project - NEWS

EU 'windfall for power companies'

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:47:43 GMT

Europe's big power companies could make profits of up to 71bn euros (£56bn) from the EU's scheme to curb carbon emissions, according to a report.

Environment group WWF says the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which allocates firms a fixed number of free carbon permits, does not work.

It says the high level of free handouts benefits German generators most of all, despite their reliance on coal.

The EU wants to scrap the use of free permits in the power sector after 2012.

Under the current system, energy-intensive industries are allowed a fixed level of CO2 emissions.

Companies which exceed that level are able to buy other firms' surplus allowances at auction, with the aim of creating an incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions.

'Cash bonus'
National governments are already allowed to auction up to 10% of emissions permits but WWF estimates that the proportion sold, in practice, is closer to 4%.

"Handing free pollution permits to power companies is like handing them a cash bonus," said WWF's Emissions Trading Scheme Co-ordinator, Sanjeev Kumar.

The report said German generators which were 70% dependent on coal power could make 14bn-34bn euros from the free handouts.

A spokesman for German company E.ON acknowledged that the scheme as it stood was "less than perfect, but it's a start".

"It's the first market-based mechanism to put a price on the use of natural resources," he said.

The European Union accepts the trading scheme has been a learning process, with caps on national emissions set at EU level and member states then allocating limits on individual companies.

European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich added that part of the problem had been the response from power companies.

"If they can pass on the costs to the customers, they will do it. Then they have a certain number of free certificates which they can sell on the market," she said.

China 'now top carbon polluter'

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:47:17 GMT

China has already overtaken the US as the world's "biggest polluter", a report to be published next month says.

The research suggests the country's greenhouse gas emissions have been underestimated, and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The University of California team will report their work in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management.

They warn that unchecked future growth will dwarf any emissions cuts made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The team admit there is some uncertainty over the date when China may have become the biggest emitter of CO2, as their analysis is based on 2004 data.

Until now it has been generally believed that the US remains "Polluter Number One".

Next month's University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The researchers say their figures are based on provincial-level data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency.

They say analysis of the 30 data points is more informative about likely future emissions than national figures in wider use because it allows errors to be tracked more closely.

They believe current computer models substantially underestimate future emissions growth in China.

We are awaiting a formal comment from the UK Chinese Embassy, but Dr Max Auffhammer, the lead researcher, said his projections had been presented widely and no-one had raised a serious complaint.

All those concerned about climate change agree that China's emissions are a problem - including China itself.

But China and many other developing countries struggling to tackle poverty are adamant that any negotiated emissions reductions should not be absolute, but relative to a "business-as-usual" scenario of projected growth.

That is why this study is of more than academic interest.

If it becomes widely accepted that China's future emissions are likely to be much higher than previously estimated, that will have to factored into any future global climate agreement if the Chinese are to be persuaded to take part.

In brief, although this study looks bad for China's reputation, it may be good for China's negotiating position.

The Chinese - and the UN - insist that rich countries with high per capita levels of pollution must cut emissions first, and help poorer countries to invest in clean technology.

America's per capita emissions are five to six times higher than China's, even though China has become the top manufacturing economy.

US emissions are still growing too, though much more slowly.

Dr Auffhammer told BBC News that his projections had made an assumption that the Chinese government's recent aggressive energy efficiency programme would fail, as the previous one had failed badly.

"Our figures for emissions growth are truly shocking," he said.

"But there is no sense pointing a finger at the Chinese. They are trying to pull people out of poverty and they clearly need help.

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

He acknowledged that this eventuality was unlikely.

Those scientists aspiring to stabilise global emissions growth before 2020 to prevent what they believe may be irreversible damage to the climate may be wondering how this can possibly be achieved.

Petrol must now include biofuels

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:46:58 GMT

All petrol and diesel which is sold at UK pumps now has to include at least 2.5% biofuels.

These renewable fuels, made from crops such as sugar cane or maize, have been added to fuel sold around the country.

This target will rise to 5% by 2010. The move is aimed at making transport fuels more environmentally friendly and will not change how cars work.

But some scientists and green groups say biofuels contribute more greenhouse gases than they save.

Negative effects
The idea behind the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) is to reduce climate change emissions from transport - which produced more than a quarter of overall greenhouse gases in the UK - by using renewable fuels instead of fossil fuels.

But some critics say the biofuels' carbon benefits may be outweighed by negative effects from their production.

For example Oxfam said millions of indigenous people faced clearance from their land to make way for biofuel plantations such as palm oil.

The aid agency is also concerned that the switch to energy crops from food production - including a large-scale drive in the US to produce bioethanol from maize - is contributing to rising food prices.

Oxfam joined campaigners from Friends of the Earth and the RSPB for a protest outside Parliament on Monday aimed at urging the government not to go ahead with the new rules.

'Total disarray'
But Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said gradually introducing biofuels could help save millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in the next few years.

"The UK has done more than any other country to make sure they are produced sustainably," he said.

Mr Fitzpatrick said fuel suppliers would be required to report publicly on the sustainability of the biofuels they provide.

"We will not increase biofuels targets beyond 5% unless we are satisfied this can be done without damaging the environmental impacts," he said.

Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said the government's policy on biofuels was in "total disarray".

"The government has embarked on a course which endangers food security, threatens poverty, damages natural habitats and could increase climate change emissions," he said.

"It is utter madness that without proper sustainability criteria the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation threatens to destroy vast swaths of rainforest in the name of the environment."

Friends of the Earth has demanded that greenhouse gases from transport, which account for about 28% of overall emissions, be tackled by investing in better public transport and mandatory emissions limits on cars.

Friends of the Earth transport campaigner Tony Bosworth said biofuels would not help the environment.

"The government is introducing these fuels because they think it's going to help cut climate change emissions from transport, but we believe they're a false solution," he said.

"In many cases some of the biofuels which they're using won't cut carbon dioxide emissions and could indeed lead to more carbon dioxide emissions."

A survey for Friends of the Earth suggested almost nine out of 10 people did not know that renewable fuels would be required in their vehicles.

Extra £225m to beat fuel poverty

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:46:37 GMT

Up to 100,000 households could be helped with their fuel bills under a deal agreed between the UK's big six energy companies and the government.

The energy firms have agreed to boost their collective annual spending on social assistance programmes by £225m over the next three years.

Spending will go up from £50m in the past financial year to £100m this year, £125m in 2009-10 and £150m in 2010-11.

The deal was brokered by Energy Secretary John Hutton.

'Eradicating fuel poverty'

If all the extra money was used to offset bills it could remove up to 100,000 homes from fuel poverty.

A home is judged to be in fuel poverty if 10% or more of the household income is spent on energy bills.

The big six energy firms are British Gas, E.On, Scottish Power, Scottish & Southern, EDF, and NPower.

"I do not underestimate the difficulties and anxiety that rising energy prices can cause but I believe that this extra cash, coupled with ensuring we have the most competitive market possible, will help us toward our goal of eradicating fuel poverty in the UK," said Mr Hutton.

The extra assistance will be targeted at households on low incomes who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, including the elderly.

The government already pays winter fuel payments of up to £250 for over-60s, and up to £400 for over-80s.

Earlier this week, two charities said they were taking legal action against the government for not doing enough to help people hit by rising fuel prices.

Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged are bringing the joint legal challenge to end "the misery of fuel poverty".

Wind energy company in Euro call

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:46:17 GMT

A major wind farm developer has asked European Commissioners to acknowledge support for its 181-turbine proposal for Barvas Moor on Lewis.

Lewis Wind Power (LWP) will be one group at a European Parliament event discussing the Europe-wide Natura 2000 network of protected areas.

Sites covered by the Natura 2000 designation include Lewis peat bogs.

LWP said the designation should not hinder developments which could bring benefits to remote communities.

Thousands of objections to the proposal were sent to Scottish ministers, many from local people. Conservation charity RSPB Scotland has also objected to it.

However, the scheme has been backed by the local authority and businesses.

Scottish ministers have still to announce a decision on whether to approve, or reject the application.

The Natura 2000 event is to be held on Wednesday by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).

European Commissioners are expected to attend.

David Hodkinson, director of Lewis Wind Power, said: "Natura 2000 designations should not prevent developments, particularly where these will bring significant advantages to some of Europe's remote rural areas, suffering from de-population.

"There are ample case studies from across Europe of sensitive developments adjacent to or in Natura 2000 designated land."

He added: "We recognize the importance of the Lewis peat lands, which appear to be releasing CO2, and the habitats that they provide for many species of wildlife - that's why we have effectively designed our wind farm around bird populations and movements."

E-Day: A good use of energy?

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:45:45 GMT

E-Day was designed to raise awareness that saving energy offers a quick, simple way of tackling the massive and urgent threat posed by climate change, and makes sense as a way of saving money and improving peoples' comfort in summer and winter.

I hoped to focus attention on how almost everyone can painlessly take greater personal responsibility for reducing their own demand for energy, and so cutting carbon emissions.

I had calculated that if every one of the 22 million households in the UK turned off just one 100 watt light bulb, on the same day, four 500 megawatt coal-fired power stations could be turned off.

I therefore wanted to see whether this information could be brought to life in a way that involved and interested everyone, and whether asking everyone to switch off at least one electrical item for a day could produce a noticeable impact on the country's energy use and carbon emissions.

No-one likes being repeatedly beaten over the head with messages asking them to "make sacrifices for the planet".

So I decided E-Day should be fun - and was able to set it up initially as a comedy-led BBC television programme likely to feature the talents of people like Graham Norton.

After 18 months of work, BBC TV cancelled Planet Relief just as we were getting ready to go into production.

This was apparently because a couple of other environmental projects had delivered poor ratings and there had been a public debate about whether it was the BBC's job to "save the planet".

The cancellation had immediate implications for E-Day - the first being that it was likely to slide into oblivion - but also raised wider questions about the public's appetite for the climate issue.

Opinion polls show widespread concern about climate change, and a significant majority in favour of taking action - so why weren't people watching? Or were broadcasters being too timid?

Anyway - I decided to see whether I could make E-Day work as an independent venture. The environment charities, religious groups, energy companies and scientists I had been working with decided to remain involved, and the National Grid agreed it would still monitor national electricity use - so it seemed viable.

However, I had very little money to make things happen. A couple of charities came through with no strings attached funding, and the damage to my bank account - while still the equivalent of a deposit on a house - looked manageable.

Still-bjorn?

Come the big day, thanks largely to some fantastically talented people giving their time for free, we had a superb website, a fresh and fun launch event at St Paul's Cathedral featuring the premiere of a bicycle-powered cinema, some lovely short films on YouTube and the agreement of some of the large energy companies to use E-Day to promote home insulation.

But the big disadvantage of working outside one of the big media or campaign groups is that you are dependent on others for publicity.

Without publicity, no-one would know that E-Day was happening, and so almost by definition it was bound to fail on both objectives - lowering energy use and spreading awareness.

In the end, this proved the project's Achilles heel.

The Sun covered our "Bjorn The Bear" video, the BBC News website carried a live data feed of electricity use, BBC News 24 filmed the launch, and 15 local radio stations interviewed me.

A Russian TV news channel, with an audience of 100 million, decided that E-Day was important enough to merit 10 minutes of prime time coverage, even during the Russian elections.

MTV phoned up and asked if they could be part of E-Day in the last few hours!

But it was not enough. As Kevin Costner might have said in Field of Dreams: "We built it; but they did not come".

I was deluged with emails saying, in a nutshell: "Great idea - wish I'd known about it".

It didn't help that the National Grid's prediction for "business as usual" electricity demand immediately ran into trouble.

The day was colder than expected, and this meant that more heating and lighting were being used than the Grid's experts had predicted; for a while, the graphs allowed you to conclude that E-Day had raised energy use - and maybe this dissuaded people from taking part.

Towards the end of E-Day, the Grid used actual weather data to update its predictions, and its final figures revealed that electricity use over the 24 hours of E-Day was 0.1% higher than would have been expected.

At first, I was hugely disappointed by this result.

But as the next morning dawned, and hundreds of encouraging emails started to pour in from children, businesses, councils and people overseas, I started to realise just how much had been achieved.

Insular, insulate

Now, a month or so on, I am able to step back a bit and ask: was it worth it?

First, the positives. Many energy companies, charities, academics and retailers set aside their day-to-day differences and found common cause; that has to bode well for the future.

Through E-Day, five major energy companies simplified the hoops that people have to jump through when they apply for help with home insulation; perhaps this is a model they can take forward now.

They are required to offer these services by law, so they might as well make it as easy as possible.

The together.com coalition of big companies pledged to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of their customers by 1 million tonnes in time for the next E-Day.

Divide and fall

Will there be another E-Day, though?

Right now, I don't know. If there is, I hope that the next one will be bigger and better, and able to build on the ideas, lessons, support and interest generated this time around.

The novelty and ambition of E-Day appeared to create a rare set of conditions under which competitors felt they were missing out if they refused to join efforts to save energy and to come up with solutions to climate change.

However, the fact that E-Day couldn't guarantee high-profile coverage meant that many big and wealthy organisations decided they could say "yes" to contributing a low-cost idea and their logo, but "no" to spending any money on publicity.

There are of course other initiatives with similar aims, such as the recent Earth Hour.

All of them are worthwhile; what we must not do in the environmental community is create any sense of competition between them.

If different groups concentrate on promoting just their "own" ventures, none will achieve what they want. We must keep our common goal of reducing carbon emissions in mind.

Hopefully, next time around it will be possible for all the E-Day partners to promote it more whole-heartedly so that all of their customers and members know exactly when it is, what they are being asked to do and what solutions are on offer.

I also hope that a major media organisation or two will turn out to have a serious enough interest in saving energy that we can do something exciting and unique together in time for the next E-Day.

The Daily Mail's campaign to banish plastic bags appears to have borne fruit; the recent Budget gives supermarkets a year to put their houses in order, otherwise legislation will force them to.

To me, this shows that simple, focused campaigns with significant media coverage, designed to help the environment, can be effective and popular.

Comic Relief and Children in Need successfully campaign against poverty and child abuse; so I hope that backing sensible measures to save energy and urgently tackle climate change, to the level the science indicates to be necessary, will not frighten anyone in the British media for much longer.

Meanwhile, our leaders need to lead and our governments to govern, while customers and voters need to demand and support efforts to save energy and tackle climate change without delay.

In the end, bringing carbon emissions down as far as we need to will require not an E-Day but an E-lifetime; and we should grasp every chance we have to spread the word and start on the small steps that will make the big challenges we all face less daunting.

Brazil president defends biofuels

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:45:20 GMT

Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has rejected allegations that biofuels are responsible for the recent rise in global food prices.

He said food had become more expensive because people in developing countries were gaining greater access to it.

Mr Lula was speaking at a conference of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Brasilia.

A chorus of opposition to bio-fuels has been growing in different parts of the world in recent months.

Environmental groups, government ministers and even world leaders like President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela have all voiced their concerns that the use of crops like sugar-cane and corn to make fuel for cars could lead to a serious food crisis.

'Crime against humanity'

Critics claim biofuels are also partly responsible for the recent rise in global food prices.

And Jean Ziegler, the UN's Special Rapporteur for Food Rights and a Swiss national, has described biofuel production as a crime against humanity.

President Lula, whose country is the world's largest exporter of biofuels such as ethanol, said it was easy for someone sitting in Switzerland to preach to Brazil.

He said allegations that global food prices were rising because of biofuels were baseless.

"Biofuels aren't the villain that threatens food security," said President Lula.

"On the contrary... they can pull countries out of energy dependency without affecting foods."

Food prices were going up, he said, because people in developing countries like China, India and Brazil itself were simply eating more as their economic conditions improved.

The president has signed several important cooperation deals with the US, another leading biofuels producer, as well as with several African countries, to work together to improve production.

The battle against biofuels has united a dichotomous group ranging from environmental activists to the leaders of some of the world's largest oil producing countries.

Bush sets new CO2 emission target

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:54 GMT

US President George W Bush says he is setting an "ambitious" new target of halting growth in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Citing new technology as the key, he said emissions in the US needed to reach a peak within 15 years and decline after that. Environmentalists were quick to sharply criticise the new targets. The three main challengers to replace Mr Bush in January all favour more aggressive climate change policies.

Legislation

Mr Bush said the new target should require emissions "well below" projections given in the 2002 climate strategy. "There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies." He added: "If we fully implement our strong new laws, adhere to the principles I've outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions." The new technology would combine with nuclear power and "clean coal" to help meet the targets, Mr Bush said. However, there was no indication of any new legislation to target emitters, and his statement warned Congress not to pass laws that could "impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families". The US took part in climate change talks in Bali, Indonesia, last year when it was agreed to work towards setting new targets by the end of 2009, ahead of the expiry of the Kyoto emissions agreement in 2012. The US always rejected Kyoto. Environmentalists rounded on Mr Bush's new plan. Carl Pope, the executive director of the largest US environmental group, the Sierra Club, said: "Under the president's plan we'll need a real miracle to save us from global warming." The three rivals for the US presidency - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - all favour tougher climate change policies. They include a cap on industrial carbon dioxide gases and an emissions trading system like that in the European Union.