Author: admin

According to the report, the amount of weed-killing herbicides used by farmers has exploded, rising fifteenfold since biotech crops were first planted. The report lists eight weeds in the U.S.—among them horseweed, common waterhemp, and hairy fleabane—that have developed resistance to glyphosate, the most commonly applied pesticide. The next generations of biotech seeds include some that have been modified to withstand stronger doses of herbicides, while another strategy has been to develop tolerances to different herbicides and to combine multiple types of resistance in the same seed. "It’s a chemical arms race against these weeds," says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and a co-author of the report.

Monsanto Profit Forecast Up

In response, Monsanto said in an e-mailed statement: "The Friends of the Earth report makes numerous inaccurate and false claims. Information sources cited are rarely from peer reviewed scientific journals or research and are not representative of actual impacts." Apropos weed resistance, the company said, in part, "Monsanto takes product stewardship and claims of resistance to glyphosate very seriously.…Monsanto also sponsors internal and external research to understand the various aspects of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and research on best management practices in Roundup Ready crops."

The boost in herbicide use is proving to be a financial boon for Monsanto. Its Roundup business was thought to be an albatross, as the pesticide came off patent in 2000 and revenue quickly plunged. Chief Executive Hugh Grant hastened the company’s shift away from reliance on Roundup sales to an emphasis on GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds—in particular, commodity crops such as corn and soy, which are the grist for animal feed, food processing, and biofuels. As demand for agricultural commodities has soared in recent years, stoked by growing wealth and changing diets in developing nations, so too have the plantings of GMOs (BusinessWeek, 12/6/07).

But as more seeds with a baked-in resistance to Roundup are planted around the world, it’s helping prop up sales of the herbicide. Some 80% of biotech seeds have herbicide-tolerance in them, and the vast majority of those tolerate Roundup specifically. In fact, on Feb. 12, Monsanto Executive Vice-President Brett Begemann told investors at a conference that the company would raise its 2008 earnings guidance, thanks in part to better-than-anticipated Roundup sales. In the company’s first fiscal quarter, sales of Roundup and other chemicals jumped 47%. The company expects up to $1.4 billion in gross profit for the year from its chemicals business, Begemann said, which would be a 10% increase from 2007. (Monsanto forecasts $3.5 billion in gross profit from its seeds businesses, a 16% increase.)

Environmental Impact Unclear

Superweeds are most directly a nuisance for farmers, who have to work harder to tend their fields and spend more on buying and applying herbicides. But the impact reaches consumers, too, argues Freese, as increased levels of chemicals hit plants and can work their way into groundwater. So far, the concerns have not hindered the adoption of biotech crops: On Feb. 13, a biotech industry group, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, is expected to release its own report showing an uptick in plantings of GMO crops around the world.

But many of the side effects, both actual and potential, continue to stir debate. Companies such as Monsanto, DuPont’s (DD) Pioneer, and Syngenta (SYT) must submit environmental assessments to the U.S. Agriculture Dept.’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) before a biotech plant can be approved for commercial use. Freese argues, however, that more rigorous regulatory evaluations of biotech crops’ impact can stave off environmental side effects. In March, 2007, a federal judge in Northern California halted plantings of biotech alfalfa, ruling that the USDA’s oversight was inadequate.

For its part, Monsanto said in the Feb. 12 statement: "As part of the petition for deregulation, Monsanto includes information on glyphosate-resistant weeds and Monsanto’s weed resistance stewardship program. USDA reviews that information, along with other information such as research journal articles, in preparing their environmental assessment."

Academics have been studying the impact of GMOs, but the research is still nascent. Just last November, the National Academy of Sciences convened a workshop of entomologists, geneticists, biologists, and others to discuss research priorities on how genetically engineered plants and animals impact the environment. The results are expected later in the year.

It also marks the latest obstacle to coal, which provides about half of U.S. electricity but emits large amounts of CO2. Citing costs, the U.S. government last week pulled support for a project called FutureGen that many utilities saw as a step toward burning coal cleanly.

The standards, which would apply to all but the smallest plants, result from nine months of negotiations among the three banks and some of the biggest U.S. utilities and environmental groups. The standards could hurt coal-dependent utilities that haven’t begun factoring a future price of CO2 emissions into their planning. But they could help utilities that have.

The banks say they don’t want to be involved with debt that goes bad as a result of government emissions caps that require the power plants they finance to buy large numbers of extra pollution allowances. Under a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, the government would distribute a certain number of emission allowances each year. Companies whose emissions exceeded their allowances would have to buy more from companies that had more than needed. Congress is considering several cap-and-trade proposals.

"We have to wake up some people who are asleep," says Jeffrey Holzschuh, vice chairman of institutional securities at Morgan Stanley.

The banks are likely to continue to finance certain coal-fired power plants: those designed to capture greenhouse-gas emissions and shoot them underground if that technology became practical. But they make it less likely the banks will finance other coal-fired plants. Several dozen are on the drawing board in the U.S., many not yet financed.

The standards follow TXU Corp.’s proposal to build 11 coal-fired power plants in Texas — a plan it scaled back to three last year. TXU was later taken private by a group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG, formerly Texas Pacific Group. Citi, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley — top financiers to the U.S. power industry — were among the banks that advised the buyers.

The banks are under pressure from environmental groups but say their bigger motive is financial. Most major presidential candidates favor legislation to limit emissions. "What is earth-shakingly different between now and two years ago is the focus on CO2," says Eric Fornell, vice chairman of J.P. Morgan’s natural-resources banking division. Several states have begun requiring utilities to account for the potential cost of emissions in new-plant plans.

The banks say they will encourage energy-efficiency and renewable-energy pushes before backing new coal plants. And they say they will help utilities push for new government policies that make efficiency programs and renewable energy more practical.

When utilities apply for financing for coal-fired plants, the banks will use "somewhat conservative" assumptions about future caps, says Hal Clark, co-chairman of Citi’s power-sector investment-banking division. The banks say they will consider the possibility that utilities will have to pay for their allowances — an idea utilities are fighting.

Two environmental groups — Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council — worked with the banks to develop the standards. Mark Brownstein, an Environmental Defense official, says if utilities have to pay for emission allowances, "the days of conventional coal really are over."

But several utilities that helped draft the standards say they shouldn’t have to pay for most of their allowances. Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power Co., says his company believes it should get 90% to 95% free. Most big coal-fired utilities paying for their allowances would drive up their costs and consumers’ electric bills.

Some conventional coal-fired plants could pass muster if the utility showed it could raise its rates to cover the higher cost of polluting. "It’s still conceivable that conventional coal plants might make the most sense in a specific location in a specific community," J.P. Morgan’s Mr. Fornell says.

AEP’s Mr. Morris says the new standards clearly make it "more difficult" to build a conventional coal plant. AEP is designing new plants to capture and store CO2 if that technology becomes viable. The Wall Street seal of approval, he says, might help surmount local opposition. "A regulator may find this another reason to go forward" in approving a new coal-fired plant, Mr. Morris says. A spokesman for Southern Co., another big utility that helped draft the standards, says it believes they will stimulate more discussion.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Recently released estimates from Federal Treasury reveal a spike in the cost of fringe benefits tax concessions for company cars – costing the taxpayer billions of dollars annually. More alarmingly, the concession rate per vehicle actually increases the more kilometres logged.

These concessions contribute unnecessarily and unacceptably to increased greenhouse gas pollution and urban traffic congestion.

According to the Treasury estimates, in the past five years the concessions have been costing us between $410 and $750 million dollars more per year than was previously thought – an increase of more than 70 per cent for some years.

Treasury predicts that by 2009-10 we will be spending over $2 billion per year subsidising the use of company cars. That’s nearly twice the original estimate.

Other tax estimates have also increased. For the 2008-09 year, the estimated value of aviation fuel tax incentives has increased $70 million to $900 million, and for the same period the value of tax incentives for the production of condensate by petroleum and gas companies has leaped from $250 million to $320 million.

“These tax breaks are economically senseless, reward environmentally destructive behaviour and increase taxes that the rest of us have to pay. There are much better uses for $2 billion than to hand it out to affluent corporate executives as an incentive to buy cars and drive them as much as possible to get the maximum tax benefit,” says ACF’s strategies director Charles Berger.

“Dismantling this fiscally irresponsible, environmentally destructive fringe benefits tax-break for company cars should be tackled by the new Government in its first Budget.

“It is astonishing that even estimates of past tax breaks for polluting activities have increased so dramatically. The revised estimates call into question the reliability and usefulness of public and government information about tax policy.”

From the University of Wollongong  

University of Wollongong scientists have made an exciting discovery that enables processing and fabrication of an abundant form of carbon with extraordinary properties.

Results of the discovery are being released in the prestigious international journal, Nature (Nanotechnology), on Monday January 28 (AEST).

Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES), Professor Gordon Wallace, said results already indicated that the discovery would lead to advances in energy conversion (new transparent electrodes for solar cells) , energy storage (new electrodes for batteries — especially flexible batteries) and as new electrodes in medical bionics.

The discovery was led by QE2 Fellow in ACES/Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, Dr Dan Li. Other collaborators included recent Fulbright Fellow at the University of Wollongong, Professor Ric Kanar, who hails from UCLA in the United States, and University of Wollongong PhD student, Benjamin Mueller.

The Nature (Nanotechnology) paper is titled, ‘Processable aqueous dispersions of graphene nanosheets’. Graphene — a carbon-based nanomaterial known for its unique electronic, thermal and mechanical properties — can form stable dispersions in water without the need for additional chemical stabilisers. The researchers’ findings will have practical implications for the development of coatings to reduce static build-up on materials.

Graphene is the name given to the individual sheets of carbon, just one atom thick, that stack together to form graphite. Keeping graphene sheets separate from one another is a difficult task because they tend to stick together, forming larger structures that are not particularly useful. However, now the UOW team, using a sequence of chemical reactions, has shown how aqueous dispersions of well-separated graphene sheets can be made from graphite — an abundant and inexpensive starting material.

Rather than relying on either polymer or surfactant stabilisers, their approach maximises the electrostatic charge on the graphene sheets, ensuring that they repel one another instead of clumping together.

Professor Wallace said that this low-cost approach offers the potential for large-scale production of stable graphene colloids that can be processed using well-established solution-based techniques — such as filtration or spraying — to make conductive films.

“In addition to antistatic coatings, these materials are expected to have applications in flexible transparent electronics, high-performance composites and nanomedicine,” he said.