This morning I woke up to the sound of George W. Bush on the radio urging his fellow countrymen and women to.....yes......save energy!
Then, I went to the door and picked up my copy of the Financial Times (subscription only) and what do I read? Sadad Al-Husseini, former head of exploration at Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil producer, saying that "the best alternative energy is energy efficiency".
And he goes even further:"There is too much wastage with energy. There are too many cars that are far bigger than what they need to be. In the home, there are often heating and air conditioners on unnecessarily"
And what's more, he added that predictions of oil demand reaching 120 million barrels a day in 20 years, 40% up from now, are "nonsense" - as there simply isn't enough oil.
"We don't have to invest in new technologies or look for new ways to save energy, they are already in existence - they just need to be promoted more".
Then apparently the Group of 8 asked the International Energy Agency to do further research on energy efficiency and climate change and report back ahead of a meeting next month.
The problem, as the FT points out, is that yes, right, Bush may be now panicking and telling people perhaps those environmentalists were right in going on and on about energy efficiency. But then, his administration has just passed new fuel efficiency standards for cars for 2008-2011 that are simply not good enough for getting better cars on the market - or at least as good as those sold elsewhere in the world.
What am I going to write in my blog now? I've been outstaged!
energy
environment
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Sunday, September 18, 2005
reason for silence...
To those who are reading my blog - I apologise for being quiet for so long. The problem is that I am currently organising an international relocation - we are leaving the US to return to Europe. I will probably continue to maintain the blog, but with a once or twice a month frequency, as I expect to be working full time again (in the US I was not working, so I had lots of time for blogging, which I may not have in the future!). I may also decide to change the focus slightly, but I am still trying to decide what to do....
Thanks for your patience, and if anybody has views on how to make this blog more interesting, please email me!!
Thanks for your patience, and if anybody has views on how to make this blog more interesting, please email me!!
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Thoughts from my holidays...part 1
Although most of the time I was simply enjoying myself and not thinking about environmental issues, several things that happened made me think.
The first part of my trip was to San Francisco, where my husband was attending some meetings. The first thing I noticed upon arriving in California is that unlike in Boston, I gratefully did not have to put on a jumper every time I entered a building or a house to protect myself from the excessive use of air conditioning. Don't misunderstand me - I am not against aircon. It is sometimes very helpful and I occasionally need it to get some sleep during heat waves. But the problem is that now in the US and Canada it is used at temperatures that are way too low and also when the weather is not hot enough to justify it. This is not just uncomfortable and unhealthy - it's a serious waste of electricity. The problem is that in Europe we can start seeing a similar trend (although people mostly still keep the temperature at a reasonable level and only use it when it's really hot). In California things appeared to be different. Ok, partly, it may be because San Francisco is not particularly hot in the summer. But I think it may also have to do with successful policies and on campaigns on energy conservation - especially after the massive blackouts they had in the past.
On the downside, we did realise how difficult it is to move around California without a car (we are not used to driving any more because we have been car-less for many years in London and Brussels, thanks to good public transportation, and we were also trying to save some greenhouse emissions). For example, public transport options, although limited, do exist outside the city (we were trying to go to the Napa Valley for a wedding). However, the tourist information office hardly knew about them. We eventually managed very well (ferry boat and taxi) and wondered why it's so difficult to provide information about these options. After all, it should be about freedom of choice, right? Some people wanna drive, others don't want to, (or can't, because they are inexperienced, disabled, too young or too old, poor, or whatever).
energy
environment
The first part of my trip was to San Francisco, where my husband was attending some meetings. The first thing I noticed upon arriving in California is that unlike in Boston, I gratefully did not have to put on a jumper every time I entered a building or a house to protect myself from the excessive use of air conditioning. Don't misunderstand me - I am not against aircon. It is sometimes very helpful and I occasionally need it to get some sleep during heat waves. But the problem is that now in the US and Canada it is used at temperatures that are way too low and also when the weather is not hot enough to justify it. This is not just uncomfortable and unhealthy - it's a serious waste of electricity. The problem is that in Europe we can start seeing a similar trend (although people mostly still keep the temperature at a reasonable level and only use it when it's really hot). In California things appeared to be different. Ok, partly, it may be because San Francisco is not particularly hot in the summer. But I think it may also have to do with successful policies and on campaigns on energy conservation - especially after the massive blackouts they had in the past.
On the downside, we did realise how difficult it is to move around California without a car (we are not used to driving any more because we have been car-less for many years in London and Brussels, thanks to good public transportation, and we were also trying to save some greenhouse emissions). For example, public transport options, although limited, do exist outside the city (we were trying to go to the Napa Valley for a wedding). However, the tourist information office hardly knew about them. We eventually managed very well (ferry boat and taxi) and wondered why it's so difficult to provide information about these options. After all, it should be about freedom of choice, right? Some people wanna drive, others don't want to, (or can't, because they are inexperienced, disabled, too young or too old, poor, or whatever).
energy
environment
Time for changes...
During the holidays, I've had a number of "creative" thoughts about what to do with this blog, also thanks to some comments I have received (thanks!). Unlike most bloggers, I do not tend to give strong opinions but rather stick to facts and news. That's my journalistic background, and also a desire to provide credible and well-sourced information in a field where many people feel confused by opposite viewpoints being presented in the media. However, the downside is that perhaps this makes the blog less blog-like and more suitable for specialists than average Internet users...
From now onwards, I will however try to be a bit more informal. The old posts will form a useful archive for those who want to learn more about climate change. I will also continue to give an overview of the main news for those who want to know more than just my point of view.
The first step in becoming more informal is to tell you about my holidays in my next post.
From now onwards, I will however try to be a bit more informal. The old posts will form a useful archive for those who want to learn more about climate change. I will also continue to give an overview of the main news for those who want to know more than just my point of view.
The first step in becoming more informal is to tell you about my holidays in my next post.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Back from holidays...
I have returned from my holiday in Canada. I will start posting again soon...
Meanwhile, enjoy this photo from the beautiful (and endangered) Clayquot Sound in British Columbia!
Meanwhile, enjoy this photo from the beautiful (and endangered) Clayquot Sound in British Columbia!
Friday, July 01, 2005
Financial sector warns on costs, others still in denial
Two major reports published yesterday have forecast massive potential costs from damage caused by floods, storms and heatwaves resulting from global climate change and called for immediate action from governments and the financial industry to act.
The first report, from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), predicts that within 75 years worldwide costs of storms could increase to €22 billion (£15 billion) per year, costs of flooding in Europe could rise by €122 billion (£82 billion), and insurance capital required to cover storm damage could rise by €64 billion (£43 billion).
The second, a joint report from the WWF and Allianz Global Investors, warns that the financial industry must take these risks into account and that a clear political framework at international level is essential.
Meanwhile, however, the gulf between the United States and the rest of the G8 on climate change is as wide as ever, reports the UK's Guardian. The US continues to be the only country refusing to acknowledge the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
The Washington Post published an editorial two days ago full of misleading statements and sweeping generalisations, claiming that Europeans are doing nothing to reduce emissions, and that in order to do so, they would have to stop using electricity and driving cars. This is nonsense, and it completely ignores the raft of new legislation that Europeans are enacting. While the author has a right to express his opinion, the Post should consider whether it is appropriate to publish rather offensive editorials, which fuel misunderstandings between the Europe and the US, and between the US and the rest of the world.
Additional source:
Euractiv
The first report, from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), predicts that within 75 years worldwide costs of storms could increase to €22 billion (£15 billion) per year, costs of flooding in Europe could rise by €122 billion (£82 billion), and insurance capital required to cover storm damage could rise by €64 billion (£43 billion).
The second, a joint report from the WWF and Allianz Global Investors, warns that the financial industry must take these risks into account and that a clear political framework at international level is essential.
Meanwhile, however, the gulf between the United States and the rest of the G8 on climate change is as wide as ever, reports the UK's Guardian. The US continues to be the only country refusing to acknowledge the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
The Washington Post published an editorial two days ago full of misleading statements and sweeping generalisations, claiming that Europeans are doing nothing to reduce emissions, and that in order to do so, they would have to stop using electricity and driving cars. This is nonsense, and it completely ignores the raft of new legislation that Europeans are enacting. While the author has a right to express his opinion, the Post should consider whether it is appropriate to publish rather offensive editorials, which fuel misunderstandings between the Europe and the US, and between the US and the rest of the world.
Additional source:
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Oil prices, the G8 and the untold story
The front page of the Financial Times weekend edition, like most newspapers, says US shares tumbled on Friday after oil reached $60 a barrel. Analysts say oil may soon reach as much as $70 a barrel (especially because in the fourth quarter of the year demand goes up when people turn their heating systems on). Many predict the price will not to fall until it has peaked at a high enough level to have a significant impact on the economy (which may take some time). Then, the slowdown will cause demand to go down, which will lower prices.
While it is true that oil prices are high mainly because of sustained economic growth in parts of the world, there also another untold truth. Governments have the power to avoid economic impacts by taking immediate action to reduce demand in a cost-effective way and without lowering the living standards of their population.
The FT itself has covered this issue in the past. A few months ago, the International Energy Agency issued a report analysing measures that governments can use to “save oil in a hurry”. The potential oil savings and implementation costs of rapid oil demand restraint measures for transport, could reduce world oil demand by up to a million barrels per day or more.
While that report was written with real energy emergencies in mind, there is a huge potential for starting to reduce demand before we get to an emergency. The European Commission estimates the trading block could reduce primary energy demand by 20% without reducing standards of living.
The article on the FT weekend edition says that the issue of oil prices is going to be on top of the agenda at the G8. But is it really? So how come the G8 negotiators deleted wording in their draft report on climate on the huge potential for reducing "stand-by" losses? These are caused by the increasing tendency for product manufacturers to design appliances and electronic products in a way so that they are always on and cannot be properly or easily switched off. Consumers think those flickering lights amount to nothing, but they do have an impact on their electricity costs and on the national energy bill.
The wording of the G8 document, before it was deleted, suggested that something as simple as eliminating stand-by in electric appliances could avoid the need for around 24 large-sized power plants around the world (some of which will certainly be fueled by oil). Would this be very costly to do? No. Would this reduce our standards of living? No (although it may force us to actually get up to switch the TV on, instead of leaving it on day and night - but that may get us some useful excercise...a good thing in times of rising obesity I think).
Unfortunately, no large newspaper is reporting this story. Too bad. I have been a journalist, and I realise that it is far more interesting to write about the latest controversy about nuclear than something called stand-by, which sounds, yawn, boring. But it's not, and failure to report this and other simple demand reduction options ultimately gives the public (and politicians) the wrong picture on the problem and most cost-effective solutions. Journalists will say: "Well, since governments are not acting, there is no story to write about". But isn't it a story in itself that one of the most simple and cost-effective solutions to both climate change and oil demand surges is being ignored if not deliberately suppressed? And is this lack of coverage in the press because "there is no story" ultimately at risk of causing a self-fulfilling prophecy?
While it is true that oil prices are high mainly because of sustained economic growth in parts of the world, there also another untold truth. Governments have the power to avoid economic impacts by taking immediate action to reduce demand in a cost-effective way and without lowering the living standards of their population.
The FT itself has covered this issue in the past. A few months ago, the International Energy Agency issued a report analysing measures that governments can use to “save oil in a hurry”. The potential oil savings and implementation costs of rapid oil demand restraint measures for transport, could reduce world oil demand by up to a million barrels per day or more.
While that report was written with real energy emergencies in mind, there is a huge potential for starting to reduce demand before we get to an emergency. The European Commission estimates the trading block could reduce primary energy demand by 20% without reducing standards of living.
The article on the FT weekend edition says that the issue of oil prices is going to be on top of the agenda at the G8. But is it really? So how come the G8 negotiators deleted wording in their draft report on climate on the huge potential for reducing "stand-by" losses? These are caused by the increasing tendency for product manufacturers to design appliances and electronic products in a way so that they are always on and cannot be properly or easily switched off. Consumers think those flickering lights amount to nothing, but they do have an impact on their electricity costs and on the national energy bill.
The wording of the G8 document, before it was deleted, suggested that something as simple as eliminating stand-by in electric appliances could avoid the need for around 24 large-sized power plants around the world (some of which will certainly be fueled by oil). Would this be very costly to do? No. Would this reduce our standards of living? No (although it may force us to actually get up to switch the TV on, instead of leaving it on day and night - but that may get us some useful excercise...a good thing in times of rising obesity I think).
Unfortunately, no large newspaper is reporting this story. Too bad. I have been a journalist, and I realise that it is far more interesting to write about the latest controversy about nuclear than something called stand-by, which sounds, yawn, boring. But it's not, and failure to report this and other simple demand reduction options ultimately gives the public (and politicians) the wrong picture on the problem and most cost-effective solutions. Journalists will say: "Well, since governments are not acting, there is no story to write about". But isn't it a story in itself that one of the most simple and cost-effective solutions to both climate change and oil demand surges is being ignored if not deliberately suppressed? And is this lack of coverage in the press because "there is no story" ultimately at risk of causing a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
"Bush has it backwards"
Another strongly-worded editorial, this time from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Looks like the press on both sides of Atlantic is getting worked up about climate change policy!
Here's an abstract:
"..the president's men are attempting to swing the other G-8 industrialized nations away from supporting Kyoto-style reductions, and toward Bush's every-nation-for-itself approach. As negotiators draft a climate policy for approval at next month's meeting of the G-8 leaders, U.S. representatives have insisted on changes that, true to form, minimize the dangers of the warming atmosphere and leave each nation to decide its own responsibility.
Even the document's benign opening statement -- "Our world is warming" -- has been challenged by Washington. It would be just as sensible to remove all references to the world's being round. This is a shameful stance for a country that remains, by far, the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels and, consequently, the biggest producer of globe-warming pollution. It can only further diminish America's standing as a cooperating member of the world community, and lend cover to the developing countries seeking to resist global accords that would hinder their exploding industrial growth.
Bush has it backwards. As the other G-8 leaders know, as most of the world knows, and as a growing number of big multinational corporations know, the day of reckoning on global warming cannot be postponed forever. In the meantime, it makes sense to begin a transition to industrial systems that ease the loads of warming gases in the earth's atmosphere -- and, in the process, achieve technological leadership that will be prized in the not-so-distant future."
Here's an abstract:
"..the president's men are attempting to swing the other G-8 industrialized nations away from supporting Kyoto-style reductions, and toward Bush's every-nation-for-itself approach. As negotiators draft a climate policy for approval at next month's meeting of the G-8 leaders, U.S. representatives have insisted on changes that, true to form, minimize the dangers of the warming atmosphere and leave each nation to decide its own responsibility.
Even the document's benign opening statement -- "Our world is warming" -- has been challenged by Washington. It would be just as sensible to remove all references to the world's being round. This is a shameful stance for a country that remains, by far, the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels and, consequently, the biggest producer of globe-warming pollution. It can only further diminish America's standing as a cooperating member of the world community, and lend cover to the developing countries seeking to resist global accords that would hinder their exploding industrial growth.
Bush has it backwards. As the other G-8 leaders know, as most of the world knows, and as a growing number of big multinational corporations know, the day of reckoning on global warming cannot be postponed forever. In the meantime, it makes sense to begin a transition to industrial systems that ease the loads of warming gases in the earth's atmosphere -- and, in the process, achieve technological leadership that will be prized in the not-so-distant future."
We could save energy easily, but...
The European Commission is convinced that it can be done. Dramatically reducing our energy consumption to the benefit of economic competitiveness, security and environmental protection, while maintaining our living standards. This week, it has issued its anticipated ambitious plans to slash energy demand by 20%. (for more, also read my previous post on this)
Despite this, the international community is still struggling to find an agreement on climate change. It appears increasingly unlikely this agreement will happen at the upcoming G8, as Tony Blair may have hoped. The Financial Times yesterday said he "may be preparing to soft-pedal on global warming in exchange for Mr Bush's support on aid for Africa... That would not only be short-sighted but horribly ironic, since Africa is one of the principal victims of climate change, across a range of phenomena spanning desertification and disease, migration and ensuing conflict over scarce resources."
"The US will not go the Kyoto route but nor will it fully mobilise its research and ingenuity around this problem until it recognises it as a world-changing phenomenon that can no longer be ignored."
Meanwhile, the scientific community is getting more and more angry....
Despite this, the international community is still struggling to find an agreement on climate change. It appears increasingly unlikely this agreement will happen at the upcoming G8, as Tony Blair may have hoped. The Financial Times yesterday said he "may be preparing to soft-pedal on global warming in exchange for Mr Bush's support on aid for Africa... That would not only be short-sighted but horribly ironic, since Africa is one of the principal victims of climate change, across a range of phenomena spanning desertification and disease, migration and ensuing conflict over scarce resources."
"The US will not go the Kyoto route but nor will it fully mobilise its research and ingenuity around this problem until it recognises it as a world-changing phenomenon that can no longer be ignored."
Meanwhile, the scientific community is getting more and more angry....
Friday, June 10, 2005
Documents suggest oil industry influence over Bush. Global scientists issue joint statement on climate, as do businesses
A lot of news in the last couple of days....
The UK's Guardian says it has documents proving how US President George W. Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto Protocol was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries. The story is based on US State Department papers seen by the Guardian newspaper.
In a related story, the New York Times (registration required)
said internal White House documents reveal how an official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming. Meanwhile, the leading scientific academies of the world have issued an unprecedented statement calling on the G8 governments to take urgent action to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change. Story by the UK's Independent
And shortly afterwards, a group of companies issued a statement urging G8 nations for action on climate change. Reuters story.
Planet Ark (Reuters) also has a story on the the first greenhouse gas trading programme in the United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
The UK's Guardian says it has documents proving how US President George W. Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto Protocol was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries. The story is based on US State Department papers seen by the Guardian newspaper.
In a related story, the New York Times (registration required)
said internal White House documents reveal how an official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming. Meanwhile, the leading scientific academies of the world have issued an unprecedented statement calling on the G8 governments to take urgent action to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change. Story by the UK's Independent
And shortly afterwards, a group of companies issued a statement urging G8 nations for action on climate change. Reuters story.
Planet Ark (Reuters) also has a story on the the first greenhouse gas trading programme in the United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Car efficiency US vs Europe
A US senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has suggested measures calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve its fuel-efficiency standards testing procedures. Critics of the current testing system accuse the EPA of accepting auto manufacturers' idealized claims about their own vehicles' fuel efficiency, and of deceiving consumers. The last time the system was revised was in 1985. More here
But the testing issue is only one aspect of the lack of ambitious fuel economy standards for US cars, which worries environmentalists as well as analysts around the world concerned about oil price effect on the global economy and about the competitiveness of the US car industry. The US consumes a large chunk of the world's oil, with two thirds of consumption caused by transport. Fuel economy standards at least in line with the European ones (which most analysts argue have plenty of scope for improvement) could potentially reduce demand and therefore contribute to a reduction of oil prices.
For example, US car manufacturers are required to achieve average car efficiency levels in 2011 that are already commonplace in Europe. The requirement imposed on US car manufacturers is to achieve 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2011. This is the equivalent of setting a standard of 224.7 grams of CO2 per kilometer (gCO2/km). The average car entering the European Union market today is already reaching 160 gCO2/km, which is the equivalent of 38.6 mpg! And the EU target for 2008 is to reach 140 gCO2/km, which is the equivalent of 44.1 mpg for petrol and 51.9 mpg for diesel cars.
In addition, Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) are practically exempt from regulation, as they are not considered as passenger cars - despite the fact that now millions of Americans regularly drive them on city roads. The US Senate Energy Committee rejected in May the proposal to bring the efficiency of these vehicles in line with the (very modest, as shown above) standards of passenger cars. Regulating the efficiency of these vehicles is proving to be very difficult in Europe as well.
For more on the European car efficiency debate (things are not perfect there either!) see my earlier post
- Our calculations are based on conversion factors provided by the World Resources Institute
But the testing issue is only one aspect of the lack of ambitious fuel economy standards for US cars, which worries environmentalists as well as analysts around the world concerned about oil price effect on the global economy and about the competitiveness of the US car industry. The US consumes a large chunk of the world's oil, with two thirds of consumption caused by transport. Fuel economy standards at least in line with the European ones (which most analysts argue have plenty of scope for improvement) could potentially reduce demand and therefore contribute to a reduction of oil prices.
For example, US car manufacturers are required to achieve average car efficiency levels in 2011 that are already commonplace in Europe. The requirement imposed on US car manufacturers is to achieve 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2011. This is the equivalent of setting a standard of 224.7 grams of CO2 per kilometer (gCO2/km). The average car entering the European Union market today is already reaching 160 gCO2/km, which is the equivalent of 38.6 mpg! And the EU target for 2008 is to reach 140 gCO2/km, which is the equivalent of 44.1 mpg for petrol and 51.9 mpg for diesel cars.
In addition, Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) are practically exempt from regulation, as they are not considered as passenger cars - despite the fact that now millions of Americans regularly drive them on city roads. The US Senate Energy Committee rejected in May the proposal to bring the efficiency of these vehicles in line with the (very modest, as shown above) standards of passenger cars. Regulating the efficiency of these vehicles is proving to be very difficult in Europe as well.
For more on the European car efficiency debate (things are not perfect there either!) see my earlier post
- Our calculations are based on conversion factors provided by the World Resources Institute
Friday, June 03, 2005
New proposal for post-Kyoto targets emerges
A new proposal aimed at bridging the transatlantic divide on on long-term climate policy emerged yesterday at an annual conference on environment, Green Week, that opened Monday in Brussels. The proposal, which supporters hope will win the backing of the United States, is that after 2012 (when the first Kyoto targets expire) global emission targets could be set by industrial sector rather than by country.
One of the proponents was Edward Helme of the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington DC.
Steve Hardesty of the US representation in Brussels declined to comment on the idea during the debate. However, according to Environment Daily, he later told the publication's reporter that the Bush administration was considering such sector-specific actions. "The admission is a rare signal that the US could be open to more than just the technology partnerships it is pushing as the basis of a future global climate architecture," the publication said in its subscriber-only news service.
The European Commission's climate change unit called the possibility "very flexible and very interesting".
Environment daily also reported that Thomas Brewer, a professor at Georgetown University in the US, was positive about the proposal. It reminded him of breakthroughs achieved by world trade negotiators, he said. "From time to time they made amazing progress when they focused on specific sectors," he said. "We have a lot to learn from...half a century of diplomacy."
Environment Daily (subscription only)
One of the proponents was Edward Helme of the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington DC.
Steve Hardesty of the US representation in Brussels declined to comment on the idea during the debate. However, according to Environment Daily, he later told the publication's reporter that the Bush administration was considering such sector-specific actions. "The admission is a rare signal that the US could be open to more than just the technology partnerships it is pushing as the basis of a future global climate architecture," the publication said in its subscriber-only news service.
The European Commission's climate change unit called the possibility "very flexible and very interesting".
Environment daily also reported that Thomas Brewer, a professor at Georgetown University in the US, was positive about the proposal. It reminded him of breakthroughs achieved by world trade negotiators, he said. "From time to time they made amazing progress when they focused on specific sectors," he said. "We have a lot to learn from...half a century of diplomacy."
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Climate Change and Security
This interesting article by the UK's Tom Burke and John Ashton appeared a few days ago on Open Democracy. Worth a read. You can also take part in an online debate about it.
Quote: "Preserving a stable climate is essential for personal, economic and national security in the 21st century. The maintenance of security in all three modes is the primary task of government. A stable climate, like secure borders, safe streets, a healthy and educated population or efficient transport infrastructure is a public good. It can no more be achieved without public investment than can any other public good. Today there is a climate clock ticking out the future for us all."
Quote: "Preserving a stable climate is essential for personal, economic and national security in the 21st century. The maintenance of security in all three modes is the primary task of government. A stable climate, like secure borders, safe streets, a healthy and educated population or efficient transport infrastructure is a public good. It can no more be achieved without public investment than can any other public good. Today there is a climate clock ticking out the future for us all."
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
European Union plans tough efficiency targets
The European Union is working on one of the most ambitious plans ever to reduce energy waste in its economy. A draft plan - a Green Paper - which emerged last week, aims to slash 20% off the energy consumption level of 2005 by 2020. Instead of growing by 0.6% a year, primary energy consumption in the EU could be reduced by 0.9% a year through the use of existing technologies and in a cost-effective way, the paper says.
This reduction would cut energy consumption by 360 million tonnes of oil equivalent and yield financial savings of €60bn per year. This target would have to become part of Europe's competitiveness drive - the so-called Lisbon strategy. It would also greatly help achieve long-term climate policy plans.
The main tools which the paper envisages to achieve these EU targets are tax breaks and state aid to promote cleaner products and services. In the transport sector, the main tools to promote the use of the most efficient cars are fiscal incentives (tax breaks) and green pricing adjustments.
However, harmonising taxation in the European Union is notoriously challenging - and may become even more difficult as a consequence of the results of the referendum on the Constitution in France, which may slow down European integration. So the paper says that smaller groups of willing member states - as opposed to the whole trading block of 25 countries - should be encouraged to go ahead with harmonised policies.
Other measures reccomended by the paper include encouraging companies to include a percentage of energy efficient cars in their fleets. In addition, toll road charges could be differentiated according to the efficiency of cars that use them.
In the buildings sector, the paper reccomends considerably strenghening existing legislation on the minimum performance of buildings.
The target in the paper resembles a proposal that environmental group WWF has been pushing for years. The European Commission faces both internal and external opposition to the setting of stringent targets on efficiency, as has been the case during the debate on a Directive on Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services, currently under discussion.
The draft green paper is available on the website of Environment Daily, the European publication that first obtained the draft.leaked draft Green Paper (contains some French-language text)
WWF's "Energy Efficiency Challenge" paper (PDF)
This reduction would cut energy consumption by 360 million tonnes of oil equivalent and yield financial savings of €60bn per year. This target would have to become part of Europe's competitiveness drive - the so-called Lisbon strategy. It would also greatly help achieve long-term climate policy plans.
The main tools which the paper envisages to achieve these EU targets are tax breaks and state aid to promote cleaner products and services. In the transport sector, the main tools to promote the use of the most efficient cars are fiscal incentives (tax breaks) and green pricing adjustments.
However, harmonising taxation in the European Union is notoriously challenging - and may become even more difficult as a consequence of the results of the referendum on the Constitution in France, which may slow down European integration. So the paper says that smaller groups of willing member states - as opposed to the whole trading block of 25 countries - should be encouraged to go ahead with harmonised policies.
Other measures reccomended by the paper include encouraging companies to include a percentage of energy efficient cars in their fleets. In addition, toll road charges could be differentiated according to the efficiency of cars that use them.
In the buildings sector, the paper reccomends considerably strenghening existing legislation on the minimum performance of buildings.
The target in the paper resembles a proposal that environmental group WWF has been pushing for years. The European Commission faces both internal and external opposition to the setting of stringent targets on efficiency, as has been the case during the debate on a Directive on Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services, currently under discussion.
The draft green paper is available on the website of Environment Daily, the European publication that first obtained the draft.
Friday, May 27, 2005
New York conference to discuss US carbon caps
The drama on regulation of climate change in the United States will be opening off Broadway next month. Leading players in energy and the environment will meet in New York City to weigh in on the multi-state energy initiative known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
The complex plan is being discussed by states' representatives, power companies, large electric consumers and environmental organizations. It will place a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants in several US states - from Maine to Delaware. It was devised in reaction to the decision by the US federal administration not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and by a desire of state representatives to start moving ahead - given that inevitably in the future there will have to be some form of regulation of greenhouse gases. Many companies also prefer to have regulatory certainty (see an earlier story on Duke Energy asking for a carbon tax).
The plan is expected to be unveiled some time this summer. Among the contentious issues under discussion are the type and level of the cap, the time period for phase in, the nature of the trading program. Stakeholders are also discussing "leakage", the potential for a shift of dirty power production to other parts of the country that are unregulated, and whether more solutions should be sought from efficiency, trimming demand, or constraints on the supply side.
For more information on the NY conference:
CleanAir-Coolplanet Website
The complex plan is being discussed by states' representatives, power companies, large electric consumers and environmental organizations. It will place a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants in several US states - from Maine to Delaware. It was devised in reaction to the decision by the US federal administration not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and by a desire of state representatives to start moving ahead - given that inevitably in the future there will have to be some form of regulation of greenhouse gases. Many companies also prefer to have regulatory certainty (see an earlier story on Duke Energy asking for a carbon tax).
The plan is expected to be unveiled some time this summer. Among the contentious issues under discussion are the type and level of the cap, the time period for phase in, the nature of the trading program. Stakeholders are also discussing "leakage", the potential for a shift of dirty power production to other parts of the country that are unregulated, and whether more solutions should be sought from efficiency, trimming demand, or constraints on the supply side.
For more information on the NY conference:
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
European carbon prices go up
Carbon prices have been rising sharply since the European emissions trading scheme was launched at the start of this year, reaching a record closing price of €19 a tonne yesterday, the Financial Times reports.
Under the emissions trading scheme, the amount of carbon dioxide - a gas that causes climate change - that industries can emit is capped. Companies that use less than their allowance can sell their excess permits.
The paper quoted Margaret Beckett, UK secretary of state for the environment, as saying that emissions trading would boost the City of London, which has become an international centre for this emerging business.
A senior associate at the law firm Baker and McKenzie added that London has developed one of the biggest concentrations of expertise [on] greenhouse gas emissions trading. Many of the contracts are based on English law, and already the City is working on some sophisticated financial products around carbon, he added.
Read article here (for subscribers):
Financial Times website
Under the emissions trading scheme, the amount of carbon dioxide - a gas that causes climate change - that industries can emit is capped. Companies that use less than their allowance can sell their excess permits.
The paper quoted Margaret Beckett, UK secretary of state for the environment, as saying that emissions trading would boost the City of London, which has become an international centre for this emerging business.
A senior associate at the law firm Baker and McKenzie added that London has developed one of the biggest concentrations of expertise [on] greenhouse gas emissions trading. Many of the contracts are based on English law, and already the City is working on some sophisticated financial products around carbon, he added.
Read article here (for subscribers):
Thursday, May 19, 2005
British companies see threats and opportunities from climate change
Most British companies expect to have to consider climate change issues in 2005, a report published by research organisation Article 13 said yesterday. British businesses are taking climate change very seriously, both as a potential commercial opportunity and a risk factor that could affect their markets, the report said.
A third of the companies surveyed said there would also be a crucial opportunity arising from climate change. "Any company that can contribute to a low-carbon economy has an opportunity," said one company representative.
Climate Change and Poverty: A Business Opportunity
A third of the companies surveyed said there would also be a crucial opportunity arising from climate change. "Any company that can contribute to a low-carbon economy has an opportunity," said one company representative.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Cars get bigger and heavier..
The Financial Times reported that European car manufacturers reduced CO2 emissions from new cars last year at only half the rate needed to meet their voluntary energy efficiency commitment for the European market. Provisional figures for CO2 emissions from new cars show the European industry produced an average efficiency of 160 grams per kilometre last year, down only 1.8% on the previous year. To meet the target of 140g/km by 2008 the carmakers need an annual rate of improvement of 3.3%.
In a separate press release, Jos Dings, the Director of European environmental group Transport & Environment said, “Since the agreement was made in 1998, the car industry has been putting most of its effort into marketing bigger, heavier, more powerful cars...Rather than living in denial about its failure, the industry should support calls for a legally binding, flexible and transparent system that gives real incentives for manufactures to achieve the 120 g/km target. This target is essential for Europe to meet its climate objectives and to reduce its EUR 100 billion per year dependency on oil imports.”
WHAT CAN I DO? Well, a lot, in fact. Chose a more efficient car, use it only when needed, do car-pooling (more people in one car), walk more and use more public transport (it keeps you fit as well!). Even better, write to your politicans demanding better efficiency standards.
If you are in the US, you can write letters to politicians:
Union of Concerned Scientists
Find out more about chosing an efficient car here:
Database of cars and fuel efficiency (including miles per gallon figures)
If you speak French, German, or Italian, try this excellent consumer site
TopTen website
In a separate press release, Jos Dings, the Director of European environmental group Transport & Environment said, “Since the agreement was made in 1998, the car industry has been putting most of its effort into marketing bigger, heavier, more powerful cars...Rather than living in denial about its failure, the industry should support calls for a legally binding, flexible and transparent system that gives real incentives for manufactures to achieve the 120 g/km target. This target is essential for Europe to meet its climate objectives and to reduce its EUR 100 billion per year dependency on oil imports.”
WHAT CAN I DO? Well, a lot, in fact. Chose a more efficient car, use it only when needed, do car-pooling (more people in one car), walk more and use more public transport (it keeps you fit as well!). Even better, write to your politicans demanding better efficiency standards.
If you are in the US, you can write letters to politicians:
Find out more about chosing an efficient car here:
If you speak French, German, or Italian, try this excellent consumer site
Saturday, May 14, 2005
But what's going on behind the scenes in the US?
Interesting radio program on the fact that environmentally conscious investors are starting to use the power of their purses to force corporations and Wall Street to address the issue of climate change. "Living on Earth" host Steve Curwood talks with Mindy Lubber, president of the organization Ceres, about efforts to use nearly $3 trillion in assets from large pension funds as a carrot and stick to prompt industry to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions..
Listen to the show here:
Listen to the show
Listen to the show here:
Friday, May 13, 2005
US to reject UK climate measures
The US will not agree to UK measures to tackle climate change, due to be discussed at the upcoming G8 summit, a US presidential negotiator has said. Tony Blair had hoped the US would agree to more investment in low-carbon technology and agreement on emissions. However, President Bush's chief climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, has told the BBC that the US will not commit to re-shaping its economy to "incentivise" firms to use new low-carbon technology, he said.
Read the whole story:
BBC News
Read a related story:
Reuters
WHAT CAN I POSSIBILY DO? You could:
Sign the People's Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol!
Read the whole story:
Read a related story:
WHAT CAN I POSSIBILY DO? You could:
Ecological debt and the G8 - Editorial
As the July G8 summit approaches, the UK"s New Statesman magazine publishes a provocative editorial by Andrew Simms in its latest issue.
A few highlights:
"It is rarely understood this way, but climate change is really a problem of debt. Not a cash debt, but an ecological one. Environmentally, we're living way beyond our means, spending more than the bank of the earth and the atmosphere can replace in our accounts. It is this debt - not the hole in the nation's public spending plans - that ought to have been the subject of the election campaign. And it is this debt - not the financial debts of poor nations to rich - that should guide the thinking of the Chancellor and other western leaders as they approach the G8 summit in July."
"Even the Financial Times commented that the IMF "probably ruined as many economies as they have saved". Yet we still expect poor countries to repay most of their debts, despite the effects on their people's lifestyles. Rich countries, faced with ecological debt, will not even give up the four-wheel-drive school run."
"The widening global gap in wealth was built on ecological debts. And today's economic superpowers soon became as successful in their disproportionate occupation of the atmosphere with carbon emissions as they were in colonial times with their military occupation of the terrestrial world. Until the Second World War, they managed this atmospheric occupation largely through exploiting their own fossil-fuel reserves. But from around 1950 they became increasingly dependent on energy imports. By 1998, the wealthiest fifth of the world was consuming 68 per cent of commercially produced energy; the poorest fifth, 2 per cent."
Read the whole article (pay per view)
A few highlights:
"It is rarely understood this way, but climate change is really a problem of debt. Not a cash debt, but an ecological one. Environmentally, we're living way beyond our means, spending more than the bank of the earth and the atmosphere can replace in our accounts. It is this debt - not the hole in the nation's public spending plans - that ought to have been the subject of the election campaign. And it is this debt - not the financial debts of poor nations to rich - that should guide the thinking of the Chancellor and other western leaders as they approach the G8 summit in July."
"Even the Financial Times commented that the IMF "probably ruined as many economies as they have saved". Yet we still expect poor countries to repay most of their debts, despite the effects on their people's lifestyles. Rich countries, faced with ecological debt, will not even give up the four-wheel-drive school run."
"The widening global gap in wealth was built on ecological debts. And today's economic superpowers soon became as successful in their disproportionate occupation of the atmosphere with carbon emissions as they were in colonial times with their military occupation of the terrestrial world. Until the Second World War, they managed this atmospheric occupation largely through exploiting their own fossil-fuel reserves. But from around 1950 they became increasingly dependent on energy imports. By 1998, the wealthiest fifth of the world was consuming 68 per cent of commercially produced energy; the poorest fifth, 2 per cent."
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Businesses urged to list climate risks
By Fiona Harvey, Financial Times
Companies came under pressure to disclose the risks to their businesses from climate change yesterday as leading institutional investors called for tough action. A group of 26 institutional investors with more than $3,000bn in assets urged the US Securities and Exchange Commission to force companies to disclose the risk as part of their securities filings.
Risks to companies include rising sea levels, regulated reductions in carbon dioxide output and greater variability in the weather. The group, including the states of California and New York, the Teamsters Affiliate Pension Plan, the London pensions funds authority, also pledged to invest $1bn in the next year in companies with technologies to combat climate change. Fiona Harvey, New York
Companies came under pressure to disclose the risks to their businesses from climate change yesterday as leading institutional investors called for tough action. A group of 26 institutional investors with more than $3,000bn in assets urged the US Securities and Exchange Commission to force companies to disclose the risk as part of their securities filings.
Risks to companies include rising sea levels, regulated reductions in carbon dioxide output and greater variability in the weather. The group, including the states of California and New York, the Teamsters Affiliate Pension Plan, the London pensions funds authority, also pledged to invest $1bn in the next year in companies with technologies to combat climate change. Fiona Harvey, New York
Friday, May 06, 2005
Pension funds face climate-change risks, says report
IPE.com
UK- The pensions industry needs to recognise the long-term impact of climate change and adapt their asset and liability management strategies accordingly or they face an uncertain future, according to a report by UK merchant banking group Climate Change Capital.
The report ‘Impacts of climate change on financial institutions' medium to long term assets and liabilities’ argues that current financial models and assumptions do not adequately budget for climate change, leaving investments exposed to “significant” risks in the long term.
It also says that climate change might influence the obligation on trustees and fund administrators to be prudent investors and suggests that the definition of their fiduciary duties be extended to incorporate climate change and related issues.
Pension funds will face risks such as “direct physical impact “ on assets; while catastrophe reinsurance and insurance claims will worsen, the study says.
Read the rest of the article
UK- The pensions industry needs to recognise the long-term impact of climate change and adapt their asset and liability management strategies accordingly or they face an uncertain future, according to a report by UK merchant banking group Climate Change Capital.
The report ‘Impacts of climate change on financial institutions' medium to long term assets and liabilities’ argues that current financial models and assumptions do not adequately budget for climate change, leaving investments exposed to “significant” risks in the long term.
It also says that climate change might influence the obligation on trustees and fund administrators to be prudent investors and suggests that the definition of their fiduciary duties be extended to incorporate climate change and related issues.
Pension funds will face risks such as “direct physical impact “ on assets; while catastrophe reinsurance and insurance claims will worsen, the study says.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Climate Change is Risk and Business Opportunity - Swiss Re
The insurance industry believes climate change represents a huge risk for its sector but a business opportunity as well, Christopher Walker of Swiss Re told an audience of public health experts at the Harvard Medical School today.
Mr. Walker’s lecture concentrated on climate change as a financial issue from the point of view of the insurance and reinsurance industry’s potentially rising costs and risks. Carbon is becoming a tradable commodity, allowing companies to hedge their risks, profit from emissions assets and turn this new discipline into a competitive advantage, he said. Walker added that the insurance industry can be a facilitator of emissions reduction activities, acting as a catalyst for the development of renewable, emission reduction and energy-efficient technologies.
Swiss Re also aims to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions footprint through improved energy management in its buildings and through the promotion and use of resource-preserving energy systems such as renewables, he said.
More on the Harvard lecture
Mr. Walker’s lecture concentrated on climate change as a financial issue from the point of view of the insurance and reinsurance industry’s potentially rising costs and risks. Carbon is becoming a tradable commodity, allowing companies to hedge their risks, profit from emissions assets and turn this new discipline into a competitive advantage, he said. Walker added that the insurance industry can be a facilitator of emissions reduction activities, acting as a catalyst for the development of renewable, emission reduction and energy-efficient technologies.
Swiss Re also aims to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions footprint through improved energy management in its buildings and through the promotion and use of resource-preserving energy systems such as renewables, he said.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Europeans Rate Environment As Important As Economy
Environmental policy is equally important to economic policy for 85% of European Union citizens, according to a new survey issued this week in Brussels, the capital of Europe. Even more, 88% of them, think environmental concerns must be taken into account by politicians when they formulate economic policy, the poll found.
The Eurobarometer survey updates a 2002 poll, and incorporates for the first time views in the ten new member states of the 25-country trading block.
The areas of greatest concern to the European public are water pollution, man-made disasters such as oil spills,
climate change and air pollution.
European Commission Press Release
The Eurobarometer survey updates a 2002 poll, and incorporates for the first time views in the ten new member states of the 25-country trading block.
The areas of greatest concern to the European public are water pollution, man-made disasters such as oil spills,
climate change and air pollution.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
"Smoking Gun" on Humans and Climate Change Claimed
MSNBC.com
Using ocean data collected by diving floats, U.S. climate scientists released a study Thursday that they said provides the "smoking gun" that ties manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming.
The researchers, some of them working for NASA and the Energy Department, went a step further, implicitly criticizing President Bush for not taking stronger action to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.
If emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin “out of our control,” especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the NASA-led scientists said. "The climate system could reach a point where large sea level change is practically impossible to avoid."
The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, is the latest to report growing certainty about global warming projections.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
Read the rest of the story
Germana Canzi's COMMENT: Nobody has yet tried to calculate a monetary value for a large global sea level change. The damages could clearly be incalculable and far more costly than any of the solutions, and the technologies, currently at our disposal.
Using ocean data collected by diving floats, U.S. climate scientists released a study Thursday that they said provides the "smoking gun" that ties manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming.
The researchers, some of them working for NASA and the Energy Department, went a step further, implicitly criticizing President Bush for not taking stronger action to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.
If emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin “out of our control,” especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the NASA-led scientists said. "The climate system could reach a point where large sea level change is practically impossible to avoid."
The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, is the latest to report growing certainty about global warming projections.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
Germana Canzi's COMMENT: Nobody has yet tried to calculate a monetary value for a large global sea level change. The damages could clearly be incalculable and far more costly than any of the solutions, and the technologies, currently at our disposal.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Climate Change Poses Threat to Food Supply, Say Scientists
THE INDEPENDENT (UK)
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Worldwide production of essential crops such as wheat, rice, maize and soya beans is likely to be hit much harder by global warming than previously predicted, an international conference in London has heard.
The benefits of higher levels of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, will in fact be outweighed by the downsides of climate change, a Royal Society discussion meeting was told yesterday. It had been thought that the gas might act as a fertiliser to increase plant growth. Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades, large-scale experiments have shown.
The two-day meeting, entitled Food Crops in a Changing Climate, is focusing largely on tropical countries where most of the world's food is grown, and where people are most vulnerable to climate change.
It is bringing together leading scientists in the fields of meteorology, climate science and agriculture to report on the latest research, including growing crops in experimental conditions in the open air that simulate advanced global warming. Previously, such experiments had taken place in closed chambers, and these had suggested that the "fertilisation" effect of rising CO2 would offset the detrimental effects of rising temperatures and drought incidence on crop production.
But, a new technology known as Face (Free-Air Concentration Enrichment) is allowing treatment of large areas of crop with elevated levels of CO2 and ozone, and these experiments have painted a very different picture.
"Growing crops much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the beneficial effects previously hoped for in the event of climate change," said Steve Long, from Illinois University.
"In addition, ground-level ozone, which is also predicted to rise but has not been extensively studied before, has been shown to result in a loss of photosynthesis and 20 per cent yield loss. Both these results show that we need to seriously re-examine our predictions for future global food production, as they are likely to be far lower than previously estimated," Professor Long said.
Additionally, studies in the UK and Denmark show that just a few days of hot temperatures can severely reduce the yield of major food crops such as wheat, soya beans, rice and groundnuts, if they coincide with the flowering of these crops.
These results suggest that there are particular thresholds above which crops become very vulnerable to climate change.
On a more positive note, the meeting also highlighted new developments in forecasting techniques, the basis of which can act as early warning systems of famine.
The techniques incorporate a climate prediction model with a model that simulates crop growth under varying environmental conditions.
The Independent
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Worldwide production of essential crops such as wheat, rice, maize and soya beans is likely to be hit much harder by global warming than previously predicted, an international conference in London has heard.
The benefits of higher levels of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, will in fact be outweighed by the downsides of climate change, a Royal Society discussion meeting was told yesterday. It had been thought that the gas might act as a fertiliser to increase plant growth. Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades, large-scale experiments have shown.
The two-day meeting, entitled Food Crops in a Changing Climate, is focusing largely on tropical countries where most of the world's food is grown, and where people are most vulnerable to climate change.
It is bringing together leading scientists in the fields of meteorology, climate science and agriculture to report on the latest research, including growing crops in experimental conditions in the open air that simulate advanced global warming. Previously, such experiments had taken place in closed chambers, and these had suggested that the "fertilisation" effect of rising CO2 would offset the detrimental effects of rising temperatures and drought incidence on crop production.
But, a new technology known as Face (Free-Air Concentration Enrichment) is allowing treatment of large areas of crop with elevated levels of CO2 and ozone, and these experiments have painted a very different picture.
"Growing crops much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the beneficial effects previously hoped for in the event of climate change," said Steve Long, from Illinois University.
"In addition, ground-level ozone, which is also predicted to rise but has not been extensively studied before, has been shown to result in a loss of photosynthesis and 20 per cent yield loss. Both these results show that we need to seriously re-examine our predictions for future global food production, as they are likely to be far lower than previously estimated," Professor Long said.
Additionally, studies in the UK and Denmark show that just a few days of hot temperatures can severely reduce the yield of major food crops such as wheat, soya beans, rice and groundnuts, if they coincide with the flowering of these crops.
These results suggest that there are particular thresholds above which crops become very vulnerable to climate change.
On a more positive note, the meeting also highlighted new developments in forecasting techniques, the basis of which can act as early warning systems of famine.
The techniques incorporate a climate prediction model with a model that simulates crop growth under varying environmental conditions.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
US Power Companies Should Urgently Address Climate Risk
United States power companies will face significant global-warming related financial risks if they fail to reduce their emissions, according to a new report released today by CERES, a coalition of 85 investors and environmental groups.
The report analyzes climate risks reports that three of the country's largest power companies - American Electric Power, Cinergy and TXU - prepared at the request of investors. These three companies collectively emit over 250 million tons of greenhouse gases every year.
Despite these warnings, US companies are planning to build 100 new coal-fired stations in the coming years. These investments are set to become liabilities when the US will regulate greenhouse gases in the future, which CERES said is "widely expected".
The report was released at CERES's annual conference, which started today in Boston.
CERES website
The report analyzes climate risks reports that three of the country's largest power companies - American Electric Power, Cinergy and TXU - prepared at the request of investors. These three companies collectively emit over 250 million tons of greenhouse gases every year.
Despite these warnings, US companies are planning to build 100 new coal-fired stations in the coming years. These investments are set to become liabilities when the US will regulate greenhouse gases in the future, which CERES said is "widely expected".
The report was released at CERES's annual conference, which started today in Boston.
Friday, April 08, 2005
"Kyoto Effect" Boosts European Renewable Energy Stocks
London, England [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] New Energy Finance's Global Energy Innovation Index (GEIX) has completed the first quarter since its launch. GEIX tracks the performance of the largest 50 pure-play quoted renewable and low-carbon energy technology companies worldwide.
"It's too early to tell whether the very marked 'Kyoto Effect' is a one-off, or whether it will drive a sustained divergence in the value of new energy stocks in Kyoto and non-Kyoto countries," said Michael Liebreich, CEO/Founder of New Energy Finance
Although as a whole the index is up only 0.25% since the beginning of the 2005, a closer analysis of the fund shows what the company believes is very significant "Kyoto Effect," based on the recently enacted national policy to control global emissions of carbon dioxide.
Read the whole story
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=24776
"It's too early to tell whether the very marked 'Kyoto Effect' is a one-off, or whether it will drive a sustained divergence in the value of new energy stocks in Kyoto and non-Kyoto countries," said Michael Liebreich, CEO/Founder of New Energy Finance
Although as a whole the index is up only 0.25% since the beginning of the 2005, a closer analysis of the fund shows what the company believes is very significant "Kyoto Effect," based on the recently enacted national policy to control global emissions of carbon dioxide.
Read the whole story
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=24776
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Duke Energy CEO proposes 'carbon tax'
Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2005
PAUL NOWELL
Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Duke Energy Corp. will lobby for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions that would reduce fossil fuel consumption and begin dealing with the global warming problem, the company's chairman said Thursday.
"Personally, I feel the time has come to act - to take steps as a nation to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy," Paul Anderson told several hundred Charlotte business and civil leaders at a breakfast meeting. "And it's going to take all of us to do it."
Anderson acknowledged a national carbon tax would mean bigger utility bills and higher prices at the gas pump. But unless industry leaders take the lead, he said, the long-term outcome could be even more disastrous.
"If we (the U.S. energy industry) ignore the issue, we would be the easy target," he said. "The worst scenario would be if all 50 states took separate actions and we have to comply with 50 different laws."
Anderson's speech was a follow-up to a letter he wrote last week to shareholders that accompanied the Charlotte-based company's annual report. In the letter, Anderson vowed to be proactive in shaping national policy on global warming and climate change.
In his letter, Anderson said political leaders must break through the congressional stalemate on multi-pollutant legislation and formulate a new national energy policy.
Duke Energy, which ranked 86th in the recent Fortune 500 list, is not the only large U.S. energy firm to address global warming as a key policy concern. Cincinnati-based Cinergy Corp. also addressed the issue in an annual report issued last week.
"As a major coal-burning utility, some might expect us to duck this issue," wrote Cinergy Chairman James Rogers. "But avoiding the debate over global climate change and failing to understand its consequences are not options for us."
Duke Power Co., Duke Energy's regulated utility, relies heavily on coal and nuclear energy to produce nearly all its power.
After his speech, Anderson acknowledged he does not expect to see a carbon tax enacted under President Bush. Bush withdrew the United States from participation in the Kyoto Protocol, an international global warming treaty that took effect in February.
The Kyoto Treaty requires more than 30 industrial countries to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases by a combined average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
PAUL NOWELL
Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Duke Energy Corp. will lobby for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions that would reduce fossil fuel consumption and begin dealing with the global warming problem, the company's chairman said Thursday.
"Personally, I feel the time has come to act - to take steps as a nation to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy," Paul Anderson told several hundred Charlotte business and civil leaders at a breakfast meeting. "And it's going to take all of us to do it."
Anderson acknowledged a national carbon tax would mean bigger utility bills and higher prices at the gas pump. But unless industry leaders take the lead, he said, the long-term outcome could be even more disastrous.
"If we (the U.S. energy industry) ignore the issue, we would be the easy target," he said. "The worst scenario would be if all 50 states took separate actions and we have to comply with 50 different laws."
Anderson's speech was a follow-up to a letter he wrote last week to shareholders that accompanied the Charlotte-based company's annual report. In the letter, Anderson vowed to be proactive in shaping national policy on global warming and climate change.
In his letter, Anderson said political leaders must break through the congressional stalemate on multi-pollutant legislation and formulate a new national energy policy.
Duke Energy, which ranked 86th in the recent Fortune 500 list, is not the only large U.S. energy firm to address global warming as a key policy concern. Cincinnati-based Cinergy Corp. also addressed the issue in an annual report issued last week.
"As a major coal-burning utility, some might expect us to duck this issue," wrote Cinergy Chairman James Rogers. "But avoiding the debate over global climate change and failing to understand its consequences are not options for us."
Duke Power Co., Duke Energy's regulated utility, relies heavily on coal and nuclear energy to produce nearly all its power.
After his speech, Anderson acknowledged he does not expect to see a carbon tax enacted under President Bush. Bush withdrew the United States from participation in the Kyoto Protocol, an international global warming treaty that took effect in February.
The Kyoto Treaty requires more than 30 industrial countries to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases by a combined average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
European Wind Power Helped by Danish Report
MADRID - Shares in Europe's biggest quoted wind turbine companies Vestas Wind Systems, NEG Micon and Gamesa rose last week thanks to a report estimating the global wind power market would grow by 11 percent a year between now and 2007.
Shares in Vestas added 2.9 percent, NEG tacked on 3.6 percent and Gamesa gained 2.4 percent by 1200 GMT.
The growth forecast is lower than windpower consultancy BTM's last five-year estimate a year ago but even so wind power production is expected to rise 24 percent this year alone and by 2012 should account for two percent of world electricity consumption.
"Gamesa's rise is related to this news," said Mariano San Martin, a trader at Spanish broker Ibersecurities.
Danish companies Vestas and NEG Micon rank first and third among world wind power producers with Germany's privately-owned Enercon second and Gamesa fourth.
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=20245
Shares in Vestas added 2.9 percent, NEG tacked on 3.6 percent and Gamesa gained 2.4 percent by 1200 GMT.
The growth forecast is lower than windpower consultancy BTM's last five-year estimate a year ago but even so wind power production is expected to rise 24 percent this year alone and by 2012 should account for two percent of world electricity consumption.
"Gamesa's rise is related to this news," said Mariano San Martin, a trader at Spanish broker Ibersecurities.
Danish companies Vestas and NEG Micon rank first and third among world wind power producers with Germany's privately-owned Enercon second and Gamesa fourth.
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=20245
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Climate Change and War
by Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University
Visiting Africa's Sahel region, Jeffrey Sachs says it's clear that climate change is already driving warfare in Ethiopia and Sudan. This time, peacekeepers, sanctions and humanitarian aid are not going to cut it. Instead, the developed world needs to cut its emissions drastically while helping developing countries adapt—and fast.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared that the two issues at the center of the G-8 Summit this July will be African poverty and global climate change. These may seem to be distinct issues. In fact, they are linked. A trip I took to a village in the Tigre region in northern Ethiopia shows why.
Read the whol article
Copyright: Project Syndicate, March 2005
Visiting Africa's Sahel region, Jeffrey Sachs says it's clear that climate change is already driving warfare in Ethiopia and Sudan. This time, peacekeepers, sanctions and humanitarian aid are not going to cut it. Instead, the developed world needs to cut its emissions drastically while helping developing countries adapt—and fast.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared that the two issues at the center of the G-8 Summit this July will be African poverty and global climate change. These may seem to be distinct issues. In fact, they are linked. A trip I took to a village in the Tigre region in northern Ethiopia shows why.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, March 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Climate Change To Bring A Wave Of New Health Risks
Science Daily
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Climate change will not only bring about a warmer world, it is also very likely to set the stage for an unhealthier one.
As a result, governments and health officials need to begin to think about how to respond to an anticipated increase in the number and scope of climate-related health crises, ranging from killer heat waves and famine, to floods and waves of infectious diseases.
That, in a nutshell, was the message delivered to scientists Feb. 20 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) by Jonathan A. Patz, an authority on the human health effects of global environmental change.
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223141555.htm
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Climate change will not only bring about a warmer world, it is also very likely to set the stage for an unhealthier one.
As a result, governments and health officials need to begin to think about how to respond to an anticipated increase in the number and scope of climate-related health crises, ranging from killer heat waves and famine, to floods and waves of infectious diseases.
That, in a nutshell, was the message delivered to scientists Feb. 20 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) by Jonathan A. Patz, an authority on the human health effects of global environmental change.
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223141555.htm
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Business Week special report on climate change
This comprehensive report explains why the business community is (slowly) waking up to the greatest challenge of the century:
Business Week special report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
