admin – Page 496

Author: admin

Countries agree to spend big to save world’s forests.

The Oslo Climate and Forest Conference, attended by representatives of 52 countries, agreed on a non-binding framework to funnel aid promised by the rich world and set up monitoring standards to ensure money flows are based on solid results. Such frameworks are known as Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programmes.

“The outcome of this meeting could be the first comprehensive component for a future international agreement on climate change [since Copenhagen],” World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said in a televised address from Washington DC.

In Copenhagen, global leaders failed to deliver a legally binding deal on manmade emissions. Rich nations did agree, however, to provide $30bn from 2010-12 to help poor states combat global warming, rising to $100bn a year by 2020.

The US, the UK, Australia, France, Japan and Norway had specifically agreed on $3.5bn from 2010-12 to save forests, a pool of money which has now grown to $4bn (£2.75bn), according to Norway.

“There is no way to mobilise that much money without mobilising the private sector,” Norway’s prime minister Jens Stoltenberg said, referring to a plan to spend $30bn on forests and other fast-track green financing until 2012.

Deforestation and forest degradation wipes away an area the size of England each year and is responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions – more than that made by the world’s cars, trains and planes combined, according to UN data.

“Reducing deforestation and forest degradation can provide the largest, fastest and cheapest cuts in carbon emissions,” Stoltenberg said. Such efforts could achieve “a third of the cuts in carbon emissions needed by 2020”, he added.

Norway, which is rich in oil, yesterday formally announced $1bn in aid to Indonesia to help protect forests in the south east Asian nation, which has been quickly clearing trees for palm oil plantations. It has a similar deal with Brazil.

Growing populations, agriculture and the timber industry have all reduced tropical forests from the Amazon to Indonesia, where it has become more profitable to cut down natural forests.

“Today, the market values forests more destroyed than standing,” said Papua New Guinea prime minister Michael Somare.

“We must find a way to value forests more alive than dead.”

To push people to protect forests, as well as to attract private sector financing, it will be essential to set up a global price for carbon emissions, either via a market or a carbon tax.

“This is a good day – it rebuilds trust in the international community’s ability to confront climate change,” said Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

“What is needed is a bit more assurance that the carbon price will be there and that the private sector will have input how the system of green financing is set up.”

Prince Charles was among the speakers at the conference, after being invited by Stoltenberg.

The prince told the delegates that three years ago experts warned him how serious the deforestation problem had become.

He said: “However, the great positive difference between the summer of 2007 and today is that we now have a serious group of governments – with none showing greater leadership than Norway – who are prepared to work together to find a durable solution which will effectively tackle the drivers of tropical deforestation.”

BP clashes with scientists over deep sea oil pollution

BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, said it had no evidence of underwater oil clouds. “The oil is on the surface,” he said. “Oil has a specific gravity that’s about half that of water. It wants to get to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity.”

Hayward’s assertion flies in the face of studies by scientists at universities in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi, among other institutions, who say they have detected huge underwater plumes of oil, including one 120 metres (400ft) deep about 50 miles from the destroyed rig.

BP’s claim is likely only to further anger environmentalists and the White House, which has grown increasingly suspicious of the company’s claims to be frank and transparent on developments. The president’s environmental adviser and director of the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Carol Browner, has accused BP of misstating the scale of the leak.

“BP has a vested financial interest in downplaying the size of this,” she said on CBS television. “They will pay penalties at the end of the day, a per-barrel per-day penalty.”

Ed Markey, chairman of the House of Representatives environment committee, has also accused BP of underplaying the scale of the disaster and suggested that it may have a criminal liability.

“The fine that can be imposed upon them is based on how many barrels [pour in to the sea]. It could wind up in billions of dollars of fines,” said Markey. “They had a stake in low-balling the number right from the beginning. They were either lying or they were incompetent.”

In the White House, under increasing criticism for not taking charge of the effort to stop the spill, some officials are saying they have been misled by the company or kept in the dark at key moments.

The Politico website reported that the Obama team was incensed that the company failed to inform it for a day and a half after suspending the failed “top kill” operation to plug the spill using rubber tyres and mud.

Obama is expected to hold his first meeting today with the leaders of an oil spill commission he established to make policy recommendations about US offshore oil drilling. The commission will be similar to those that looked into the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986 and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979.

Also today, US attorney general Eric Holder will meet federal prosecutors and state attorneys general in New Orleans. It will be Holder’s first trip to survey the damage before what legal experts believe will be a criminal investigation into the disaster.

The dispute between the administration and BP comes as the company readies its latest effort to contain the flow of oil in to the sea, following the failure of top kill. The new plan involves an intricate operation to cut the top off the damaged riser that brought oil to the surface of the destroyed rig. The intention is to create a flat surface to which to attach a valve that would divert the oil into a pipe and on to a ship.

But slicing the top off the damaged pipe may result in oil flowing into the sea at a faster rate until the new valve is fitted. Even if successful, the operation would only limit, not entirely stop, oil from flowing into the sea. If this measure failed, BP’s best hope of halting the oil would remain the drilling of a relief well that would ease the pressure on the damaged one. But the US government has warned that the spill could continue into August.

The attempts to stop the oil flow have been given added urgency by the start of the hurricane season tomorrow.

Forecasters are predicting an unusually high number of storms over the next six months. If the oil is still spread across the sea, a hurricane is likely to disperse it over a much wider area and push it deeper into marshlands and other inland areas, making the environmental disaster even worse.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is predicting between eight and 14 hurricanes this season, with perhaps a similar number of smaller storms.

The US military has ruled out taking charge of the operation to stem the flow of oil from the blown-out BP rig. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, today said that military chiefs had looked at the available equipment and concluded that “the best technology in the world, with respect to that, exists in the oil industry”.

A day earlier, the former US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said the military should step in because the crisis was now “beyond the capacity” of BP to stop.

Oil slick spotted off Florida coast

From correspondents in Pensacola Beach, Florida
From: AP
June 02, 2010 10:09AM

AN oil sheen was confirmed about 15km off the Florida coast, and officials are saying it could hit the white sands of Pensacola Beach as soon as today (local time).

Escambia County officials started putting out boom yesterday and making other plans for the arrival of the oil.

Crude has already been reported along barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi, and it has impacted some 200km of Louisiana coastline.

Florida officials say their request for about $US150,000 ($180,636) from BP to buy sifting machines and a tractor to help remove oil from the beach’s famous white sands has lingered unanswered.

PM Kevin Rudd takes control of mining talks

The report to the MCA forecasts that the tax would cause significant loss of value in investments and is “likely to result in mining companies deferring or cancelling Australian projects in the short to medium term”.

The government’s political standing and Mr Rudd’s leadership support has been rocked during the month-long dispute over the new profits tax on mining. The latest Newspoll surveys show Labor’s primary vote at just 35 per cent and more people opposed to the new tax than supporting it.

The MCA has run a series of advertisements accusing the government of misleading the public over the taxes miners pay and arguing the new tax would hurt all Australians. Wayne Swan has responded by calling the mining leaders liars or ignorant.

Mr Rudd said yesterday in parliament that “the bottom line is they can pay more tax” and the government would not accept “propaganda by the MCA”.

But the Prime Minister is preparing to meet individual mining leaders, who argue that the government’s process in introducing the tax has been faulty, that there has been insufficient consultation and that there should be detailed negotiations beyond the tax consultation panel headed by a deputy secretary of Treasury.

The government is insisting the proposed 40 per cent tax rate is non-negotiable but is prepared to consider other major concessions on the tax threshold, loss provisions and the exemption of quarry products.

“We believe this 40 per cent rate is right and we’ve said we will consult with the industry on detail and on implementation and on transition,” Mr Rudd said yesterday.

“That’s the framework in which we’re having these consultations and negotiations, but what I do know about consultations with very big – very big – mining companies who sometimes hunt in packs is that it’s far better that these negotiations are conducted direct rather than through the media.”

The Prime Minister also warned that the negotiations with the mining leaders would take a long time and that he refused to be held to any timetable in relation to the election, which is expected by October.

“Anyone out there expecting that there’ll be some magic deal at midnight tomorrow night is wrong,” Mr Rudd said in reference to the MCA annual dinner in Parliament House tonight.

“That’s not how it’s going to be. Furthermore, this is going to be quite a long and protracted negotiation over quite a long period of time. And there I speak of weeks, at least, if not beyond.

“I wish to emphasise that the government remains fully committed to a resource super-profits tax.”

Mr Rudd said the 40 per cent tax rate was fundamental, as was the commitment to be able to fund “other elements of tax reform as well”, such as small business and company tax cuts.

The RSPT is forecast to raise $9 billion in 2013-14 and is essential to the government’s projections for tax cuts, low-income earners’ superannuation concessions and return to budget surplus.

Tony Abbott said: “Mr Rudd’s great big new tax is not just something that’s going to impact on BHP and Rio. It’s going to impact on everyone who is doing something around his or her house.

“Everything that comes out of the ground is subject to Mr Rudd’s great big new tax. That means your sand, your gravel, it means everything that goes into the steel, the concrete, the roof tiles, all of this is going to be subject to Mr Rudd’s great big new tax and this is a tax on everyone.”

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson backed the Prime Minister’s claims saying: “Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, this is not a tax on extraction. We should also not forget that the industry itself has argued for tax reform.

“What we’re about is bedding down the detail and putting in place certainty, which ensures that we get a fair return for the Australian community for their resources during the good times but I also remind you that during the bad times there is also some relief for the mining industry.”

The Treasurer said the government was not surprised that it was meeting “fierce resistance from some of the biggest companies in the country, and indeed, some of the biggest resource companies in the world”.

“It is naive for anybody to expect that it would be different because they will have to pay a bit more tax,” Mr Swan said.

Finally: Obama halts new offshore leases and stumps for climate bill

“This disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it is time to move forward on this legislation,” he said. “I call on Democrats and Republicans in Congress, working with my administration, to answer this challenge once and for all.”

He also spoke about pushing for an energy-climate bill in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday. Notably, he didn’t say whether they expressed willingness to cooperate. They’re still the crucial barrier to progress on the issue.

Obama’s comments echo his message yesterday at a solar-panel plant in California, where he said, “I’m going to keep fighting to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation in Washington.” But today’s D.C. presser should give the message more media attention.

He also stressed that his administration is trying really hard to find a way to stop the Gulf leak and cope with the mess it’s created.

“Those who think we were either slow in our response or lacked urgency don’t know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred,” he said.

“We are relying on every resource and every idea, every expert and every bit of technology to work to stop it. We will take ideas from anywhere but we are going to stop it. I know that doesn’t lessen the enormous sense of anger and frustration felt by people on the Gulf and so many Americans.”

Now — with encouraging signs that the “top kill” might finally be plugging up the Gulf gusher — Obama needs to make the larger energy crisis his administration’s highest priority, tapping every resource and every expert and every bit of technology to move the nation to a clean energy economy. There’s still time to make use of this crisis.

The Times’ EU climate targets ‘exclusive’ is gibberish

It’s all gibberish, but where Europe is concerned, anything goes. Of all the myths published about the EU, I wish the one on the front page of today’s Times were true.

It reports – “exclusively” – that the European commission will raise its target for greenhouse gas cuts today, from 20% by 2020, to 30%:

“The European commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require Britain and other EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.”

The “surprise new plan”, it says, commits “Britain and the rest of the EU to the most ambitious targets in the world.”

I phoned the commission this morning. I was told that the story is “totally wrong. The position is exactly the same as it was.” This means that the EU will stick to its 20% target until there’s a legally binding global agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol. At this point the target will be raised to 30%. This was all reported in a Guardian story two weeks ago and the FT has covered it before too.

It was the plan long before the Copenhagen summit in December. But as no legally binding agreement was struck then, and as it’s unlikely to happen in Mexico at the end of this year either, there’s no immediate prospect of the EU’s target being raised.

All the EC has done is to write an analysis paper looking at what the consequences – for European industry, trade policy and other matters – would be if such a target were to be adopted. This is the routine business of any civil service: produce analyses and impact statements for possible policies, before they are adopted. The only surprise is that it hasn’t been done before.

But as the Times story shows, there are good reasons why the tougher target should be adopted, regardless of whether a global deal is struck. The recession, or stagnation, or whatever it is now, has already slashed emissions in Europe. A tougher target would bank those accidental cuts and prevent them from making a mockery of the Emissions Trading Scheme, as they do today. The decline in greenhouse gas production ensures that the carbon price remains so low that it won’t stimulate investment in energy saving and alternative technologies. Unless the targets are tightened, the EU emissions cap will remain so loose as to be all but useless.

And while the tougher target waits on a binding global treaty, to some extent a binding global treaty waits on a tougher EU target. When the world’s biggest economic block shows that it means business, poorer nations will be more inclined to follow.

Anyway, we dream on, assisted by the Times’s nonsense.

monbiot.com