Author: admin

  • US plans oil pipeline to Israel

    The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

    The Prime Minister’s Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

    The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

    The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

    National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan’s consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."

    Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)

    Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.

    In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

    Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.

    Iraq is one of the world’s largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

    During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity.  

    © Copyright 2003 Ha’aretz

  • Tasmanians disappointed about bags

    The Tasmanian town of Coles Bay was the first in Australia to ban plastic shopping bags. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

    The Tasmanian Government has ruled out unilateral action to reduce the use of plastic shopping bags.

    The Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, met his state and territory counterparts in Melbourne yesterday, but they failed to reach agreement.

    The Greens have called for Tasmania to act anyway and introduce a bag levy or ban.

    Tasmania’s Minister, Michelle O’Byrne, says she argued for a national levy, but introducing it just locally would be unfair to Tasmanians.

    "We’re still working towards our target of phasing out from January, 2009," she said.

    "I would have like to have seen a national levy, I think that probably would have been the simplest mechanism.

    "It wasn’t going to happen, despite some really good support from other states, or other jurisdictions, so lets see what we can make out of the next stage."

    Ben Kearney led a campaign five years ago which saw all stores at Coles Bay, on Tasmania’s east coast, ban plastic shopping bags.

    It was a first for the nation.

    Mr Kearney says he had hoped for a better outcome from yesterday’s meeting.

    "I’m extremely disappointed that you know our own Tasmanian government couldn’t show more leadership on this at the same time very pleased to find out that the whole state of South Australia are going to do a Coles Bay and ban them anyway," he said.

    Greens Deputy leader, Nick McKim, says Tasmania should act anyway.

    "It’s well beyond time for Tasmania, the clean, green state to show some leadership," he said.

  • Solar power cheaper than expected

    A number of recent articles including Dr. Boreinstein’s study from UC Berkeley and a feature in the Economist questioning the cost effectiveness of solar, have sparked some serious debate amongst solar enthusiasts and have served to propagate false impressions about solar in the public arena.

    Due to the complexity of the product and misconceptions surrounding solar energy, the solar industry could greatly benefit from a collective advertising and branding campaign in order to achieve consistent messaging and dispel widespread myths about solar.

    There is a common misconception that solar is not cost effective because most people compare the cost of distributed solar to wholesale electricity prices. This is an inaccurate comparison since homeowners are actually paying retail electricity prices and not wholesale electricity prices. One can argue that solar is cost effective now if we compare apples to apples.

    The cost of RETAIL electricity in California can run upwards of $.30 to $0.41 cents per kWh for a household with high electricity consumption (a home with an air conditioner, swimming pool, refrigerator, TV, and a few electronic toys). A typical 3kW residential system costs $25,000 without incentives, and will produce 4,500 kWh per year virtually maintenance-free for 25 years. That works out to be 25 cents per kWh for solar — on a residential or commercial customer’s rooftop. With the state rebate and federal tax credit the cost for solar is 18 cents per kWh.

    Despite solar being an obvious smart financial and environmental decision for many home and business owners, daily articles from misinformed journalists claim that solar does not make financial sense. In order to create the drastic shift in the public’s mind a pervasive and cooperative advertising effort on the behalf of all solar players is perhaps necessary.

    In fact, the solar industry could learn a thing or two from the beef, milk, and cell phone industries, who all managed to successfully brand their products into mainstream acceptance via collective advertising and branding campaigns.

    A commodity is a good with very little differentiation. Beef, milk, cell phones and PV are all examples of commodities. When it comes to marketing a commodity, an individual company’s marketing expenditures tend to have a poor return. However, by financing a branding campaign by spreading the cost across the entire industry, every actor in the marketplace pays for and benefits from the increased effectiveness. This strategy minimizes some players’ free-riding on other players’ marketing efforts.

    The 1985 Beef Act, passed by Congress, was designed to promote the beef industry. The Texas Beef Council spearheaded a branding campaign that included the now-famous slogan, "Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner" and financed it with a $1 fee per head of beef cattle. This campaign’s goal was to address the slump during the 1980’s within the beef industry.

    The branding campaign utilized by the beef industry had more than the catchy "Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner," tagline. It also effectively utilized music within the branding campaign. Aaron Copland, an American composer, had originally written "Hoe Down" for the ballet Rodeo in 1942. Now, many people associate the distinctive melody with "Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner." The ads for beef displayed everyday Americans enjoying beef and focused on ease of preparation and the nutritional benefits. The ads typically displayed a family preparing or sitting down to a meal and featured recipes with estimated prep and cooking times that were typically quite short. Through these ads, the beef industry was able to greatly increase its sales and profits by dispelling the unhealthy and difficult-to-prepare reputation that beef had acquired in the early 80s.

    The milk industry has also undergone several branding and re-branding campaigns as it sought to carve its own brand identity. In the past, milk ads used the tag line, "It Does a Body Good," to emphasize the health benefits of milk.

    The next generation of milk ads started with the "got milk?" campaign. The first "got milk?" ad was a television spot in which a fellow with a shrine to the Alexander Hamilton – Aaron Burr duel hears a radio promotion asking, "Who killed Alexander Hamilton?" He phones into the contest, gets through, and tries to answer "Aaron Burr," but his mouth is full of sticky peanut butter. Because he is out of milk and cannot wash down the peanut butter, his answer is completely intelligible. As he screams in frustration from losing out on the large monetary prize, the words: "got milk?" flash on the screen.

    Milk print ads briefly went to the "where’s your mustache?" tagline, but that was dropped in favor of the more memorable "got milk?" tagline. These ads combined the memorable phrase with milk mustached celebrities, athletes, and other notables.

    The branding of milk emphasizes the health benefits that result from milk consumption. Among the many benefits milk provides are the multiple essential nutrients to promote strong bones and shiny, healthy hair. Awareness of the "got milk?" branding campaign rates over 90% nationally, making it a highly successful brand.

    It is not just the milk and beef industries that have been transformed through branding campaigns. The high tech industry has also successfully used this approach with cell phones. It wasn’t until 1984 that cellular phones were first mass marketed to the general public. It was a technical marvel by which people could reach into their pockets and simply make a call to someone — anywhere in the world. This new wireless gadget was bulky, expensive to operate (compared to nowadays) and back then seemed like just another toy on the wish list of those who had money. The aggressive branding campaigns from the cellular companies successfully branded the expensive cell phones into must-haves for mass consumers.

    All three industries have effectively used branding to increase awareness of their product as well as the industry as a whole. Instead of putting so much emphasis into nickel and diming the cost effectiveness of solar, perhaps the solar industry would be best served by utilizing a collective branding effort in order to bring solar to the mainstream.

  • Megacities may be sustainable

    Over the last 50 years urban populations have exploded, causing a slew of environmental and social problems. However, many community planners see the world’s urbanization not as a threat, but as a powerful force for addressing climate change and building a sustainable future.

    "Cities offer the most potential to face our environmental problems, and I believe that we can do it. We just have to do it now."

    — Herbert Girardet, Director of Programs, World Future Council

    The United Nations (UN) projects that sometime this year over 50% of the world’s population will be living in cities. That’s an increase of roughly 2.5 billion people since 1950. By 2020, the UN projects that 5 billion people will be living in cities. As this rapid urbanization continues, especially in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil, urban planners are trying to help cities become more environmentally and economically sustainable.

    "Certainly the city, if it is reconfigured in the right way, could become a very sustainable habitat for humanity," says Herbert Girardet, director of programs at the World Future Council and an expert on sustainable cities. "But we need radical new departures in urban planning and priorities for urban authorities for the city to ultimately become the solution."

    Girardet has written 9 books, produced 50 documentaries and advised cities such as London and Vienna on the value of sustainable urban development. Now China is his focus. With plans to build around 400 new cities over the next 20 years, the country desperately needs to think about environmentally-friendly ways to grow, he says.

    The eco-city of Dongtan may be the place where this change begins. Girardet is senior advisor to the project, which will be located on Congming Island in Shanghai Province. The city will integrate the most important aspects of sustainable design into its layout: small villages connected by bicycle paths, a robust public transportation system, a network of distributed renewable energy systems, local farming and a method to recycle all waste output. The idea, says Girardet, is to create a zero-waste city with a "circular metabolism."

    "When you look at natural systems, basically nature does not know waste. All wastes…end up as nutrients for future growth," he says. "We need to learn from nature for the way we organize ourselves in terms of human affairs."

    According to research by the USAID China Environmental Health Project, Chinese cities produce around 190 million tons of trash each year. That number could rise to around 480 million tons per year by 2030. Because of the environmental and health issues associated with poor waste management, the Chinese government has called for a 10% increase in the efficiency of resource use by 2020. Even with such measures, however, the problem will need to be tackled from the ground up. Designing cities like Dongtan may be a more effective solution, especially as China urbanizes so quickly.

    The plan is to move 25,000 residents onto the 86 square kilometer island by 2010 and steadily grow the population to 500,000 by 2030. If it proves successful, says Girardet, the eco-city will hopefully serve as a model for Chinese officials as they manage the country’s growth.

    While Dongtan will integrate an impressive list of renewable energy technologies and sustainable planning methods, changes to existing cities may be a bit more subtle in the short term. The goal now, says Michael Kinsley, a senior consultant at the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Sustainable Cities program, is to get community planners to change the way they think about the development process.

    The problem, he says, is that most cities working toward "smart growth" have a team of elected officials and consultants looking at environmental and social issues and another team looking at economic issues. Often, the two teams don’t talk to one another, which can start conflicts later in the planning process. Kinsley’s first order of business is to get all stakeholders collaborating to ensure that sustainability and economic progress go hand in hand.

    "That’s really what sustainability is about when you cut down through the rhetoric about it," he says. "What it’s ultimately about is the way in which you make decisions. It’s not a list of things you ought to do in a community, as much as it is a way of thinking about what the community ought to be."

    There are many agreed-upon components of a sustainable city: Better public transit, bicycle and walking routes, energy-efficient buildings, renewable energies and local agriculture. But not every city will integrate those components the same way. Instead of handing planners a standard list of action items, says Kinsley, the goal should be to "help community leaders think about what their principal values are," and then work from those values.

    "People will only be willing to go the extra mile if they feel they have a stake in the process," says Richard Levine, co-director of the Center for Sustainable Cities at the University of Kentucky. "This is an extension of the democratic idea."

    If cities are to take a systems-level approach to development, change needs to happen at the very beginning stages of planning. Levine sees some progress in this area, but he doesn’t see it happening fast enough. The technical details will never be fully worked out until the cultural, environmental and economic values of a community become consistent.

    "We have yet to build a truly sustainability city. Some cities are starting to think very hard about this, but we’ve got a long way to go," he says. "If this starts happening in a meaningful way, there’s probably no stopping it. Once cities see that it can be done in an economically-feasible manner, they’ll want to do it too. But we need to have one or two examples to start the momentum and get us off the treadmill we’re all bound to right now."

    Indeed, if all goes well, Dongtan could help build that momentum and speed up the process. But there is no time to wait around, say most experts. By many accounts the window for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is about ten years; therefore, because of the large amount of time it takes to restructure cities, drastic changes to urban planning need to happen immediately, says Girardet.

    "There are some voices of doom out there who say it’s too late, but I cannot accept that notion," he says. "Cities offer the most potential to face our environmental problems, and I believe that we can do it. We just have to do it now."

  • Melting mountains ‘time bomb’ for water shortages

    From Reuters via the NZ Herald 
     
    People in mountainous areas such as Nepal rely on melt-water for most of their needs. Photo / Reuters

    People in mountainous areas such as Nepal rely on melt-water for most of their needs. Photo / Reuters

    Glaciers and mountain snow are melting earlier in the year than usual, meaning the water has already gone when millions of people need it during the summer when rainfall is lower, scientists warn .

    "This is just a time bomb," said hydrologist Wouter Buytaert at a meeting of geoscientists in Vienna.

    Those areas most at risk from a lack of water for drinking and agriculture include parts of the Middle East, southern Africa, the US, South America and the Mediterranean.

    Rising global temperatures mean the melt-water is occurring earlier and faster in the year and the mountains may no longer be able to provide a vital stop-gap.

    "In some areas where the glaciers are small they could be gone in 30 or 50 years time and a very reliable source of water, especially for the summer months, may be gone."

    Ms Buytaert, from Britain’s Bristol University, was referring to parts of the Mediterranean where her research is focused, but she said this threat also applies to the entire Alps region and other global mountain sources.

    Daniel Viviroli, from the University of Berne, believes nearly 40 per cent of mountainous regions could be at risk, as they provide water to populations which cannot get it elsewhere.

    He says the earth’s sub-tropic zones, which are home to 70 per cent of the world’s population, are the most vulnerable. And with the global population expected to expand rapidly, there may not always be enough water to drink.

    In Afghanistan, home to some 3,500 of the world’s glaciers, the effects of global warming are already being felt in the Hindu Kush, said US Geological Survey researcher Bruce Molnia.

    In some valleys snow has completely disappeared during months when it usually blankets the mountains and many basins have drained, Mr Molnia said.

    "And what I am talking about here is adaptable to almost every one of the Himalayan countries that’s dependent on glacier-melted water," he said.

    – REUTERS

  • Stern underestimated global warming risks

    From Fiona Harvey and Jim Pickard of the Financial Times

    The Stern report on climate change underestimated the risks of global warming, its author said yesterday, and should have presented a gloomier view of the future. "We underestimated the risks . . . we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases . . . and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases," Lord Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, told the Financial Times yesterday.

    In retrospect, he would have taken a much stronger view in the report on the drastic changes that would occur if greenhouse gas emissions were not abated.

    In the report, he put the costs of climate change at between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product. But these would be far higher if the report had taken a more ag-gressive stance on probable consequences of warming.

    Lord Stern said data published since his report came out, in October 2006, had led him to change his mind.

    Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, published the most comprehensive study of climate change science. It predicted a temperature rise of 3°C within the next 100 years with catastrophic consequences for the planet, unless greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised and then cut within the next decade.

    "The damage risks are bigger than I would have argued. Things like the damage associated with a 5° temperature increase are enormous. We can’t be precise about what it would be like but you can say it would be a transformation," he said.

    But he defended his estimate of the cost of taking action on emissions – about 1 per cent of global GDP.

    "Subsequent reports, [from] McKinsey, the International Energy Agency, the IPCC have pointed to the [Stern report’s] costs of action being roughly in the right ball park. Nothing [since] has led me to revise the cost of action.

    "I probably would have emphasised the importance of good policy [if writing the report today] and how bad policy puts up the costs [of cutting emissions]."

    Lord Stern has come under attack from economists and climate change sceptics since his report, which some sceptics regard as scaremongering. Some argued he underestimated the cost of taking action to cut emissions and overestimated the benefits to future generations.