EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • UN report slams existing biofuel policies

     

    The report, the first by the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, concludes that some first-generation biofuels, such as ethanol produced from sugar cane, can deliver net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It calculates that extracting ethanol from sugar cane, as currently practiced in countries such as Brazil, can lead to emission reductions of between 70 per cent, and more than 100 per cent when the fuel is substituted for petrol.

    But it also echoes previous studies that warned some biofuels are leading to net increases in carbon emissions, calculating that the use of biodiesel from palm oil plantations grown on deforested peatlands, for example, results in greenhouse gas emissions that are up to 2,000 per cent greater than those generated from fossil fuels.

    In addition, the report states categorically that biofuel adoption targets in developed countries, such as the UK’s Renewable Fuel Transport Obligation, are contributing to land use changes in developing countries – a position long held by environmental groups that have argued that biofuel demand is indirectly contributing to deforestation in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia.

    The report estimates that globally between 118 and 508 million hectares of cropland would be needed to meet 10 per cent of worldwide transport fuel demand by 2030 if first-generation biofuels are used.

    Achim Steiner, UN under-secretary general and executive director of the UN Environment Programme, argued there was a need for a more sophisticated debate on biofuel use, saying they are neither a panacea nor a pariah.

    “On one level it is a debate about which energy crops to grow and where, and about the way different countries and biofuel companies promote and manage the production and conversion of plant materials for energy purposes,” he said. “On another level it is a choice about how humanity best manages its finite land bank and balances a range of competing interests in a world of six billion people, rising to more than nine billion by 2050.”

    The report notes that generating electricity at local power stations using wood, straw, seed oils and other crop or waste materials “is generally more energy efficient that converting biomass to liquid fuels”. And it argues that while using abandoned land to produce energy crops is preferable to clearing virgin land for plantations, it is often more efficient still to use abandoned land for reforestation or solar power projects.

    “Using abandoned or so-called waste land for biofuels might be a sensible option, but it may also have implications for biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions might be better cut by forestry schemes,” the report states.

    Additionally, it warns that higher fuel efficiency standards and the development of alternative technologies, such as plug-in vehicles, could dramatically reduce emissions from the transport sector without the need for biofuels.

    Despite its implicit criticism of the EU’s plans to increase use of biofuels, the report was welcomed by Timo Mäkelä of the European Commission, who said it would help in the design and implementation of new targets and sustainability criteria for the use of biofuels.

    • This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network

  • China and India agree to cooperate on climate change policy

     

    The two nations will also form a joint working group that will meet once a year to coordinate policies. And they will cooperate on renewable energy and research into the effects of climate change on Himalayan glaciers.

    But the timing of the announcement highlights the importance of maintaining at least a show of unity on the climate issue, despite heightened tensions between the two nations. China and India are among the leaders of the G77 bloc of developing nations, who have consistently argued that they should not be obliged to set internationally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gases because richer nations have a far greater historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    But with China now the world’s biggest emitter and India the fourth, one of the central goals of the Copenhagen summit is to find a formula that encourages these nations to make verifiable commitments to tackle climate change while leaving room for their economies to develop. The United States hopes to make progress towards a breakthrough when Obama meets China’s president Hu Jintao in Beijing on November 16-17 and then plays host to India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on November 24.

    But many inside these Asian nations are wary of efforts to make emerging economies break ranks. Earlier this week, the Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh was castigated by the local media and opposition parties for supposedly considering a softening of India’s negotiating position.

     

    Ramesh has since clarified there is no change in Indian policy or its alliance with other developing nations. At the signing ceremony for the memorandum yesterday, he stressed: “There is no difference between the Indian and Chinese negotiating positions and we are discussing further what the two countries should be doing for a successful outcome at Copenhagen.”

    New Delhi has also sought reassurance from Beijing that China will not sign a bilateral deal with the US that runs contrary to G77 goals. At the signing ceremony, Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice-chairman of National Development and Reform Commission and the country’s top climate change negotiator, tried to soothe such concerns: “We regard India as a sincere, devoted friend and the MoU [memorandum of understanding] on climate change will take our cooperation on the issue to a new high.”

    Indian and Chinese climate campaigners welcomed the show of solidarity. “This is a good sign that developing nations are sticking together despite pressure from developed nations,” said Siddharth Pathak, climate and energy campaigner of Greenpeace India. “They will not allow themselves to bullied by other countries.”

    Shirish Sinha, the head of the climate change programme at WWF India said the two nations faced common challenges in ensuring energy security and reducing poverty that set them apart from wealthier economies.

    “It is largely in the interests of both countries given the pressure coming on them to take action, to really come together,” he said. Despite the apparent hardening of positions and the lack of time before Copenhagen, climate negotiators said they had not given up hope of a positive outcome.”

    “I think the Copenhagen talks will eventually come up with something. So many people have been working on it for such a long time, and the whole world is watching, there will be something,” said Liu Bin a climate expert at Tsinghua University and Chinese negotiator.

    “I am getting a little more hopeful,” said Chung Rae-Kwon, the climate change ambassador for South Korea. “I think we are getting progress in finding an agreement.”

    South Korea has proposed a compromise under which developing nations would register domestic actions to slow the growth of emissions. Although these targets would not be internationally binding, they would be subject to outside verification.

    It is unclear, however, whether a suitable formula can be found in time to persuade India, China and the United States to sign up at Copenhagen. Preparatory talks last month in Bangkok ended in acrimonious squabbles.

    “Time is running out,” said Yang Fuqiang, the director of the climate change and energy programme of WWF China. “It’s possible that all we will get at Copenhagen is a political declaration and an agreement to extend the process.”

    A key to any agreement is for the US Senate to ratify a climate bill before the country’s negotiators go to Copenhagen. Former vice-president Al Gore, who is spearheading efforts to get a bill passed, told an audience in Beijing yesterday that he was confident of success, but he cautioned against over-expectation.

    He said any global pact reached in Copenhagen was bound to disappoint many people, but it would be a step forward that could be strengthened at a later date once the business community received a signal that they would have to change their ways. “I choose to be optimistic,” he said.

     

  • Rudd welcomes ‘big Australia’

    Original story – ABC

     

     

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he believes in a "big Australia" and that the population forecast is good news for the country, but he does concede that it poses complex challenges.

    "That is why we're taking a leading position on climate change but also the long-term sustainability of the Murray-Darling and the proper provision of water supplies for the future.

    "This Government is building for the future - we call it nation-building for the future. But let's be optimistic about the fact this country's growing, so many around the world are heading the other way."

    Mr Rudd says the Government is developing long-term plans for health, the environment and infrastructure.

    "I actually believe in a big Australia I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing," he said.

    "Contrast that with many countries in Europe when it's actually heading in the other direction. I think it's good for us, it's good for national security in the long-term, it's good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation."

    Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says investment in water infrastructure will determine whether Australia can sustain 35 million people.

    "I do welcome a larger population, but so long as we have the infrastructure to enable us all to live here in a sustainable way," he said.

    "And the great thing that is missing from Mr Rudd's enthusiasm is any coherent long-term plans for water."

    And the Opposition's sustainable development spokesman Bruce Billson says the Government has made big promises but doesn't have a big plan.

    "[It is] quite bitsy. They're not connected to a strategic plan for our major cities," he said.

    "The Prime Minister might be excited about a big Australia but what I think Australians are concerned about is the Federal Labor Government has no plan for coping with this enlarged population.

    "We've seen no coordinated strategic plan about how the population will be settled, no consideration about what extra pressure that will be putting on our environment.

    "What concerns me is the lack of plan to accommodate that growing number of people in a sustainable way and in way that we can point to still maintaining and improving a great quality of life, prosperity and standard of living that's the envy of the rest of the world."

  • Combating climate change costs money

     

    So far, the government has pushed for much of this money to be supplied by a global market in carbon credits – yet this will allow rich countries to offload the burden of cutting carbon emissions on to the world’s poorest while generating huge profits for banks, investment funds and financiers piling into a “climate cash cow”.

    At the same time, rich countries have been pushing for these funds to be managed by the World Bank – an institution that they control, as well as the largest multilateral lender for fossil fuel projects in the world. Developing countries are right not to trust that this will deliver finance fairly. Providing this money through a UN framework is the only fair and transparent way to ensure this money makes a real difference on the ground.

    The MEF countries must take responsibility for the fact that they have caused climate change, and lead in cutting their emissions first and fast, by at least 40% by 2020 – and without carbon offsetting, a con that just means avoiding taking real action through dodgy accounting.

    It’s now only a matter of weeks before the UN talks in Copenhagen begin. The price to pay for failure to the world’s poorest people is vast and growing daily. The cost to the culprits for climate change, the world’s richest, is not. Money talks – and right now cold, hard cash will go further than anything else to get us the strong and fair agreement we need.

    As part of Friends of the Earth’s Demand Climate Change campaign, it is asking everyone to sign its international petition to world leaders for a strong and fair climate deal at www.demandclimatechange.org.

  • Governments failure to acknowledge oil supply crunch risks conflict and threatens the climate

     

     

    Governments and multi-lateral agencies have failed to recognise the imminence and scale of the global oil supply crunch, and most of them remain completely unprepared for its consequences. The report calls for governments to officially acknowledge the crunch and to shift urgently into safe sustainable energy alternatives.

    “The world’s governments have been asleep at the wheel. Their collective failure to recognise the imminent end of the oil age means we have lost a decade in which action could have been taken to develop alternatives and avert the worst outcomes of a dramatic drop off in the supply of oil,” said Simon Taylor,  Director of Global Witness. “Recognition of the oil supply crunch would have injected a sense of urgency and increased ambition for safer emissions reduction targets, both of which are sorely missing in the lead up to Copenhagen.”

    For most of the past decade, the International Energy Agency (IEA) held an over-confident view about future oil production.  But starting in 2007 and most dramatically in 2008, its position began to shift, when it projected a near 50% decline in conventional oil production by 2020 and a significant potential gap between supply and demand by 2015. [2] These factors should have rung alarm bells, yet the apparent lack of government response has been astonishing. 

    The report argues that it was a long-overdue breakthrough for the IEA to acknowledge the imminence of an oil supply crunch. But their suggested remedy of investment of over a billion dollars every day to 2030 is highly unlikely to bridge the supply-demand gap. [3] Massive investment cannot change the underlying fundamentals which clearly indicate a need to move away from oil.  Global Witness blames governments for not facing up to these factors and recommends that rather than spending increasingly large sums of money chasing increasingly hard to reach oil, the world should be investing in safe and sustainable alternatives.

    “A world without enough oil is unlikely to be a peaceful place. Our near-total dependence on oil for food production and transport mean that decreasing availability of oil is likely to lead to food shortages and increased geopolitical tension. It threatens the nascent global governance reform agenda and could cause major international conflict over resources. The poorest will be pushed to the back of the queue and inequality will grow, which in turn will feed social unrest,” said Charmian Gooch, Director of Global Witness.

    / Ends

    Contacts: Simon Taylor: +44 7957 142 121; Charmian Gooch: +44 20 7492 5878, or +44 7841 423 098; Amy Barry: +44 20 7492 5858 or +44 7980 664 397

    Download the report

    Notes:

  • Our Nuclear Tragedy

     

    If you’re a citizen of that country and increasingly concerned about climate change and the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, then you might reluctantly conclude that there’s no alternative but to replace nuclear reactors that are due for decommissioning.

    If, like me, you are the former chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, which battled in vain for years to persuade the government that there are far better ways of meeting objectives on climate change, then all these pretexts for resuscitating our moribund nuclear industry remain utterly unconvincing.

    The commission came to that opinion after nearly two years of research. We reviewed all available data on costs, waste, uranium, emissions reduction, safety, proliferation, security risks, and the impact of any new reactors on energy options. As dispassionately as we were able, we highlighted both the benefits of nuclear power and the disbenefits in each of those areas. The majority of us (with two of 18 commissioners dissenting)came to the conclusion that the disbenefits clearly outweighed the benefits.

    A lot of it comes down to who you believe. For those with long memories, it’s still difficult to attach much credibility to the promises of the nuclear industry. Two years ago it was the consensus view that companies bidding for new reactors would require no subsidy. Six months ago that bold (and some would say preposterous) assertion was put aside with a much more honest acknowledgement from E.ON, EDF and others that substantial amounts of public money would be required after all. Indeed, the case was made that the government would have to stop subsidising renewables in order to prioritise nuclear.

    This change of heart may well have been influenced by the fiasco at Olkiluoto in Finland, where the new reactor is already massively behind schedule and over budget. This is the same reactor design that will apparently be rolled out here in the UK. Even the staunchest advocates of nuclear power concede that it’s extremely difficult unearthing the true story about its cost. We do know, courtesy of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, that UK taxpayers face a bill of at least £70bn over the next 20 years or so for cleaning up the legacy of our existing nuclear facilities. Faced with that kind of reality, as we move into a period of inevitable austerity, it remains incomprehensible to me that the Treasury has now set aside its traditional scepticism about nuclear power.

    For me, nuclear power is the lazy option. Stick up a few more reactors, don’t say too much about costs per kilowatt hour (let alone costs for each tonne of CO2 abated), dump the responsibility of dealing with the waste on future generations, and don’t worry too much about the state of the grid or the impact on renewable energy.

    I can’t deny that the alternative course of action (reducing total energy consumption by at least 40%, massively ramping up investments both in large-scale renewables – including the Severn barrage – and small-scale microgeneration, making a proper go of Combined Heat and Power and “Energy From Waste” schemes, and relying on combined-cycle gas turbines for base load generation) is the harder option in terms of the quality of leadership required. But those still wavering about the balance of pros and cons should not underestimate the knock-on effects of any commitment to new nuclear. It will undoubtedly slow investment in new renewables. It will reassure politicians that they don’t have to do the heavy lifting required to put energy efficiency at the heart of any strategy. It will weaken efforts to move towards localised distributed energy solutions (why else do you think the industry and pro-nuclear civil servants fought so hard against feed-in tariffs for so many years?), and it will “lock us in” to today’s hugely inefficient generation and transmission system for the next 40 years or so.

    And the tragedy is it won’t make much difference anyway – even if the reactors do eventually get built after inevitable delay. If every OECD country follows this route, instead of pursuing the alternative mapped out above, then emissions of greenhouse gases will keep rising at a dangerously fast level, average temperatures will soar, the Greenland ice cap will melt far faster than anticipated – and all those shiny new reactors will be several metres under water. Oh, for a little bit of realism.