http://www.environmentdaily.com
Republished
with permission of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
-------------------------
30th July
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political climate cools for fight on global warming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRUSSELS - The world woke up to global warming
at the 1992 Rio Earth summit, but 10 years on, what
some consider the planet's biggest environmental danger
has fallen off the agenda of a major follow-up conference.
Next month's summit of world leaders in Johannesburg
will focus on poverty, not pollution - a worry for some
environmentalists who say the poor will suffer first
if climate change is not stopped.
In Rio
de Janeiro a decade ago, leaders took the landmark decision
to try to stop rising emissions of the greenhouse gases
which trap heat in the atmosphere, and created the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
U.N. scientists said the build-up of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution was
trapping heat in the atmosphere. They predicted major
climate disruption if emissions were not cut.
Five
years later, with emissions still rising, countries
beefed up the convention with the Kyoto Protocol which
contained binding targets on emissions reduction for
industrialised countries.
But the pact has
yet to come into force and the United States put its
future in doubt when it pulled out last year.
"If
you look at the record since Rio, climate change is
the most glaring failure," said Rob Bradley of
the campaign group Climate Action Network.
"Countries
took a commitment to stabilise emissions and then promptly
didn't do it. That gave the lie to the idea that countries
were there because they realised how serious it all
was."
U.S. CLOUD OVER SUMMIT
Kyoto
can still survive without the world's biggest producer
of greenhouse gases, but not until Russia ratifies,
supplying the required number of developed countries
for it to take effect. That is not expected for another
several months.
While Kyoto's supporters are disappointed
it will not be in force before the summit, they blame
U.S. influence for the fact that climate change is barely
mentioned on the agenda.
"EPA (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency) officials told me the
American administration preferred to have climate change
not at all on the agenda at Johannesburg, to instead
focus on water," said European Parliament member
Alex de Roo.
"What do you see? The first item
on the agenda is water. The second is energy, which
has some climate implications, but the word climate
isn't mentioned. That's the cloud of the Bush administration
hanging over the Johannesburg summit."
But
other Kyoto supporters are happy that the treaty will
not be the centre of attention at Johannesburg.
"We more or less have solved the negotiations.
To have major discussions again in Johannesburg would
perhaps give the impression that something more has
to be done," said Jan Pronk, the former Dutch environment
minister who chaired the key climate negotiations before
and after the U.S. withdrawal.
Pronk, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special envoy to help prepare the summit, wants to see Washington return to the treaty, but said any such discussions at Johannesburg "would not be very useful" because they would be unlikely to succeed.
ENVIRONMENT VS DEVELOPMENT?
The summit's focus on fighting poverty reflects
the overriding concern of developing countries where
scourges such as water-borne diseases, malaria and AIDS,
which kill millions every year, appear far more menacing
than global warming.
Many scientists say climate
change will exacerbate those problems. Research over
the past 10 years has given scientists a better idea
of what effects global warming could have on water supplies,
agriculture and population migrations.
While some
scientists are sceptical about climate change and its
effects, a broad-based U.N. scientific panel has predicted
that unchecked emissions could raise global temperatures
by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius this century.
Reports of coral bleaching and melting ice
sheets have indicated that global warming may be well
under way.
Mick Kelly, an atmospheric scientist
at Britain's University of East Anglia, said policymakers
would have to take on board detailed forecasts of the
impact of climate change on populations to enable countries
to cope.
"Whatever politicians may do, some
degree of climate change is inevitable and therefore
we have to plan to adapt," he said.
While
Rio and Kyoto were about reducing the emissions blamed
for causing climate change, more emphasis was now needed
on ensuring countries can manage the consequences, for
example by protecting themselves from sea level rises,
Kelly said.
"It has to be a twin track strategy."
Some analysts believe Johannesburg could
deliver results for the fight against climate change,
both by helping poorer states develop so they can tackle
the impact of global warming, and by getting them to
develop more cleanly than rich countries did.
A
push for renewable energy, for example, could reduce
the greenhouse gas emissions that would inevitably come
from a greater use of fossil fuels in the developing
world.
"(Climate change) is on the
agenda to the extent that they are addressing the future
energy requirements of developing countries," said
Jacqueline Karas, climate change research fellow at
London's Royal Institute for International Affairs.
"It may seem that climate change is a less
immediate problem than tackling poverty, but on issues
like water supply, which is susceptible to climate change,
the most vulnerable countries are those in the tropics
and the south."
So although water, sanitation
and energy for the poor will top the agenda at Johannesburg,
climate change will not far from people's minds, Karas
said.
"It will be climate change by another
name."
Story by Robin Pomeroy
Story Date: 30/7/2002 © Reuters News Service 2002
----------------------
Financial post poll
Alan Toulin
National Post
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
OTTAWA- Business leaders believe implementing
the Kyoto Protocol on climate change can be achieved
without causing major economic disruption, says a Financial
Post poll.
Some 57% of the executives said greenhouse
emissions could be cut drastically with little economic
impact -- the same position expressed by David Anderson,
the Minister of the Environment.
The Kyoto questions,
conducted by COMPAS Inc., the polling company, were
part of a twice-annual survey for the Financial Post
called The Business Agenda.
The executives
were asked to rate on a scale of one to seven whether
it would be possible to reduce emissions without hurting
the economy; 57% of the respondents rated the possibility
of little economic damage between five and seven.
Meanwhile, 29% of respondents said they were firmly
opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and 13% had no opinion.
Steve Kiar, a COMPAS senior partner, said the poll response
is surprising because such key business groups as the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers
and Exporters and the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers have warned that implementing the treaty would
be devastating for the Canadian economy.
"[The
polls shows] a fairly optimistic view," said Mr.
Kiar. "They believe Kyoto doesn't entail serious,
significant costs to the economy.
"They see
[climate change] as a serious problem but don't see
it requiring a drastic solution."
The poll,
a survey of 500 senior business people, was completed
in June. The results are deemed accurate to within five
percentage points 19 times out of 20.
Last month,
the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which represents
Canada's blue-chip companies, called Kyoto a "straitjacket"
that will undermine the country's ability to meet its
social and economic priorities.
In February,
the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said Kyoto
would wipe out 450,000 manufacturing jobs in Canada,
and that it would cost the economy up to $40-billion
and force a radical lifestyle change on people.
However, this latest COMPAS poll is similar to previous
findings: In the first such poll, in 1998, 60% of those
surveyed thought Kyoto could be implemented without
hurting the economy.
Mr. Kiar believes this
shows the anti-Kyoto campaign "is not really resonating
with business leaders.
"I'm a little surprised
that when you have the lines drawn so clearly, really,
attitudes have not changed very much."
Among
those surveyed, 82% said they are aware of the Kyoto
Protocol.
Over the four-year period of polling on
climate change, this level of recognition has remained
unchanged.
Among respondents, 70% said climate change
is a serious issue, 15% had no opinion and 14% said
they did not think global warming is a serious problem.
Along with business groups, Alberta has also
urged Ottawa not to ratify Kyoto and opt for a made-in-Canada
solution to cut greenhouse gases.
Those opposed
to Kyoto say the fact the United States is not going
to sign will put Canadian industry, especially in the
oilpatch, at a competitive disadvantage.
Kyoto requires
Canada to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions to a level
6% below the amount produced by the economy in 1990.
Greenhouse gases, caused by the burning of fossil fuels,
are believed to be responsible for the gradual warming
of the Earth's temperature.
CHANGING CLIMATE CHANGE: Business leaders are concerned about global warming
(Respondents ranked climate change by
seriousness):
Very serious 7: 28%
6:
21%
5: 21%
4: 15%
3: 7%
2: 2%
Not
a problem at all 1: 5%
No opinion: 1%
And
believe Kyoto controls won't wreak economic havoc
Very possible 7: 15%
6: 15%
5: 27%
4: 13%
3: 19%
2: 6%
Not possible at all 1: 4%
No
opinion: 1%
COSYING UP TO THE U.S.: Most business leaders thinks NAFTA has been good for Canada...:
Strongly positive: 24%
Moderately positive: 48%
Moderately negative: 19%
Strongly negative: 3%
No opinion: 6%
... though better for the
States:
United States: 55%
Canada: 36%
Both:
3%
Neither: 1%
No opinion: 7%
Which
is why they'd like to forge even closer ties to the
U.S.:
Status quo: 4%
Expand free trade: 27%
Customs union: 3%
Common market: 31%
Monetary
union: 16%
Economic union: 11%
None of the above:
2%
No opinion: 7%
Source: The Business
Agenda
© Copyright 2002 National Post
----------------------
Tuesday,
July 30, 2002
By Maggie Fox, Reuters
WASHINGTON
— Air pollution worsens heart disease by cutting
off circulation to the heart, Finnish researchers reported
Monday in a study that helps explain why polluted environments
aggravate not only asthma but heart conditions.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 60,000
people a year die in the United States alone from particulate
air pollution — the kind caused when small particles
of smoke pervade the air.
Dr. Juha Pekkanen
of the National Public Health Institute in Kuopio, Finland,
and colleagues looked specifically at pollution coming
from factory smokestacks and the tailpipes of some diesel-powered
buses and trucks.
Heart disease patients exposed
to such pollution were about three times more likely
to have ischemia — decreased blood flow to the
heart — while exercising after being exposed to
such pollution, as compared with when they exercised
after breathing in cleaner air, they reported.
Writing in this week's online issue of Circulation,
published by the American Heart Association, the researchers
said they could measure clear changes in oxygen supply
to the heart using electrocardiograms (ECG).
They
studied 45 heart disease patients, nearly half of them
women, all living within an area in Helsinki where air
pollution could be easily measured. Twice a week for
six weeks the researchers gave the volunteers an exercise
test and charted their findings against readings of
extremely fine particles in the air locally.
Two
days after breathing in polluted air, the volunteers
had "significantly elevated" levels of ischemia,
Pekkanen and colleagues wrote. Ischemia is often painless
but is a sign of serious heart disease. The pollution
may either be helping clumps of artery-clogging plaque
break off, causing heart attacks and strokes, or it
could be causing dangerous heart rhythms, or both, the
researchers said. Heart rate also increased after exposure
to pollution from an average of 61 beats per minute
to 90.
PROBLEM 'PERVASIVE AND GROWING'
The study helps explain why pollution can affect
heart disease, Dr. Murray Mittleman, director of cardiovascular
epidemiology at Harvard University and Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues said in a commentary.
Mittleman and colleagues cited studies that showed health
risks from particle-containing air pollution were notable
not only in the expected cities, such as Los Angeles
and Houston, but in "cities that are considered
to have relatively clean air, such as Boston, Seattle,
and Minneapolis."
Researchers reported
in Circulation earlier this year that fine particles,
when inhaled, can stay in the system for hours, traveling
in the blood to various organs. Those particles can
disrupt the heart's activity, interfering with its rhythm
and tightening arteries.
"The problem with
particulate air pollution is pervasive and growing,"
they wrote. Mittleman said that on days when pollution
levels were high, many people would be better off exercising
indoors — something many authorities already recommend
in daily air quality reports.
Mittleman noted a
number of holes in the study. For one, the original
study was supposed to include volunteers in Germany
and the Netherlands, but not enough of those patients
had enough measurable ischemia to be used in the study.
Copyright 2002, Reuters
All Rights Reserved
----------------------
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 17:30 JST
MOSCOW — The Russian government proposed
in late June that Japan should take over 1 million tons
of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually from Russia so that
Tokyo can achieve its CO2 emission reduction target
under the Kyoto Protocol, government sources said Tuesday.
The two countries have already started preliminary talks
over the emissions trading, focusing mainly on the conditions
of the deal, such as tax breaks. Under the proposal,
Japan will fund repair work to modernize two Russian
power plants in the Far East region to lower their CO2
emissions. (Kyodo News)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copying or using text, photographs, illustrations, video
or images appearing on this site without permission
is prohibited.
All rights reserved. Copyright ©
2000, 2001
BRUSSELS - The European Commission got a mixed
report on its green policies this week and environmental
groups urged it to do more.
In a review by the
Green G8, a group of eight environmental bodies modelled
on the Group of Eight industrial nations, the Commission,
the EU executive, was praised for pushing ahead with
a treaty to stop global warming, the Kyoto pact.
But it was chastised for failing to provide leadership
in the run-up to the Earth Summit on sustainable development
and the environment in Johannesburg and for rolling
back on ambitious plans to tackle the problems of waste
disposal.
"We see four areas where
we have given the Commission a positive assessment and
eight where we are negative," Jorgo Iwasaki-Riss,
who edited the review and is from international environmental
campaign group Greenpeace, told a news conference.
The Commission said in a statement that it welcomed
dialogue with the green groups, but disagreed with their
assessment.
The groups said the four positive
areas included Kyoto - which aims to limit greenhouse
gases and global warming - and plans to reform European
fishing to stop the depletion of stocks.
The Commission
was also praised for being firm in environment talks
with candidate countries to make sure they all met EU
norms and for agricultural reform plans, for linking
the provision of funds to efforts to protect the countryside.
Areas where it was judged to be falling
short included delaying action against what greens see
as an unsustainable plan by Spain to transfer water
across country to farm and tourism areas.
The greens
also said the Commission had relaxed on the issue of
waste by not making more effort to change production
and consumption patterns and had failed to push forward
with plans to harmonise environmental taxes on energy
products.
The Commission said it was making
progress.
"The European Commission has played
the leading role in ensuring that the European Union
has committed itself to active leadership on the international
stage at Johannesburg," it said of the summit,
due to take place in August.
It also said it was
making progress in forcing polluters to pay for damage
to the environment and had laws planned in other areas.
Story Date: 25/7/2002
© Reuters News
Service 2002
back to latest
news
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES - California Gov. Gray Davis signed
a landmark law This week making his state the first
in the nation to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
in an effort to curb global warming.
"This
is the first law in America to substantively address
the greatest environmental challenge of the 21st century,"
Davis said. "In time, every state - and hopefully
every country - will act to protect future generations
from the threat of global warming. For California, that
time is now."
But the auto industry, which
strongly opposed the California law, vowed to dismantle
it in federal court by invoking federal laws that reserve
for Congress the power to set fuel economy standards.
"Federal law and common sense prohibit each
state from developing its own fuel economy standards,"
Josephine Cooper, president of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, said in a statement this week. "We
expect to challenge successfully the implementation
of this law in federal court."
The California
law takes advantage of a unique loophole which allows
the Golden State to set its own air quality standards
independent of the federal government.
The
new law is the nation's first to require auto makers
to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions and
other pollutants which form a thickening blanket in
the atmosphere scientists say leads to rising global
temperatures.
Davis said the auto industry was
wrong to fight the measure, which he called a "historic
step."
"Clearly there will be resistance
to this bill and opponents will say the sky is falling,"
Davis said this week. "They said the sky was falling
about unleaded gasoline. They said it about the catalytic
converter. They even said it about seat belts and airbags.
My friends, the sky is not falling. It is just getting
a lot clearer."
California, the No. 1 U.S.
auto market, set up the Air Resources Board before the
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was formed
under the Clean Air Act of 1970. It has since pioneered
a number of environmental requirements for the auto
industry, including catalytic converters and lead-free
gasoline.
'MAXIMUM FEASIBLE REDUCTION'
Under the new law, the California Air Resources
Board must adopt rules to achieve "the maximum
feasible reduction" in greenhouse gas emissions
by cars as well as light-duty trucks and sport utility
vehicles, which together now account for 47 percent
of passenger vehicles sold in California.
The regulations
would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2006, but give auto
makers until 2009 to come up with technological changes
or modifications to comply with the new standards.
The California bill, which had been opposed by
some Republican legislators, passed by a fairly narrow
margin this month. Davis, the Democratic governor of
the nation's most populous state, pledged to sign it.
In This week's bill signing ceremony at Los Angeles'
landmark Griffith Park, the law's jubilant supporters
congratulated Davis and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, the
bill's Democratic sponsor, for blocking automakers'
aggressive attempts to kill the bill.
"We
had truth, we had science and we had the public on our
side," said Ann Notthoff, California Advocacy director
for the California Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Our very quality of life is threatened ... it
makes good sense to do this now."
Several
speakers at This week's ceremony, including Davis, criticized
the Bush Administration for declining to raise auto
fuel economy standards and rejecting the Kyoto treaty
designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
"The Gray Davis administration is leading
the way for the country because Washington, D.C. has
failed to lead," said Winston Hickox, secretary
of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Auto industry groups have slammed the legislation as
a political sop to the environmental movement, saying
it will do little to decrease global warming while mandating
expensive technological innovations that will deprive
Californians of the big cars and trucks they love.
"Gov. Davis has triggered government fiat that
will curtail every Californian's right to choose the
safest and most appropriate vehicle for themselves and
their families," William Fay, president of the
American Highway Users Alliance, a driver advocacy group,
said in a statement.
A NATIONAL MODEL?
With California making up some 10 percent of
the national auto market, state officials say the new
legislation could become a national model and will push
auto makers to devise new ways to make cars and trucks
run cleaner.
"I'm convinced that in time states
will adopt our model, they will contribute their best
efforts to reducing greenhouse gases," Davis said.
Already, a state legislator in New York has suggested
introducing a bill similar to California's, while other
states, particularly in the Northeast, are also believed
to be studying their options.
Story by Gina Keating
Story Date: 24/7/2002
SAN FRANCISCO - A new California law
setting tough auto emissions standards to fight global
warming may spur other U.S. states to follow suit, marking
one of the most serious environmental challenges to
the auto industry in decades, state officials say.
The measure, which Gov. Gray Davis is expected to sign
yesterday, will make California the first state to regulate
vehicle greenhouse gas emissions - putting it in front
of federal regulators who have declined to raise national
fuel efficiency standards.
Davis administration
officials say California's move could help to set new
national and international priorities in the fight against
global warming.
"I believe that Washington's
dropped the ball in cleaning up carbon pollution gasses
that trap and change our climate," Winston Hickcox,
secretary of the state's Environmental Protection Administration,
said last week.
"California has a tradition
of environmental sensibility and common sense safeguards
and this bill represents another example of California
showing leadership," he said.
Democrats
across the country have attacked the Bush administration
for failing to establish a national policy to combat
global warming, and environmental groups reacted with
dismay when the federal government moved in April to
reject a proposed proposed 50 percent boost in fuel
efficiency for gas-guzzling cars and SUVs.
In California
- a Democratic stronghold with a strong record of environmental
regulation - politicians moved to take the matter into
their own hands, passing the new emissions bill by a
narrow 41 to 30 vote in the state assembly this month.
The bill, which has been fiercely opposed by the
auto industry, requires the state's Air Resources Board
to adopt regulations that would achieve "the maximum
feasible reduction" in emissions of greenhouse
gases, including carbon dioxide, emitted by cars and
light-duty trucks, the category that includes SUVs.
The regulations, which should be completed
by 2005, would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2006. The
amended version of the bill also gives automakers until
2009 to come up with technological changes or modifications
to comply with the new standards.
Auto industry
groups have criticized the bill as a "driving tax"
designed to put a wedge between Californians and their
beloved SUVs and pickup trucks - which now account for
some 47 percent of passenger vehicles sold in the state,
a percentage that has tripled over the last 30 years.
"The danger is that Californians may lose
the choice to buy the vehicles they need for their families
and work while Arizonans and Nevadans and Oregonians
will still have that choice," said Eron Shosteck,
a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
"This gives unelected bureaucrats a blank
check to design the cars that Californians will drive."
A NUDGE FOR INNOVATION
California officials
say the bill is simply designed to nudge the automobile
industry into devising vehicles which produce less of
the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses commonly
blamed for global warming.
"Many of these
technologies would work whether its on a European mini
car or its on the largest SUV here," said Tom Cackette,
the Air Resources Board's chief deputy executive officer.
California officials concede that even if the state
is successful in legislating a reduction in vehicular
greenhouse gas emissions, that alone will do little
to stop the overall rise in world temperatures.
While the United States contributes roughly 25 percent
of the global greenhouse gasses, California - long a
national leader in tough air pollution regulations -
is not among the top offenders.
Nevertheless, they
say that by moving to cut back on automobile greenhouse
emissions, California may be setting an example for
other states and nations to follow.
California,
alone among U.S. states, has the ability to impose its
own air quality standards because its Air Resources
Board was established before the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was formed under the Clean Air Act
of 1970.
But that act also allows other states
to follow California's standards rather than the federal
ones - opening the door for other states to adopt California's
new greenhouse gas regulations.
In New York, a
state legislator has suggested introducing a bill similar
to California's, while officials in other states are
believed to be studying their alternatives.
"We
have reasons to believe that some of the northeastern
states are looking very closely at what's going on here,"
said Jim Boyd, a member of the California Energy Commission.
Shosteck of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
said opponents of the measure were mulling their options,
including an effort to put a referendum on the bill
on the November state ballot and a possible legal challenge
to California's right to override federal fuel efficiency
standards.
"This bill is all pocketbook pain
and no environmental gain," Shosteck said. "The
Air Resources Board wants everyone driving around in
golf carts."
Story by Andrew Quinn
Story Date: 23/7/2002
-------------------------
The
European Commission yesterday walked into another political
row over nuclear power, as it proposed a programme of
energy cooperation with developing countries. An EU
"energy partnership initiative" based on the
communication is to be presented at the Johannesburg
world sustainability summit, starting next month.
The communication sets out key challenges facing
developing countries in producing sustainable energy,
including the fact that 2bn people currently have no
access to basic energy services. It proposes enhanced
measures designed to foster technology transfer and
reform of energy systems, including diversification,
more energy efficiency and support for renewables.
Its most controversial passage concerns nuclear
energy. Most developing countries do not have the skills
or governance required to ensure safe operation, the
communication declares. However, where developing countries
themselves opt for nuclear energy, "and where this
is consistent with" national sustainability strategies,
then the EU may "provide access to modern, safe
nuclear energy".
Green groups responded
harshly, accusing the EU of "energy colonialism".
"It is simply obscene", said Greenpeace, "for
the European Commission to push its deadly mistakes
on developing countries when the technology exists for
clean, sustainable energy now." The group's definition
of "deadly mistakes" includes not only nuclear,
but also "clean coal" technologies, which
the communication also proposes to support in developing
countries.
Friends of the Earth Europe, meanwhile,
accused the EU of hypocrisy. EU leaders have already
rejected a Commission proposal to include nuclear power
in the bloc's own sustainable development programme,
said the group. It was therefore "cynical"
to propose the nuclear option as a contribution to the
Johannesburg summit.
For its part, the Commission
argues that renewables can play an important role, but
that their high cost means there is a "low probability"
that they can totally replace traditional biomass. Developing
countries will continue to develop oil, coal and nuclear
supplies come what may, its basic argument runs, and
the EU should therefore provide assistance to make their
use as clean and safe as possible.
For the text of the communication in pdf click HERE
Republished with permission
of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
Germany
will bring back nuclear power, abolish the ecotax programme,
and possibly hold off on introducing deposits on one-way
drinks containers if the centre-right opposition wins
the next general election on 22 September. These measures
are being proposed in the electoral manifestos of the
Christian Union (CDU/CSU) and the Free Democrats (FDP)
if they emerge as the new governing coalition. There
are differences between these parties, however, on the
timing and detail of their proposed implementation.
The FDP, which promotes itself as the party of lower
taxes, wants the ecological taxation programme scrapped
immediately, while the CDU/CSU believes it should be
abolished "in the medium term". As for the
ordinance introducing deposits on one-way drinks containers,
the FDP says it should not take effect from 1 January,
while the Christian Union argues it should merely be
amended (ED 08/07/02).
On energy policy,
a centre-right government led by Edmund Stoiber would
promote reliance on coal over the next four years, and
also reverse Germany's historic decision to withdraw
from nuclear power generation (ED 05/09/01).
While
the centre-right parties say in their manifestos they
will do their utmost to promote renewable sources, the
CDU/CSU does not set any specific goals. The FDP goes
one step further, arguing that the government should
not set any quotas for their contribution to the energy
mix, and instead let the market decide which sources
should prevail.
However, the coalition would uphold
Germany's support for the Kyoto protocol and an existing
national target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions
by 25% from 1990 levels three years from now. It also
broadly embraces the current Social Democrat (SPD)-Green
government's sustainability strategy (ED 04/01/02).
If pollsters' predictions are confounded and
the present government is re-elected, no additional
ecotaxes will be levied, the SPD's chancellor Gerhard
Schröder has promised. To win votes from its traditional
blue-collar electoral base, the party has also pledged
to continue to support coal as part of the overall energy
mix.
Renewables should be doubled by 2010, the SPD
says in its manifesto, while the Greens call for a doubling
by 2006. If they are re-elected to government, the Greens
have also promised to step up efforts for a reduction
of greenhouse gases by one-third by 2010, and for the
share of organic farming to rise to 20% of all land
farmed in Germany.
Republished with permission
of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
-------------------------
French industry
groups and the government have agreed a framework for
a new voluntary accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions
and help France meet its Kyoto protocol obligations.
Under the protocol, France is to stabilise its emissions
at 1990 levels by 2008-12.
The initiative for a
voluntary approach was seized last year by industry,
after France's energy tax was ditched at the eleventh
hour by the constitutional court (ED 20/07/01).
Development of the voluntary mechanism has been
led by business confederation Medef and is largely a
refinement of proposals put forward towards the end
of last year (ED 19/12/01).
Participation is open
to all, and businesses have until mid-2003 to sign up
and outline their targets for reducing the six greenhouse
gases included in the Kyoto protocol, either as absolute
reductions in emissions or cuts relative to production.
A new industry association, audited by an independent
committee, will monitor and report on progress, and
administer sanctions for non-achievement of targets
at the end of 2004 and 2007.
Republished with permission
of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
-------------------------
LONDON - Britain will struggle to meet its target of
a big cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 as generators
burn more coal to fill the gap left by the closure of
nuclear power plants, a report published yesterday said.
The report from Cambridge Econometrics predicts
a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 2005 as
a result of energy demand growth and an increase in
coal-fired generation as many of Britain's ageing nuclear
power stations shut.
"Our forecasts of energy
demand and carbon emissions are an important reality
check," said Paul Ekins, co-editor of the study
"UK Energy and the Environment" in a statement.
"They show the magnitude of the task
facing the government as it seeks to make significant
headway towards its domestic policy goal of cutting
carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010."
All but one of Britain's nuclear power stations
are due to shut by 2025. The newest plant, Sizewell
B, built in 1995, will operate until 2035.
Britain's
CO2 reduction target is voluntary but much deeper than
its legally binding commitment under the Kyoto climate
change protocol to cut emissions of greenhouse gases,
widely blamed for causing global warming.
Cambridge
Econometrics said the UK is on course to meet its Kyoto
goal of a 12.5 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions
on 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
Britain's CO2
emissions fell sharply in the 1990s as power producers
switched to cleaner natural gas from coal but they have
risen over the last two years as high gas prices prompted
a switch back to coal generation.
Coal is expected
to be much cheaper than gas after 2010 when gas prices
are forecast to rise as Britain becomes more dependent
on imported gas.
While emissions rose again in
2001, Cambridge Econometrics revised down the level
of pollution in 2000 by 2.7 million tonnes of carbon
(mtc) to 146 mtc.
As a result, it forecast
emissions in 2010 at 147.7 mtc, 7.2 percent below the
1990 level, compared to 149.5 mtc Cambridge Econometrics
estimated in January 2002.
The challenge for the
government in its white paper on energy, due to be published
in the autumn, will be to combine measures to encourage
a low-carbon economy with tax measures which boost energy
conservation, said the report.
"The government
is clearly finding environmental taxes in general...politically
challenging," said Ekins.
The government has
faced opposition from companies to its recently introduced
climate change levy on energy used by businesses.
It also faces a struggle to reach its target of providing
10 percent of Britain's electricity from green sources
by 2010, up from around three percent at present.
Story Date: 23/7/2002
-------------------------
ARMATREE,
Australia - While Australians near the coast delight
in a winter that is warmer than average, those in the
outback reeling from drought fervently hope for rain
as dams dry up and crops lie barren under a relentless
sun.
Gripped in the iron clasp of drought is two-thirds
of the large agricultural state of New South Wales (NSW)
- an area about the size of Greece. Another 17 percent
is in partial drought.
Times are turning desperate
for those who work the land in one of the world's top
food exporting nations, as the drought is expected to
be aggravated by the El Nino weather phenomenon that
the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said last week
is forming.
In Armatree, a small rural town about
300 km (190 miles) from the east coast, farmers like
Jenny and Craig Bradley spent a lot of money preparing
for a lack of rainfall.
They sowed and fertilised
all the paddocks on their sheep and cattle property,
then checked all livestock to sort out those carrying
offspring, and sold off the rest. They rationed feed
scrupulously. All to no avail.
"All the money
has been spent up front, and now it looks like we may
not get a return on any of it," Jenny Bradley said.
BLEACHED LANDS
The dry winter
air has transformed once green countryside into bleached
yellow scrub. Roads wind through flat brown fields.
It has been two years since substantial rain has
fallen in Armatree. Dams in the area have long since
dried up, leaving farmers to rely on water from borewells.
Not all have that.
Drought is part of life here.
A year ago farmers were rejoicing in the best prices
for decades for beef and wool. Now they are struggling
again.
"Of all the times to run into a drought,
when mutton, wheat and beef prices were so good, it's
just a shame," said Bradley.
"With high
commodity prices and the way things were going, a lot
of people took the plunge and bought more land. They'll
be finding it difficult (to cope now) with the debt,"
she said.
The drought is no longer just
a threat hanging over farmers. It is painfully tangible
after the planting window closed with only about 70
percent of crops in the ground.
The Australian
Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)
recently cut its national wheat crop forecast to 20.5
million tonnes from original estimates of almost 24
million tonnes. Some traders speak of 15 million tonnes.
The New South Wales government has come up with
an assistance package for 1,100 farms, but the aid is
not enough.
The Bradleys have been hand-feeding
their livestock for most of this year from stocks of
grain built up when the spectre of drought first surfaced.
"We haven't had to buy in any feed because
that's a drought management lesson we learnt from (the)
1994 (drought). We've actually stored more grain than
we've ever stored before," Bradley said.
But
only two months of supplies are left.
Their cattle,
presently grazing for a fee on more fortunate farms
with surplus feed, will return in two weeks, just in
time for calving. More mouths will need to be fed.
CLOUDLESS SKIES
It leaves the Bradleys scanning
cloudless skies in the hope of rain. If none is received
in the next two weeks, a crop of oats that managed to
scrape through the dry soil will turn to waste.
Ten km (six miles) down the road, cattleman David Tym
was droving around 150 cattle along the thin strips
of grassy land next to the highway.
"Up in
Coonamble they've closed (stock routes) because there's
no feed on them and there's no water. It's a pretty
desperate situation," Tym said.
Drought means
disaster across society for remote Australian farming
communities. Money runs out as waterholes dry up.
"People just tighten up, they don't spend the money
because they haven't got it," Bradley said. "You
don't know how long the drought is going to last so
you save your cash reserves and you just spend it on
the items you need."
"The best we can
do is learn...and prepare for the next one," she
added.
Story by Justine Toh
Story Date:
23/7/2002
-------------------------
Japan's carbon dioxide emissions hit a record 1.24 billion
tons in fiscal 2000, up 4.3 million tons from a year
earlier, the Environment Ministry said Thursday.
Per capita release of carbon dioxide logged a record
9.75 tons in fiscal 2000, up 10.5 percent from fiscal
1990, the ministry said.
The increase in
emissions lifted overall greenhouse gas emissions to
1.33 billion tons, up 0.25 percent from fiscal 1999
levels and exceeding by 8 percent the 1990 emission
levels that serve as the base for emission reductions
pledged under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
The overall emissions figure for the six gases targeted
under the treaty is the third highest on record, falling
just shy of figures for 1996 and 1997, the ministry
said.
Carbon dioxide accounts for nearly
90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the
Kyoto Protocol, Japan is obliged to reduce its emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 6 percent
from the 1990 level on average between 2008 and 2012.
To achieve this, Japan must effectively
trim emissions by 14 percent.
The ministry figures
indicate that the civic sector -- homes and offices
-- posted the biggest increase, with carbon dioxide
emissions growing to 318 million tons, up 2.9 percent
from a year earlier and 21.3 percent greater than in
1990.
Meanwhile, emissions from the transportation
sector fell 2.1 percent from 1999 levels to 256 million
tons, or 20.6 percent of the 1990 figure.
The industrial
sector, responsible for nearly 40 percent of all emissions,
saw emissions nudge down 0.2 percent from a year earlier
to 495 million tons.
The figure, however, is still
0.9 percent above that for 1990.
Ministry
officials attributed the increased emissions in the
civic sector to greater energy consumption due to more
and larger electrical goods, combined with warmer-than-average
temperatures. The decline in the transport sector might
be due to more efficient freight arrangements, they
added.
The Japan Times: July 19, 2002
(C) All rights reserved
-------------------------
By JAMES STERNGOLD
(For pdf version of the original
letter, click HERE)
LOS ANGELES, July 16 — In a letter that
attacks what it says is the Bush administration's failure
to address the looming crisis of global warming, the
attorneys general of 11 states have written to the president
pressing for strong federal measures to limit emissions
of so-called greenhouse gases.
The state officials
argue in the letter, to be sent on Wednesday to President
Bush, that his administration's "regulatory void"
has left it to the states to piece together a patchwork
of inconsistent regulations on the environment and that
a strong federal policy would be far more effective.
The letter was written as Gov. Gray Davis of
California was scheduled to sign a bill on Monday intended
to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon
dioxide. Mr. Davis's approval of the bill, which would
require automakers to sell more fuel-efficient cars,
had been widely expected since the Legislature passed
it. The passage, despite strong opposition from the
automobile industry, could prod additional states to
take similar measures, because California has by far
the largest automobile market in the nation.
The
officials sending the letter to Mr. Bush, all Democrats,
indirectly criticized him for saying that the science
on global warming had not conclusively proved its existence.
The officials cited a report that the administration
issued in May, saying it justified strong action to
avoid potentially devastating consequences to the environment
and public health.
"For these reasons,"
the officials said, "we write today to urge you
to reconsider your position on the regulation of greenhouse
gases and to adopt a comprehensive policy that will
protect both our citizens and our economy."
The letter was spearheaded by the attorney general of
Massachusetts, Thomas F. Reilly. It was also signed
by the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, New
Jersey, California, Alaska, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island and Vermont.
The letter also contended
that the administration's environmental policies had
made problems worse.
"Far from proposing solutions
to the climate change problem, the administration has
been adopting energy policies that would actually increase
greenhouse gas emissions," it read.
A
spokeswoman for the White House, Claire Buchan, noted
that the National Governors' Association last year and
the state environmental commissioners in 2000 rejected
calls for mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
"The president is working on a bipartisan common-sense
approach," Ms. Buchan said.
Mr. Bush's Clear
Skies initiative, she said, "would lead to the
largest reduction in power plant emissions ever."
The principal greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which
automobiles, as well as power plants and numerous industries,
release into the air. The carbon dioxide retains heat
from the sun in the atmosphere, rather than letting
it dissipate, contributing to a slow rising of temperatures.
Scientists have shown that the warming, although measured
in just a degree or two on average in some places, has
already had effects like allowing a proliferation of
insects to destroy spruce forests in Alaska and raising
the average levels of the oceans. The scientists warn
that the warming, if unchecked, could flood coastal
areas, disrupt water supplies, cause heat waves and
destroy some wetlands and coral reefs while increasing
problems from insect-borne diseases.
The
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was relatively
constant for 400,000 years, experts say. But with the
industrial revolution 150 years ago, it has soared.
Carbon dioxide has an unusually long life in the atmosphere,
so even with drastic action, experts say, it could take
years for Earth to begin cooling again.
In an interview,
Mr. Reilly, the Massachusetts attorney general, criticized
Mr. Bush's dismissal of the science on global warming
and said there was a new sense of urgency.
"You
can't ignore this any longer," he said. "This
is not something you can fool around with. The kind
of brushoffs we've gotten from the administration are
kind of offensive."
David Samson, the attorney
general of New Jersey, added that global warming "poses
real and immediate dangers to New Jersey's environment
and the health of our citizens."
The
authors do not specify what they want, but Mr. Reilly
said they were seeking at the least caps on the carbon
dioxide that power plants emit, as well as increases
in average mileage standards for automobiles.
The
authors suggest so-called market-based policies. Under
such programs, which are used in a number of industries
that produce large volumes of gas emissions, companies
can profit from lowered emissions by selling their emission
"rights" to other companies that produce more
gases. The extra costs and the potential profits give
companies an incentive to cut back. Conservatives have
embraced such market-driven policies in many instances.
"The letter is one that ought to receive
a lot of sympathy in the Bush administration,"
Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut,
said, "because it calls for a market-based approach
to capping the total greenhouse gases and allocating
credits to industries and companies to buy and sell.
It's a very Republican approach."
In addition
to the action by the California Legislature, a few other
states, including New York, are moving in the direction
of limiting carbon emissions.
According to the
Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental
group, automobiles produce 25 percent of the carbon
dioxide emissions in the country and power plants produce
40 percent.Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
| Permissions | Privacy Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats last week dismissed
the Bush administration's plan for voluntary cuts in
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as "baloney"
and said it will not help slow global warming.
The White House plan depends on U.S. companies to voluntarily
curb industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and links
reduction targets to American economic growth. Democrats
prefer a mandatory approach that dictates specific cuts.
President George W. Bush withdrew the United States
last year from the international Kyoto treaty that aims
to cut heat-trapping emissions, saying it was too costly
to the economy.
James Connaughton, chairman
of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality,
told the Senate Commerce committee that the administration's
voluntary plan would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
relative to the size of the American economy by 18 percent
over the next decade.
But Democrats expressed skepticism.
They said the Bush plan was based on cutting the amount
of emissions emitted per dollar of economic output,
which would not reduce total U.S. emissions.
"This
is a myth and we're going to expose it," said Democrat
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, referring to the White
House plan. She added: "It's baloney."
Connaughton acknowledged the administration's proposal
would slow the growth of U.S. emissions, not reduce
them. "Greenhouse gas emissions will rise under
our approach, there's no question about that,"
he told the Senate panel.
13 PERCENT JUMP
The National Wildlife Federation, for instance,
said in a report released Thursday that the administration's
plan would result in an 13 percent jump in U.S. emissions
in the next decade.
The United States has only
4 percent of the world's people, but produces 25 percent
of global greenhouse emissions that are linked to climate
change and health problems like asthma.
Democrat
John Kerry of Massachusetts, who chaired the hearing,
said the administration was not doing enough to reduce
emissions and fight global warming. He criticized the
administration for claiming the science on the cause
of global warming was unclear and using that as an excuse
for not tackling the problem.
Kerry asked how the
United States could ignore the position of the European
Union, Japan and more than 100 other countries that
have endorsed the Kyoto treaty.
"What do they
know that we don't?" said Kerry, who is seen as
a Democratic candidate for the 2004 presidential election.
Connaughton said the Kyoto treaty would have cost
the U.S. economy up to $400 billion and caused the loss
of 4.9 million job to comply to with the accord's requirements.
Democrats said the United States should have participated
in the treaty so it could refine and change the troublesome
provisions in it.
WHITE HOUSE REPORT
Connaughton and other administration officials
appearing before the panel were also grilled on the
recent White House climate change report sent to United
Nations.
The report said human activities - from
driving automobiles to operating power plants and oil
refineries - produced greenhouse gas emissions that
were the primary cause of global warming.
Connaughton
defended President Bush's dismissive-sounding comment
that the report was nothing more than a product of the
federal bureaucracy.
"The fact of the matter
is the report was produced by the bureaucracy,"
he said. The report was written with input from several
agencies and cabinet departments, including the Environmental
Protection Agency.
However, EPA Administration
Christine Todd Whitman said last month that she never
saw the report before its release and did not know it
was posted on the agency's Web site until the media
reported on it.
The Senate panel wanted Whitman
to testify, and rescheduled the hearing twice to accommodate
her, but the White House said she would not be able
to appear.
The White House report laid out
possible global warming side effects for the United
States, including higher sea levels for coastal cities,
more wildfires in the Southwest and less snowcover in
the Rocky Mountains and Alaska.
John Marburger,
director of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, testified the computer models used to predict
weather conditions years into the future were unreliable
and did give much credence to the report's conclusions.
Story by Tom Doggett
Story Date: 15/7/2002
© Reuters News Service 2002
---
ISSUE
1257 - MONDAY 15 JULY 2002
Almost 30% of electricity
produced in combined heat and power (CHP) plants in
Europe in 1997 should not qualify for promotion under
a future EU directive, concludes a study by European
power industry association Eurelectric. The estimate
is the first available for what Eurelectric terms "quality
CHP" and the European Commission is calling "high-efficiency
cogeneration".
The Commission will soon formally
propose a directive on cogeneration/CHP as part of the
EU's response to climate change. Its department has
proposed that only high-efficiency cogeneration, defined
relative to reference cases for separate production
of heat and power, should be eligible for certification
or financial support (ED 18/06/02).
Estimates
of CHP in Europe were already reduced by a new method
of measuring what Eurelectric calls "real CHP".
Whereas the official 1997 share of CHP electricity was
10.1%, says the association, its real share was only
8.3%, or nearly one-fifth less power.
Eurelectric's
new study further estimates that the proportion of officially
measured 1997 CHP electricity that should be excluded
from the definition of "quality" CHP would
be even higher, at nearly 30%, though the proportion
of CHP plants excluded would be only 13%.
Whereas
real CHP measures only when plants are actually generating
useful heat as well as power, quality CHP measures whether
CHP operation has brought net energy savings compared
with separate production of heat and power. According
to Eurelectric, real CHP remains a vital statistical
measure, but only the concept of quality CHP determines
whether it is beneficial.
Eurelectric's definition
of quality CHP and the Commission's of high-efficiency
cogeneration largely overlap, but the association's
new study provides a wealth of background on the factors
that could or should be taken into account.
Both
agree that the key factor should be energy savings compared
with separate production rather than carbon dioxide,
for example. The latter would be environmentally more
purist, but would exclude any coal-fired CHP plants
from the quality CHP category, notes Eurelectric, with
negative impacts on energy security.
For its calculations
of the current extent of quality CHP, Eurelectric uses
a reference case of 50% electrical efficiency and 80%
heat efficiency. The Commission's energy department
is proposing a range of different reference cases, which
could set a tougher hurdle for some plants and a lower
one for others.
Eurelectric also discusses whether
polluting emissions - sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxides
and dust - should also be incorporated into definitions
of quality CHP, an issue not considered at all in the
initial draft of the EU directive.
Follow-up: Eurelectric, tel: +32 2 515 1000, a press release (pdf), and report (pdf).
Republished with permission of Environment
Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
---
The world's
first attempt to demonstrate sequestration of carbon
in the oceans by injecting liquid carbon dioxide (CO2)
into the Norwegian Sea is set to begin this summer.
Environmentalists are campaigning to stop the experiment
and claim it is illegal.
Capturing and sequestering
CO2 from fossil fuel burning is being pursued as a possible
means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Last year,
the European climate change programme concluded that
it offered "good potential" for reducing emissions,
but that further research was needed, in particular
to reduce costs.
Norwegian oil firm Statoil is already
injecting some 1m tonnes of CO2 per year into the rock
strata of an offshore oilfield in the North Sea, but
no one has yet tried sequestration in the oceans.
Led by the Norwegian institute for water research (Niva),
a coalition including American, Japanese, Canadian and
Australian organisations is planning to inject five
tonnes of liquid CO2 at 800 metres depth off the coast
of Norway. The CO2 ocean sequestration project was originally
set up to run a similar test off Hawaii, but this plan
was dropped recently in the face of local opposition.
Norway's pollution control authority (SFT) granted the
Norwegian project a discharge permit last week. A final
decision is expected from the environment ministry by
next month.
Environmental groups are arguing that
the project would mean "dumping" CO2 in the
ocean in violation of the 1972 London dumping convention
and of the 1992 Ospar convention on protection of the
North Sea environment. The Ospar commission discussed
this issue in late June but is unlikely to have an answer
until next year, a spokesperson said.
Greenpeace
and other NGOs also claim that injecting CO2 into the
oceans could harm wildlife, and that the gas might return
much quicker than expected to the atmosphere, undoing
the object of the exercise. Bjoern Faafeng of Niva told
Environment Daily that the test injection was designed
specifically to test these factors.
Even if the
experiment works and sealife is not harmed, the green
movement remains strongly against because it fears that
sequestration of CO2 will prop up the fossil fuel industries
and distract attention from efforts to move towards
a low-carbon economy. "The real solution to climate
change is to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy,"
says Greenpeace.
Follow-up:
Niva, tel: +47 22 18 51 00,
Greenpeace Norway press release, tel: +47 22 29 83 79 and backgrounder (pdf).
Republished with permission of Environment
Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
---
By Amanda Hodge, Environment
writer
15th July 2002
AUSTRALIA risks
crippling trade sanctions and being locked out of emerging
markets if the federal Government does not reconsider
its decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse
gas reduction, a business report to be released today
warns.
The Environment Business Australia report
calls for the Howard Government to immediately release
an Australian Greenhouse Office study on how the nation
could meet its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 8 per cent above 1990 levels.
The body
representing Australia's emerging environmental and
sustainable industries calls on the Government to engage
the Productivity Commission to produce "comprehensive
and objective modelling" to assess the cost of
ratifying the protocol against the cost of the lost
opportunities in missing out on new markets and international
trends.
EBA chief executive Fiona Wain said
the estimated value of the emerging industry in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions was as much as $750 billion
a year, but Australia would be locked out of that market
if it did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
"As
it stands at the moment, with Australia not a ratifying
party, we can't participate in the Clean Development
Mechanism market."
The CDM market – part
of the Kyoto Protocol agreement – allows industrialised
countries that have ratified the pact to invest in clean
energy technologies in developing nations and earn greenhouse
emissions reduction credits to lower the costs of, and
help meet, their own reduction targets.
It is believed
up to 70 per cent of the CDM market will be in Asia
– Australia's primary trading region.
While
acknowledging Canberra's efforts to develop a bilateral
climate change partnership agreement with the US, the
EBA claims it makes little sense to do so when a multilateral
agreement is already in place and driving the global
marketplace.
"Australia's perceived role as
deputy sheriff to the US could leave us with fewer environmental
technology markets, without carbon trading partners
and with a reduced trade with ratifying countries in
areas like forestry and agriculture," the report
says.
The US economy is large enough to withstand
the aggressive imposition of trade sanctions, but Australia's
is not and there is growing evidence that failure to
ratify the protocol would damage Australian exporters.
Water, sanitation, waste, energy, transport and
construction projects could all be affected as competitors
from countries such as France, Germany and Japan usurp
Australia's hard-won foothold in developing Asian nations.
The report cites two cases where Australian-based companies
vying for CDM contracts in China believe they will be
forced to hand their contracts to overseas affiliates.
It also refers to a recent coal transaction in which
Japanese giant Tohuku refused to commit to a coal purchase
from NSW company Powercoal unless it included a package
of carbon credits.
© The Australian
15th
July 2002
AUSTRALIA would lose a $70 million
energy project in China because of the Federal Government's
refusal to ratify the Kyoto climate change protocol,
a peak environment business body has claimed.
Environment
Business Australia (EBA) today said the Australian-developed
project was just one of many business opportunities
now drying up because of Australia's stance on the protocol.
It urged the Government to revisit its decision
not to ratify the protocol.
"Our research
has indicated that there is now a Kyoto marketplace
in operation and that Australia stands to lose significant
commercial opportunities by not ratifying," EBA
chief executive Fiona Wain said.
EBA today issued
a draft discussion paper on the issue.
An
EBA member, company Global Renewables, said it was set
to miss out on a key contract in China because of Australia's
stance.
"We have developed a $70 million waste-to-resource
project in China which will now have to be transferred
to a non-Australian company," company managing
director Dr John White said.
"The project
will generate over $1 billion in sales over 30 years
from carbon credits, renewable energy and fertiliser.
"The tragedy is that there are potentially
hundreds of other projects we can do in Asia using our
patented technology and until Australia ratifies the
protocol they will have to go to an offshore company
as well".
Ms Wain said Australian waste management
company Collex told a similar story.
Collex would
be unable to compete for a multi-million dollar project
in China, she said.
"If the project goes ahead,
it will be negotiated by their French counterparts who
will have the benefit of the carbon credits," she
said.
Ms Wain said EBA considered that water, sanitation,
waste, energy, transportation, construction and development
projects were all likely to be similarly affected.
Competitors from France, Germany, the Netherlands
and Japan would now overtake Australia's hard-won access
especially in the developing countries in South East
Asia, China and India.
Ms Wain said the EBA welcomed
the Federal Government's commitment to reduce Australia's
greenhouse emissions to the level agreed to within the
Kyoto process.
"But by refusing to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol, the Government risks Australia being
locked out of international mechanisms that would allow
the nation to meet its targets with lowest cost and
greatest economic benefit," she said.
© Davies Bros
---
WASHINGTON, DC, July 12, 2002 (ENS) - The governments
of the United States and Australia have announced an
initial work program under the U.S.-Australia Climate
Action Partnership. This bilateral agreement announced
in February takes the place of the Kyoto climate protocol,
an international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions
that neither country will ratify.
Environmental
groups in both countries have criticized the work program
for doing nothing to actually cut the emission of greenhouse
gases.
The work program of 19 projects was announced
following meetings held this week between Dr. David
Kemp, Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage,
and top members of the Bush administration responsible
for energy and environment.
U.S. Secretary of
Energy Spencer Abraham, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, and Under
Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky
met with the Australian environment minister on Tuesday.
Dr. Kemp also met this week with other senior members
of the Bush administration - Interior Secretary Gale
Norton, Council on Environmental Quality Chairman James
Connaughton, and Commerce Under Secretary and NOAA Administrator,
Vice-Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr.
The 19 projects
fall into five categories, all concerning information
exchange, monitoring, and research into cleaner generating
technologies, but none actually limiting the emission
of greenhouse gases.
* Science and Monitoring - delivering enhanced collaboration on scientific research that will improve understanding of southern hemisphere climate systems, and address key areas of climate change uncertainty;
* Engaging Business - exchanging information and experience on policies and approaches, and sharing tools developed by both countries, that will assist industry action on reducing greenhouse emissions;
* Technology Development - providing for Australian and US industry collaboration on the development of renewable energy and other cost effective technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as trapping carbon dioxide emissions underground and advanced cleaner coal utilisation technologies;
* Greenhouse Accounting - strengthening capabilities for accounting for emissions from forestry and agriculture activities; and
* Collaborating with Developing Countries - helping build capacity in developing countries in the Pacific to monitor the regional climate.
"The agreement launched today
in Washington is called a 'Greenhouse Action Partnership,'
but it lacks any calls for direct action," said
Greenpeace Australia climate campaigner Dr. Frances
MacGuire. "The Partnership involves information
exchange, continued monitoring, development of technologies
and collaboration on accounting mechanisms. But it does
not require any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,"
she said.
U.S. Under Secretary Dobriansky maintains
the work program will cut emissions. "The exchange
of knowledge and experience on policies and approaches
developed by the U.S. and Australia to reduce greenhouse
emissions will make both countries' domestic programs
more effective," she said. The greenhouse effect
(Photo courtesy U. Indiana School of Public and Environmental
Affairs)
On Monday, the U.S. Secretaries of Energy,
Commerce and Agriculture and the EPA Administrator submitted
recommendations to President Bush that provide a blueprint
to improve and expand a voluntary reporting system that
encourages greenhouse gas emission reductions and creates
a new, transferable credit system for those reductions.
Energy Secretary Abraham said, "Our
goal is to significantly improve our reporting system,
reduce the projected growth in greenhouse gases over
the long-term, and credit those who voluntarily make
real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
But Americans want the government to do more to limit
global warming, according to the results of a public
opinion poll released by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
a U.S. group that supports steep cuts in industrial
emissions of carbon dioxide, the number one greenhouse
gas.
The Zogby survey of 1,008 likely U.S. voters
across the country found that 76 percent of those questioned
want the U.S. government to require power plants and
industry to cut emissions linked to global warming,
and not rely on voluntary market based measures endorsed
by the White House.
President Bush's global
warming plan would allow more greenhouse gas pollution
to occur at a faster rate than if the nation maintained
the pollution trends of the past five years, says a
report issued Thursday by America's largest environmental
membership organization, the National Wildlife Federation
(NWF).
"Beneath the Hot Air" uses
Energy Department data to show that the amount of carbon
dioxide,that the United States is adding to the atmosphere
each year increased by 4.6 percent over the past five
years due to increasing dependence on coal, oil and
natural gas.
If these trends were to continue for
the next 10 years, the nation's carbon dioxide emissions
from energy would be expected to grow by 9.5 percent.
The Bush plan obscures this emissions growth by
using what the President termed "emissions intensity"
targets that link the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
to the size of the economy rather than identifying concrete
emissions targets as the world's other industrialized
nations have agreed to do under the Kyoto Protocol.
Jeremy Symons, NWF climate change and wildlife
program manager, said "The Bush administration
claims to be reducing global warming pollution, but
it's an accounting sham. The proof is in the pollution."
Australia's largest environmental group, the Australian
Conservation Foundation (ACF) said the work program
announced for the Australia-U.S. Climate Action Partnership
is a "smokescreen" for Australian government
inaction on climate change.
"The Partnership
gives no commitment to binding targets to reduce greenhouse
pollution," said Sarojini Krishnapillai, ACF climate
change campaigner. Australian government scientists
measure greenhouse gases in an enclosed chamber (Photo
courtesy CSIRO)
Australian Environment Minister
Kemp sees value in the work program. "Scientific
cooperation under this Partnership will assist in reducing
key uncertainties and improving the capacity of climate
science to inform policy making," he said. "Some
projects are targeted at building the capacity of developing
countries, particularly in the Pacific, to address climate
change."
Krishnapillai says Pacific
Island nations would not need this increased capacity
to deal with global warming impacts if industrialized
countries would limit greenhouse gas emissions. "One
of the greatest insults in the Partnership is the claim
that U.S. and Australia will assist developing nations
monitor climate impacts and manage climate risks in
some of the countries most vulnerable to extreme weather
events - instead of cutting greenhouse pollution which
causes these impacts and risks."
A poll of
Australian voters announced this week shows they too
want a stronger global warming limitation program from
their government. "The Australian people want the
government to ratify the [Kyoto] treaty," Greenpeace's
Dr. MacGuire said. "Polling released yesterday
shows that only 17 percent of Australians share Mr.
Howard's concerns that it would not be in Australia's
interests to do so, while 71 percent believe it would
be in the national interest."
Under the Kyoto
Protocol, Australia would have been able to increase
its greenhouse gas emissions by eight percent in the
period 2008 to 2012.
"If Australia is committed
to global action, why is it negotiating a bilateral
agreement and shunning the Kyoto Protocol?" Dr.
MacGuire asked.
Copyright Environment News
Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved.
----
More than three-quarters
of voters surveyed in a new national poll conducted
by Zogby International said that the federal government
should set standards to reduce the emissions of heat-trapping
gases that cause global warming. The poll also found
that voters overwhelmingly believe that the U.S. must
act now to curb the effects of global warming, and that
the best way to meet America's energy needs is through
renewable energy, energy efficiency standards and more
fuel efficient cars, minivans and SUVs.
Zogby
surveyed 1,008 registered voters nationwide in mid-June
for the poll. Among the three-quarters of voters who
support setting emissions standards on fossil-fuel power
plants and other industries, Zogby found a remarkably
strong majority of Republicans and those who voted for
President Bush. Fewer than one-in-four Bush voters support
the President's proposal to rely on a voluntary approach
to reducing global warming pollutants.
"Congress
and the Bush administration listened to the fossil fuel
industry when they hatched their energy plans, but this
poll shows that they ignored the will of the American
public," said Alden Meyer, Director of Government
Relations for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's
time for Washington to learn what the vast majority
of Americans already know: we have the technology to
reduce our dependence on dirty, outdated energy sources
that cause global warming."
Strong opposition
to the Bush administration's "adapt to the inevitable"
approach to global warming was voiced by men and women
in all age groups and in all regions of the country.
The poll found that 75 percent of all respondents, and
65 percent of Republican voters, agree with the statement
that doing nothing about global warming is "irresponsible
and short-sighted."
A recent report
from the Bush administration found that global warming
is taking place, that it is being caused primarily by
burning fossil fuels, and that it will bring heat waves,
water shortages, rising seas and other serious problems
to the U.S. over the next few decades. Almost three-quarters
of respondents to the poll said that the Bush administration
report proved that we must act now on global warming,
with 73 percent of voters agreeing that we could "minimize
the effect of global warming by using existing technology
to build cars that get better gas mileage, appliances
that are more energy efficient, and clean, renewable
energy sources such as wind and solar power."
"In denying the urgent need to begin tackling
the global warming problem, President Bush has had to
distance himself from experts in his own administration,"
Meyer said of the President's efforts to shun the administration's
recent global warming report. "This poll shows
that the President's head-in-the-sand stance on global
warming is also distancing himself from the public."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit
partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous
scientific analysis, innovative policy development and
effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental
solutions. For more information on this poll or on global
warming or energy issues, see UCS on the web at www.ucsusa.org.
Contact us at ucs@ucsusa.org
---
Tue Jul 2, 4:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON
-(Dow Jones)- U.S. businesses that ignore the looming
issue of global climate change face potential risks
and lost opportunities as the rest of the developed
world embraces the Kyoto climate accord, experts warned
Tuesday.
While President George W. Bush has rejected
the Kyoto Protocol , other nations are embracing it.
This poses challenges for companies doing business in
Europe and Japan , as well as lost potential new business
opportunities, the experts said.
"Taking action
on climate change is good for business," said Joseph
Romm, a former Clinton administration Energy Department
official who now heads the nonprofit Center for Energy
and Climate Solutions.
"There is no
company in this country that can't profit by creating
an effective greenhouse gas strategy," Romm said,
citing the bottom-line benefits of reducing energy consumption
and corresponding carbon dioxide emissions.
Developing
a climate change policy is a way for companies to manage
risk, said John Palmisano, managing director of Evolution
Markets, a brokerage and consulting firm active in "environmental
credit markets" involving emissions trading.
"When you manage greenhouse gas emissions, you're
managing energy," Palmisano said. Reducing energy
demand "lowers costs and adds to the bottom line,"
he said.
Palmisano also cited ramifications for
U.S. companies in light of emerging markets for greenhouse
gas emissions reductions credits.
Once the Kyoto
pact is ratified, this emerging market will "explode,"
and it likely won't include American companies because
the U.S. isn't participating in the Kyoto process, he
said.
Michael Marvin, president of the Business
Council for Sustainable Energy, warned that U.S. businesses
face potential trade problems with Europe and Japan
as a result of the Bush administration's withdrawal
from the Kyoto climate agreement.
Compliance with
the Kyoto agreement will necessarily increase energy
costs for companies, raising competition issues that
could rise to the level of World Trade Organization
complaints, Marvin said.
"The science
of climate change is no longer a question in the business
community," Marvin said.
The comments came
at a press briefing Tuesday sponsored by Environmental
Media Services, which sought to bring attention to a
recent report by The Conference Board calling for businesses
to pay attention to the climate-change issue.
"Companies
that choose to ignore climate change in their planning
are betting that worldwide concern about climate change
will prove illusory," the Conference Board report
said.
But that represents a huge gamble,
the report warned. If right, they avoid costly investments
in new processes and renewable energy. But if wrong,
they risk falling behind to Europe and Japan in market-disruptive
innovative technology.
"Disruptive technologies
are those that seemingly overnight alter the terms of
competition in an industry," the report said, citing
the way personal computers supplanted mainframes as
a "classic case."
More relevant
to the environmental debate, the report also cited the
introduction of new formulations of refrigerants and
solvents in response to the problem of stratospheric
ozone depletion. The substitutes developed by DuPont
( DD) totally supplanted ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons
banned under the Montreal Protocol, the report noted.
The Conference Board advised businesses to "hedge
your bets" by assessing greenhouse gas emissions,
noting that increasingly shareholders are demanding
an accounting of carbon dioxide emissions. This would
be a first step toward participating in an international
market for greenhouse gas reductions, the report said.
Further, by identifying productivity and energy efficiency gains that would reduce emissions, companies will "save money, improve market share and reduce the potential for negative publicity."
- By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6647; Bryan.Lee@dowjones.com
Washington Post article below
See also: Union of Concerned Scientists Press release
By William Booth
Washington
Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 3, 2002; Page A02
LOS ANGELES, July 2 -- The nation's
first law to restrict emissions of so-called greenhouse
gases from the tailpipes of cars and trucks headed for
the California governor's desk today after a long, expensive
and bitter battle waged between environmentalists and
the automotive industry.
Gov. Gray Davis (D) has
not signaled whether he will approve or veto the legislation,
which could help determine what kinds of cars and light
trucks all Americans drive.
Automakers, who described
the bill as "extreme," warned that efforts
to control heat-trapping pollution could mean more costly
vehicles and perhaps doom popular gas-guzzlers, such
as sport-utility vehicles.
But supporters hailed
passage of the bill as the first significant attempt
to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the major
sources of global warming. They also said it was a sign
that states, or at least a state as populous as California,
could lead the way even as the Bush administration pulls
away from efforts to slow the potential rise of the
planet's temperature.
The legislation, which passed
the California Assembly Monday evening on a 41-30 vote,
mostly along party lines, would order the state Air
Resources Board to devise "maximum, feasible and
cost-effective reductions" for auto emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasesstarting with
2009 models.
The governor praised the legislation
as "good public policy" but cautioned that
it was loaded with amendments and required a careful
reading for its potentially far-reaching impacts on
the economy of California, which accounts for 10 percent
of the nation's auto sales.
Davis is facing a reelection
challenge from Republican investment banker Bill Simon
Jr.
While some states, including Oregon, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire, have enacted new laws to curb carbon
dioxide emissions from power plants, this is the first
bill to tackle the automobile's contribution to future
global warming. Cars and light trucks are responsible
for about 40 percent of California's carbon dioxide
emissions.
The legislation demands reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions but does not set specific
standards, and it allows regulators and automakers considerable
latitude in negotiating those reductions. It is likely
that the reductions would be measured fleetwide, rather
than on individual vehicles.
Carmakers could reduce
emissions by installing lower-resistance tires, insulating
fuel lines and tanks, tightening seals on air-conditioning
systems and crankcases, and making cars more streamlined,
lighter and smaller.
It is also possible
that regulators will allow car manufacturers to continue
to produce the same automobiles they do now, but force
them to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions with projects
that remove such gases from the atmosphere -- by planting
massive tree farms, for example.
The legislation
may have a profound impact not only in California, but
around the nation. California is the only state in the
country that is allowed to set its own auto emission
standards, which are stricter than the federal government's;
other states may adopt California's standards.
Many
national environmental organizations poured money and
support into the effort, and persuaded celebrities and
officials such as Paul Newman and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
to make personal appeals to wavering Sacramento legislators.
"We're thrilled," said Nancy Ryan,
an economist with Environmental Defense, an advocacy
group. "This will be a shot heard round the world."
A month ago, the legislation appeared stalled after
the automobile and oil lobbies launched an advertising
campaign to warn the public that the new requirements
would mean higher taxes, fees and "carbon surcharges."
The bill was resurrected after legislators cobbled together
amendments designed to address possible public backlash,
prohibiting taxes and fees on fuel, weight limits and
bans of vehicle classes, such as SUVs.
Still,
many Republican lawmakers in Sacramento opposed the
legislation. "I think it's a horrible bill,"
said Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, a Republican from
Arcadia. "I think it prices regular people out
of purchasing these SUVs. . . . I think the cost it's
going to put on the people of the state of California
is immense."
State Senate leader John
Burton, a Democrat from San Francisco who pushed for
the bill, said that opponents of the legislation were
living in a dream world -- that global warming was real
and would have profound and negative consequences in
California, such as water shortages.
"The auto
industry in America is its own worst enemy," Burton
said. He said cleaner cars would not be more expensive.
"That's the same argument they made with seat belts
and air bags," Burton said.
After the bill
reaches Davis's desk -- which could be Wednesday --
he will have 12 days to decide whether to sign it. If
he does not sign it, Burton said he believed there was
enough public support to pass a ballot initiative. Of
course, automakers are suggesting that if Davis does
sign the bill, they, too, might put the issue before
the driving public.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
BELOW: Union of Concerned Scientists Press Release
---
Union
of Concerned Scientists – Press Release
July
2, 2002
Historic Tailpipe Emissions Bill Passed Despite Industry Lobbying Campaign
California's government
has become the first anywhere to pass global warming
pollution rules for cars. Despite massive lobbying and
advertising against the bill by the automotive and oil
industries, the California State Assembly passed legislation
last night that seeks reductions in heat-trapping gases
emitted by cars and trucks. Before becoming law the
bill must be signed by California Governor Gray Davis.
"Nearly half of California's global warming
pollution comes from cars and trucks," said Julia
Levin, the California Policy Director for the Union
of Concerned Scientists. "California, the world's
fifth largest economy, has taken the first decisive
step to reduce the global warming emissions from cars
and trucks."
The legislation - (AB 1493)
introduced by Assembly member Fran Pavley (D-Agoura
Hills) - requires the California Air Resources Board
to adopt the maximum feasible, cost-effective regulations
to reduce carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gas
emissions from passenger vehicles, beginning with model
year 2009. The Air Resources Board has several years
to develop flexible regulations, which could include
measures such as incentives and standards for fuel-efficient
tires and alternative fuel vehicles, consumer education
about ways to improve the fuel-economy of existing vehicles,
and incentives for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient
and advanced technology vehicles.
In passing
this legislation by a vote of 41-30, California's legislature
rejected the automakers' multi-million dollar lobbying
campaign and sided with independent experts and the
public in the belief that the technology exists to meet
the bill's flexible regulations in a way that will protect
consumers and the environment.
"These regulations
will drive automotive technology in new directions,
will increase vehicle choice, and will save California
drivers billions of dollars at the gas pump," said
Levin. "And by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions,
the state can protect its unique climate, scarce water
supplies and fragile ecosystems."
Although
the bill is a major victory for Californians and the
environment, it is likely to face more challenges in
coming months. Automakers are promising to wage legal
battles to avoid complying with the bill when it becomes
law.
"The car companies should use their engineers,
not their lawyers, to take on the challenge of global
warming," Levin said. "Governor Davis should
swiftly sign this bill so that California, and the nation,
can start reducing global warming pollution from cars
and trucks."
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
2 Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-547-5552
Contact us at ucs@ucsusa.org
---
---
---