errors found in the AR4. Better late than never, or maybe not -- at least as far as the court case against the EPA is concerned.
In February of this year, the IPCC stated the following:
GENEVA, 4 February 2010
Materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experiences and practices of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are also found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organizational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops, etc.). A lot of relevant information appears also in government reports and publications from international organizations. To make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent, additional procedures have been agreed for the use of such sources, often referred to as "grey literature".
Authors who wish to include information from a non-published/non-peer-reviewed source, are requested to critically assess and review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results into an IPCC Report.
But even this standard of accepting "grey literature" does not meet basic standards of publication in scientific journals or government technical memorandums. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service states the following concerning literature cited in professional papers: "Literature cited comprises published works and those accepted for publication in peer-reviewed literature (in press)."
The EPA will have to explain why it was willing to accept substandard work to establish the endangerment finding. Their lawyers will have to explain why they accepted work that states within the pages of the AR4 an admission of guilt to the sin of data-manipulation. In table 6.1, it states the following: "All reconstructions, therefore, involve a degree of compromise with regard to the specific choice of 'target' or dependent variable."
In English, this means that the data were manipulated to achieve a predetermined "target." This hardly sounds like science...more like fiction. They say that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. Maybe that explains the content of the leaked e-mail from Tim Osborn to the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Great Britain. This e-mail sent on December 13, 2005 discusses ways to manipulate Antarctic data to achieve an outcome that "makes sense" with respect to tropical data.
Even if you do something to sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about the isolated boxes around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1 station in.
The e-mail goes on to say that Antarctic data should be given only 79% of its true value: "Perhaps put it in every fourth box, giving a weighting of 0.79 (bit less than tropical, which is reasonable for spatial correlation reasons)?"
By giving greater weight to the tropical data, you can achieve your "target" of global warming...even if it's only fiction.
In 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton wrote a book of fiction called State of Fear. The plot of the storyline is the exposé of the fraudulent science behind the global warming theory in the middle of a fictitious court case. The book was a bestseller, and in a strange twist of circumstances, it landed Dr. Crichton in front of a Senate committee. Now it seems that life is indeed imitating art.
In the past few years, there have been many court cases concerning the actions of governments to the alleged threat of global warming. The latest has been filed by Texas against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the Endangerment Finding of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Texas has filed two petitions in federal court. The first is a request for review of the endangerment finding, which is intended to examine the science behind global warming. The second is a petition for reconsideration of the finding. These court cases were brought about in the wake of the Climategate scandal. Climategate has revealed that significant portions of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) were based on fraudulent science.
The crux of the matter is that the EPA based the endangerment finding on the now-discredited IPCC report. To date, the IPCC have admitted to two significant erroneous claims. First, they admitted to the fact that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting away, and secondly, they have stated that the claim of the trends of natural disasters attributed to global warming is overstated. Subsequently, the IPCC have been prompted to publicly state that they are reviewing their own quality assurance procedures in light of these admissions.
But now all of this is going to be examined in a court of law. It should be noted that the laws of governments and the laws of science differ very significantly. For example, governments can repeal laws, like in the case of prohibition. By contrast, science cannot repeal the law of gravity. It is this kind of cold, hard fact that lawyers typically are not used to dealing with. If the case of Texas versus the EPA is decided on the scientific facts, as it should be, then the EPA will lose.
So what are the facts? The two graphs below show the transmittance of two gasses in the Infrared (IR) wavelength. One is CO2, and the other is water vapor (H2O). The dips in these graphs show where the two substances absorb the IR energy. Clearly, H2O absorbs more than ten times the amount of energy in the IR spectrum as does CO2. Furthermore, H2O is more than one hundred times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. The conclusion is that H2O is more than one thousand times as potent a greenhouse gas (GHG) as CO2.With such immutable facts facing the EPA, how will they explain their stance that CO2 is a greater danger to the public than water vapor? What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Scientific honesty is at the very heart of the global warming debate, and it will likely be the centerpiece for the legal questions to be presented in the dramatic setting of a federal courtroom. The weakness of the endangerment finding stops not with these two graphs, but with the entire methodology used in producing all of the IPCC reports, including AR4, on which the finding was based.
In Senate testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dr. Crichton stated that the verification techniques used in climate research did not meet the basic standard of independent verification. In explaining the scientific method to the committee, Dr. Crichton stated the following:
In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid -- and merits universal acceptance -- only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.
He went on to say:
For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.
Now that the horse is out, the IPCC is trying to close the barn door by establishing some sort of scientific standard in the wake of significant errors found in the AR4. Better late than never, or maybe not -- at least as far as the court case against the EPA is concerned.
In February of this year, the IPCC stated the following:
GENEVA, 4 February 2010
Materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experiences and practices of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are also found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organizational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops, etc.). A lot of relevant information appears also in government reports and publications from international organizations. To make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent, additional procedures have been agreed for the use of such sources, often referred to as "grey literature".
Authors who wish to include information from a non-published/non-peer-reviewed source, are requested to critically assess and review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results into an IPCC Report.
But even this standard of accepting "grey literature" does not meet basic standards of publication in scientific journals or government technical memorandums. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service states the following concerning literature cited in professional papers: "Literature cited comprises published works and those accepted for publication in peer-reviewed literature (in press)."
The EPA will have to explain why it was willing to accept substandard work to establish the endangerment finding. Their lawyers will have to explain why they accepted work that states within the pages of the AR4 an admission of guilt to the sin of data-manipulation. In table 6.1, it states the following: "All reconstructions, therefore, involve a degree of compromise with regard to the specific choice of 'target' or dependent variable."
In English, this means that the data were manipulated to achieve a predetermined "target." This hardly sounds like science...more like fiction. They say that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. Maybe that explains the content of the leaked e-mail from Tim Osborn to the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Great Britain. This e-mail sent on December 13, 2005 discusses ways to manipulate Antarctic data to achieve an outcome that "makes sense" with respect to tropical data.
Even if you do something to sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about the isolated boxes around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1 station in.
The e-mail goes on to say that Antarctic data should be given only 79% of its true value: "Perhaps put it in every fourth box, giving a weighting of 0.79 (bit less than tropical, which is reasonable for spatial correlation reasons)?"
By giving greater weight to the tropical data, you can achieve your "target" of global warming...even if it's only fiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
