A reality that greenhouse idealists choose to ignore -
If coal exports from the proposed Anvil Hill mine do not go ahead, not one molecule less carbon dioxide will be emitted to the atmosphere, because the overseas customers for the coal will simply buy it elsewhere. Their requirements will be willingly met by other coal-exporting countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, Russia or China. If anyone thinks that would be a better result for the environment, they are sadly misinformed.
Global consumption of coal is not limited by supply. Coal is found in more than 100 countries and reserves are sufficient for hundreds of years. Therefore global demand for coal is not determined by supplies from Australia.
The Australian mining industry is a major player in the seaborne coal trade not because customers have nowhere else to go but because we are efficient, reliable suppliers able to compete successfully on price and quality.
In these circumstances it is hard to imagine anything more quixotic than constraining exports of Australian coal on the basis that doing so might save greenhouse gas emissions in the countries that import coal. Those countries will not burn any less coal, just less of ours. In such a process, the investment, jobs, taxes and royalties that now benefit all Australians, especially the people of the Hunter and Illawarra regions and the coalmining areas of Queensland, will go elsewhere.
Ironically, many of those advocating this scenario also oppose developing clean coal technologies, including carbon capture and geological storage. This reveals an ideological opposition to fossil fuels that has little to do with practical solutions to climate change. They advocate a one-dimensional approach to the problem that excludes everything except renewable energy, regardless of cost or practicality.
Climate change is a complex problem that does not lend itself to one-dimensional solutions. It will certainly not be solved by energy exporters such as Australia withdrawing their resources from an energy-hungry world. If all countries with reserves of fossil fuels were to take this approach, the geopolitical consequences could only be imagined.
While such an approach is clearly untenable, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our use of all fossil fuels is a legitimate objective. Emissions from coal are usually singled out for particular attention, yet the use of oil and related products is responsible for the same proportion of energy-related emissions. Emissions from gas are the fastest growing source.
Fortunately, it may be easier to reduce emissions from coal than from oil because coal is mainly used in large centralised plants that lend themselves to carbon capture and storage. This technology is being developed and Australia is a key player. The Australian coal industry is making a major contribution to this effort, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and technical and scientific expertise. This support is underwritten by our coal exports. Investment in this and other low emissions technologies is likely to prove the single most effective contribution a small country such as ours makes to protecting the global climate.
Despite concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, world demand for energy is increasing rapidly. The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand will increase by 50 per cent by 2030. It is inevitable that coal will be used to meet a substantial proportion of this demand. The result in terms of greenhouse gas emissions will be determined by the use of clean coal technologies. It will not be determined by whether Australia develops new mines.
The Australian coal industry competes successfully in the global market while having the best environmental and occupational safety standards in the world. As a result coal is easily our most important commodity export. Last year coal generated about $25 billion in export earnings, most of which boosts the national economy, with particular benefits in NSW and Queensland.
Anyone who thinks the environment would benefit by forcing importing nations to look elsewhere for their coal is mistaken. Anyone who believes that withholding energy resources from those who do not have sufficient resources is a good idea is downright dangerous.
Mark O'Neill is executive director of the Australian Coal Association.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Nuclear Debate: Part Four: Australia and the World
When John Howard re-ignited debate about a nuclear future for Australia last July, it was as if the past 30 years hadn’t happened. No Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, no terrorists, no intractable problems related to waste or the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
");
//-->
Howard’s message was muddy and unfocused, but it went something like this: the threat of global warming was now so serious, and the new proposed nuclear power plants so sophisticated, and India and China were growing so fast, that the dangers associated with nuclear power had somehow been neutralised. And as the world’s largest exporter of uranium, Australia needed to get on with the business of mining and exporting as much of it as we could, and maybe, while we’re at it, we might like to consider enriching, fabricating and leasing the stuff.
All of this came out of a clear blue sky. While the rest of the world has struggled with Kyoto targets, carbon liabilities and the fast-tracking of renewable energy schemes, the Howard Government has constantly questioned the existence of global warming, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and dismissed calls to tackle climate change on the grounds that it was ‘not in the national interest.’
But now, suddenly, the nation is thrown head first into the nuclear cycle on the grounds that global warming requires it.
What is going on? Why, with evidence mounting that global warming is now well under way has Howard insisted on wasting the last 12 months, huge amounts of time, money and intelligence on something as limited and predictable as the Switkowski Report, while ignoring the whole renewable energy sector?The short answer is: we may never know, and, given that Australia is a democracy and nuclear power is such a contentious issue, that level of ignorance is itself a problem.
But the long answer may well involve not only Howard’s good friend George W Bush, but also his less good friend Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Thanks to Fiona Katauskas
George Bush and the US nuclear power industry have a big problem, and it’s called Yucca Mountain, the proposed repository and terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fule and other radioactive waste.
The Bush Administration had problems with the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository even before the Republicans lost control of the US Senate a few weeks ago. But when Nevada Democrat Senator Harry Reid was nominated to become Senate Majority Leader, their problems grew exponentially. Reid told reporters after his nomination that he couldn’t single-handedly kill the Yucca Mountain repository outright, something that would require a vote of Congress and approval by President Bush. But he added: ‘There’s not much to kill.’
If the US nuclear energy industry and the Bush Administration can’t find a place to put their waste — and four years ago that included 47,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste and 345 million litres of fluid left over from plutonium production — there is little prospect of an expanded nuclear power industry within the US. As Jack Edlow, CEO of Edlow International, a company which ships nuclear fuel and nuclear waste all around the world, told Tom Morton on ABC’s Background Briefing in September:
The [Bush] Administration has to decide whether the energy future of the United States will include nuclear. If it does, they need to have a waste solution before people will order more plants potentially.
The US also has the problem of how to remain the world’s only super power when Russia, China and India insist on forming an axis that challenges that pre-eminence, particularly through energy.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) began life innocently enough. Formed in June 2001, it bought together China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Its intention was, according to the SCO Charter:
Strengthening mutual trust and good-neighbourliness and friendship among member States; developing their effective co-operation in political affairs, the economy and trade, science and technology, culture, education, energy, transportation, environmental protection and other fields; working together to maintain regional peace, security and stability; and promoting the creation of a new international political and economic order featuring democracy, justice and rationality.
But as former Australian Secret Intelligence Service officer, Warren Reed, noted in the Australian Financial Review last June, when the SCO announced earlier this year that India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia would soon become full members, economic enlargement became central to the SCO, and ‘economics primarily means energy,’ said Reed.
As an example of this, Reed details the deal struck between Russia — the world’s largest gas producer and second largest oil producer — and China, under which Russia became one of China’s major energy providers. He notes that, ‘Russia has also agreed to help China with its nuclear power program, under which 30 nuclear reactors will be built in the next 15 years.’
To maintain its hegemony, the US will need to find a way to project itself back into the energy markets of China and India. If two close US allies such as Australia and Canada agree to become nuclear fuel leasing countries, we could help facilitate the projection of US interests in Chian and India — but agreeing to take back the leased nuclear fuel as part of that deal.
The Bush Administration is not the only one looking for a friendly democracy, with stable geological foundations, to solve their problem with nuclear waste. The Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is also investigating the creation of a multinational approach that would offer an alternative to Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
In a speech at Harvard last year, ElBaradei, said:
Is it really rational for every country to develop their own enrichment facilities? Well the answer is absolutely no. These are sensitive technologies, and if countries want to use that technology for their own economic social development, they can. But let us multi-nationalise this operation, let us regionalise this operation, so no one country alone can have their hands on highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the materials they need to develop weapons.
At this stage it appears that Russia is increasingly seen as a potential site for a multinational nuclear repository but that would need the support of not only the IAEA and Russia, but also the US Administration — support that, at this stage, cannot be presumed.
It may well suit the US and the IAEA to have Australia volunteer to take the world’s nuclear waste. And from a moral and ethical point of view, it may be that many Australians reach the same conclusion.
It may be that all of the above is just coincidence and/or speculation.
The point is that we do not have sufficient information to make that call, and unfortunately the ‘trust me I’m your Prime Minister’ line is unlikely to carry much weight any more.
The debate about Australia’s engagement with nuclear power needs the utmost transparency. We need to know what the current Government is planning, what their aspirations are, and how those aspirations fit into larger geopolitical dynamics.
While the corporations power in the Australian Constitution potentially gives the Federal Government the power to impose a nuclear power industry on Australia, while we remain a democracy it would be an unwise path to take. Therefore, it is back to the debate and back to the demand for transparency.
About the author
Julie Macken is a former journalist with the Australian Financial Review. She is now writing a series of books on Australian business, hope and the possibility of political change in Australia.
When John Howard re-ignited debate about a nuclear future for Australia last July, it was as if the past 30 years hadn’t happened. No Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, no terrorists, no intractable problems related to waste or the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
");
//-->
Howard’s message was muddy and unfocused, but it went something like this: the threat of global warming was now so serious, and the new proposed nuclear power plants so sophisticated, and India and China were growing so fast, that the dangers associated with nuclear power had somehow been neutralised. And as the world’s largest exporter of uranium, Australia needed to get on with the business of mining and exporting as much of it as we could, and maybe, while we’re at it, we might like to consider enriching, fabricating and leasing the stuff.
All of this came out of a clear blue sky. While the rest of the world has struggled with Kyoto targets, carbon liabilities and the fast-tracking of renewable energy schemes, the Howard Government has constantly questioned the existence of global warming, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and dismissed calls to tackle climate change on the grounds that it was ‘not in the national interest.’
But now, suddenly, the nation is thrown head first into the nuclear cycle on the grounds that global warming requires it.
What is going on? Why, with evidence mounting that global warming is now well under way has Howard insisted on wasting the last 12 months, huge amounts of time, money and intelligence on something as limited and predictable as the Switkowski Report, while ignoring the whole renewable energy sector?The short answer is: we may never know, and, given that Australia is a democracy and nuclear power is such a contentious issue, that level of ignorance is itself a problem.
But the long answer may well involve not only Howard’s good friend George W Bush, but also his less good friend Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Thanks to Fiona Katauskas
George Bush and the US nuclear power industry have a big problem, and it’s called Yucca Mountain, the proposed repository and terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fule and other radioactive waste.
The Bush Administration had problems with the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository even before the Republicans lost control of the US Senate a few weeks ago. But when Nevada Democrat Senator Harry Reid was nominated to become Senate Majority Leader, their problems grew exponentially. Reid told reporters after his nomination that he couldn’t single-handedly kill the Yucca Mountain repository outright, something that would require a vote of Congress and approval by President Bush. But he added: ‘There’s not much to kill.’
If the US nuclear energy industry and the Bush Administration can’t find a place to put their waste — and four years ago that included 47,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste and 345 million litres of fluid left over from plutonium production — there is little prospect of an expanded nuclear power industry within the US. As Jack Edlow, CEO of Edlow International, a company which ships nuclear fuel and nuclear waste all around the world, told Tom Morton on ABC’s Background Briefing in September:
The [Bush] Administration has to decide whether the energy future of the United States will include nuclear. If it does, they need to have a waste solution before people will order more plants potentially.
The US also has the problem of how to remain the world’s only super power when Russia, China and India insist on forming an axis that challenges that pre-eminence, particularly through energy.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) began life innocently enough. Formed in June 2001, it bought together China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Its intention was, according to the SCO Charter:
Strengthening mutual trust and good-neighbourliness and friendship among member States; developing their effective co-operation in political affairs, the economy and trade, science and technology, culture, education, energy, transportation, environmental protection and other fields; working together to maintain regional peace, security and stability; and promoting the creation of a new international political and economic order featuring democracy, justice and rationality.
But as former Australian Secret Intelligence Service officer, Warren Reed, noted in the Australian Financial Review last June, when the SCO announced earlier this year that India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia would soon become full members, economic enlargement became central to the SCO, and ‘economics primarily means energy,’ said Reed.
As an example of this, Reed details the deal struck between Russia — the world’s largest gas producer and second largest oil producer — and China, under which Russia became one of China’s major energy providers. He notes that, ‘Russia has also agreed to help China with its nuclear power program, under which 30 nuclear reactors will be built in the next 15 years.’
To maintain its hegemony, the US will need to find a way to project itself back into the energy markets of China and India. If two close US allies such as Australia and Canada agree to become nuclear fuel leasing countries, we could help facilitate the projection of US interests in Chian and India — but agreeing to take back the leased nuclear fuel as part of that deal.
The Bush Administration is not the only one looking for a friendly democracy, with stable geological foundations, to solve their problem with nuclear waste. The Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is also investigating the creation of a multinational approach that would offer an alternative to Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
In a speech at Harvard last year, ElBaradei, said:
Is it really rational for every country to develop their own enrichment facilities? Well the answer is absolutely no. These are sensitive technologies, and if countries want to use that technology for their own economic social development, they can. But let us multi-nationalise this operation, let us regionalise this operation, so no one country alone can have their hands on highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the materials they need to develop weapons.
At this stage it appears that Russia is increasingly seen as a potential site for a multinational nuclear repository but that would need the support of not only the IAEA and Russia, but also the US Administration — support that, at this stage, cannot be presumed.
It may well suit the US and the IAEA to have Australia volunteer to take the world’s nuclear waste. And from a moral and ethical point of view, it may be that many Australians reach the same conclusion.
It may be that all of the above is just coincidence and/or speculation.
The point is that we do not have sufficient information to make that call, and unfortunately the ‘trust me I’m your Prime Minister’ line is unlikely to carry much weight any more.
The debate about Australia’s engagement with nuclear power needs the utmost transparency. We need to know what the current Government is planning, what their aspirations are, and how those aspirations fit into larger geopolitical dynamics.
While the corporations power in the Australian Constitution potentially gives the Federal Government the power to impose a nuclear power industry on Australia, while we remain a democracy it would be an unwise path to take. Therefore, it is back to the debate and back to the demand for transparency.
About the author
Julie Macken is a former journalist with the Australian Financial Review. She is now writing a series of books on Australian business, hope and the possibility of political change in Australia.
BioMaxx Systems, Inc. Announces Principal Sponsorship at Bioenergy Australia 2006 Conference - "Biomaxx Systems Inc. (Other OTC: BMXSF) is pleased to announce that the company is a principal sponsor of the Bioenergy Australia 2006 Conference to be held December 5-8 in Fremantle Australia.
Professor Dr. Naim Kosaric, the BioMaxx Systems Chief Scientific Advisor will be presenting a paper at the conference with the subject of “Alternate Liquid and Gaseous Fuels Via Biotechnology.” The paper will outline Biomaxx Systems strategic developments in the fields of ethanol, bio-diesel and hydrogen.
Dr Stephen Schuck, Manager of Bioenergy Australia, is pleased to note “The ongoing membership of BioMaxx Systems Inc and its participation in the forthcoming conference, by providing a paper at the conference.'
The Bioenergy Australia 2006 Conference – A Growth Opportunity for Energy and the Environment, will cover policies and programs, bio-energy projects and case studies, feedstock, bioelectricity, liquid fuels, bio-refining, waste to energy, gasification, and the overall promotion in technologies that reduce green house gas emissions. Bioenergy Australia is an alliance of government and private sector organizations with a shared interest in the development of sustainable energy and products from biomass.
BioMaxx Systems hopes to solidify business relationships with the forward thinking and environmentally responsible Australian government and private sector organizations during the Conference. The Bioenergy Conference is another example of how Australia has emerged is a global leader in the renewable energy sector.
About Bioenergy Australia
Bioenergy Australia was established in 1997 as a government industry forum to foster and facilitate the "
Professor Dr. Naim Kosaric, the BioMaxx Systems Chief Scientific Advisor will be presenting a paper at the conference with the subject of “Alternate Liquid and Gaseous Fuels Via Biotechnology.” The paper will outline Biomaxx Systems strategic developments in the fields of ethanol, bio-diesel and hydrogen.
Dr Stephen Schuck, Manager of Bioenergy Australia, is pleased to note “The ongoing membership of BioMaxx Systems Inc and its participation in the forthcoming conference, by providing a paper at the conference.'
The Bioenergy Australia 2006 Conference – A Growth Opportunity for Energy and the Environment, will cover policies and programs, bio-energy projects and case studies, feedstock, bioelectricity, liquid fuels, bio-refining, waste to energy, gasification, and the overall promotion in technologies that reduce green house gas emissions. Bioenergy Australia is an alliance of government and private sector organizations with a shared interest in the development of sustainable energy and products from biomass.
BioMaxx Systems hopes to solidify business relationships with the forward thinking and environmentally responsible Australian government and private sector organizations during the Conference. The Bioenergy Conference is another example of how Australia has emerged is a global leader in the renewable energy sector.
About Bioenergy Australia
Bioenergy Australia was established in 1997 as a government industry forum to foster and facilitate the "
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1615: "Japan Strives to Balance Energy Needs with World Politics
Published: November 29, 2006 in Knowledge@Wharton
As much of the world grapples with higher oil prices, no industrial country is as vulnerable to rising energy costs as Japan. Almost entirely dependent on foreign oil, Japan has focused on conservation and alternative fuels, but recently has begun to push hard to get new access to overseas oil.
Wharton faculty and energy analysts say Japan's new posture has led to tensions with other countries, including the United States, forcing Japan to maintain a delicate balance between geopolitics and its energy needs. 'It seems that Japan has become more aggressive in the past year when it comes to seeking new sources of oil,' says Wharton finance professor Ayako Yasuda.
Energy demand in Japan is not expected to increase dramatically due to an aging population and changing patterns of industrial production. However, rising competition for global resources from China and other emerging economies has put new pressure on Japan and other industrialized countries to lock up energy resources.
Japan's new focus on developing overseas oil supplies is part of an ambitious national energy policy, unveiled this spring, that sets specific targets to reduce dependence on foreign oil while increasing nuclear power generation and energy conservation.
The policy sets a specific target to reduce the amount of oil as a share of overall energy consumption from 50% now to 40% by 2030. The government also wants to reduce the percentage of oil used in the transportation sector from nearly 100% today to 80%. In addition, the policy aims to increase the amount of oil developed and imported by Japanese companies from 15% to 40% by 2030.
Seeking Deals Abroa"
Published: November 29, 2006 in Knowledge@Wharton
As much of the world grapples with higher oil prices, no industrial country is as vulnerable to rising energy costs as Japan. Almost entirely dependent on foreign oil, Japan has focused on conservation and alternative fuels, but recently has begun to push hard to get new access to overseas oil.
Wharton faculty and energy analysts say Japan's new posture has led to tensions with other countries, including the United States, forcing Japan to maintain a delicate balance between geopolitics and its energy needs. 'It seems that Japan has become more aggressive in the past year when it comes to seeking new sources of oil,' says Wharton finance professor Ayako Yasuda.
Energy demand in Japan is not expected to increase dramatically due to an aging population and changing patterns of industrial production. However, rising competition for global resources from China and other emerging economies has put new pressure on Japan and other industrialized countries to lock up energy resources.
Japan's new focus on developing overseas oil supplies is part of an ambitious national energy policy, unveiled this spring, that sets specific targets to reduce dependence on foreign oil while increasing nuclear power generation and energy conservation.
The policy sets a specific target to reduce the amount of oil as a share of overall energy consumption from 50% now to 40% by 2030. The government also wants to reduce the percentage of oil used in the transportation sector from nearly 100% today to 80%. In addition, the policy aims to increase the amount of oil developed and imported by Japanese companies from 15% to 40% by 2030.
Seeking Deals Abroa"
Carbon reduction not working: CSIRO
SYDNEY: The rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions has more than doubled since the 1990s, according to a new Australian study, raising fears that the rising levels of carbon dioxide may be unstoppable.
"From 2000 to 2005, the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 per cent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than one per cent per year," said study co-author Mike Raupach of Australia's national science agency, the CSIRO.
Carbon dioxide has been implicated as a major cause of global warming, and the new findings suggest that recent global efforts to reduce emissions have had little impact.
According to Raupach 7.9 billion tonnes of carbon were emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in 2005 and the rate of increase is accelerating.
Currently, China demonstrates the highest current growth rate in emissions, but its emissions per person are still below the global average and its accumulated contribution since the start of the industrial revolution around 1800 is only five per cent of the global total.
This compares to the U.S. and Europe, each of which have each contributed more than 25 per cent to accumulated global emissions.
The study examined a 30-year record of air samples collected at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's observation station in Cape Grim, Tasmania, and was presented at the station's annual science meeting. Samples showed growth rates of just over one part per million in the early 1980s, but in recent years carbon dioxide has increased at almost twice this rate.
The amount of emitted carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere fluctuates from year to year due to natural factors such as El Niño. According to Raupach, on average nearly half of all emissions from fossil fuel use and land-use changes remain in the atmosphere, with the rest being absorbed by the land and oceans.
"A danger is that the land and oceans might take up less carbon dioxide in the future than they have in the past, which would increase the rate of climate change caused by emissions," he said.
"Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On our current path, it will be difficult to rein-in carbon emissions enough to stabilise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppm (the IPCC's goal for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels)."
According to CSIRO's Paul Fraser, another of the study's authors, "The trend over recent years suggests the growth rate is accelerating, signifying that fossil fuels are having an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations in a way we haven't seen in the past."
"The jump in emissions is remarkable … it seems there has been a tremendous shift in the past five years," said independent expert Paul Crutzen of the Max Plank Institute for Chemistry in Germany, a Nobel Prize winner for his work on holes in the ozone layer. "Unfortunately, once emissions go up, it's very hard to bring them back down."
with the CSIRO
SYDNEY: The rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions has more than doubled since the 1990s, according to a new Australian study, raising fears that the rising levels of carbon dioxide may be unstoppable.
"From 2000 to 2005, the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 per cent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than one per cent per year," said study co-author Mike Raupach of Australia's national science agency, the CSIRO.
Carbon dioxide has been implicated as a major cause of global warming, and the new findings suggest that recent global efforts to reduce emissions have had little impact.
According to Raupach 7.9 billion tonnes of carbon were emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in 2005 and the rate of increase is accelerating.
Currently, China demonstrates the highest current growth rate in emissions, but its emissions per person are still below the global average and its accumulated contribution since the start of the industrial revolution around 1800 is only five per cent of the global total.
This compares to the U.S. and Europe, each of which have each contributed more than 25 per cent to accumulated global emissions.
The study examined a 30-year record of air samples collected at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's observation station in Cape Grim, Tasmania, and was presented at the station's annual science meeting. Samples showed growth rates of just over one part per million in the early 1980s, but in recent years carbon dioxide has increased at almost twice this rate.
The amount of emitted carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere fluctuates from year to year due to natural factors such as El Niño. According to Raupach, on average nearly half of all emissions from fossil fuel use and land-use changes remain in the atmosphere, with the rest being absorbed by the land and oceans.
"A danger is that the land and oceans might take up less carbon dioxide in the future than they have in the past, which would increase the rate of climate change caused by emissions," he said.
"Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On our current path, it will be difficult to rein-in carbon emissions enough to stabilise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppm (the IPCC's goal for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels)."
According to CSIRO's Paul Fraser, another of the study's authors, "The trend over recent years suggests the growth rate is accelerating, signifying that fossil fuels are having an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations in a way we haven't seen in the past."
"The jump in emissions is remarkable … it seems there has been a tremendous shift in the past five years," said independent expert Paul Crutzen of the Max Plank Institute for Chemistry in Germany, a Nobel Prize winner for his work on holes in the ozone layer. "Unfortunately, once emissions go up, it's very hard to bring them back down."
with the CSIRO
Report: Global warming big issue in N.Y. - Yahoo! News
ALBANY, N.Y. - Global warming has emerged as a top New York environmental issue, with accumulated scientific data showing a hotter atmosphere and projecting more radical changes over the next century from automobile and power plant emissions, according to a report issued Wednesday.
New York temperatures rose an average of 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit from 1900 to 1999, and two projection models indicate increases from 5 to 9.5 degrees over the next century, with implications for heat-related illnesses, coastal flooding, wildlife losses and insurance costs, said David Gahl, who wrote the report for Environmental Advocates of New York.
"We've gotten beyond questioning the science on this," said Gahl. Environmental Advocates, a group that presses for the protection of natural resources, used as its primary report sources the national academies of science of the United States, Britain, Canada and eight other industrialized nations, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Climatic Data Center.
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring," the academies said in a joint statement last year. They cited air and water temperatures, higher sea levels, retreating glaciers and higher greenhouse gas concentrations — including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone and methane — in the atmosphere well above pre-industrial levels.
About 90 percent of the greenhouse gases, so called because they trap heat in the atmosphere, are from fuel combustion, Gahl said.
"We have choices," Gahl said. "This is not inevitable."
Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer has already called global warming the most important environmental issue facing this generation, noting as attorney general he's party to the lawsuit now before the
U.S. Supreme Court' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> U.S. Supreme Court trying to require federal regulators to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
"I support state regulations that would regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant," he said in written comments Oct. 27 to the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks.
Climate change will be the subject of a conference in the Hudson Valley scheduled Dec. 4 by the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
Gahl, former senior policy analyst for the state Assembly Ways and Means Committee, said the challenge is finding politically palatable measures to further cut vehicle and power plant emissions. Among other things, his report recommends:
_Tighter statewide caps from each sector with an overall goal of up to 85 percent emission reduction by mid-century.
_Requiring utilities to achieve a certain levels of energy efficiency in their territories.
_Reducing vehicle travel through insurance and registration pay-as-you-drive pricing.
_Establishing a permanent climate change commission.
_Retooling New York's planned power plant emission allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
ALBANY, N.Y. - Global warming has emerged as a top New York environmental issue, with accumulated scientific data showing a hotter atmosphere and projecting more radical changes over the next century from automobile and power plant emissions, according to a report issued Wednesday.
New York temperatures rose an average of 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit from 1900 to 1999, and two projection models indicate increases from 5 to 9.5 degrees over the next century, with implications for heat-related illnesses, coastal flooding, wildlife losses and insurance costs, said David Gahl, who wrote the report for Environmental Advocates of New York.
"We've gotten beyond questioning the science on this," said Gahl. Environmental Advocates, a group that presses for the protection of natural resources, used as its primary report sources the national academies of science of the United States, Britain, Canada and eight other industrialized nations, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Climatic Data Center.
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring," the academies said in a joint statement last year. They cited air and water temperatures, higher sea levels, retreating glaciers and higher greenhouse gas concentrations — including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone and methane — in the atmosphere well above pre-industrial levels.
About 90 percent of the greenhouse gases, so called because they trap heat in the atmosphere, are from fuel combustion, Gahl said.
"We have choices," Gahl said. "This is not inevitable."
Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer has already called global warming the most important environmental issue facing this generation, noting as attorney general he's party to the lawsuit now before the
U.S. Supreme Court' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> U.S. Supreme Court trying to require federal regulators to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
"I support state regulations that would regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant," he said in written comments Oct. 27 to the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks.
Climate change will be the subject of a conference in the Hudson Valley scheduled Dec. 4 by the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
Gahl, former senior policy analyst for the state Assembly Ways and Means Committee, said the challenge is finding politically palatable measures to further cut vehicle and power plant emissions. Among other things, his report recommends:
_Tighter statewide caps from each sector with an overall goal of up to 85 percent emission reduction by mid-century.
_Requiring utilities to achieve a certain levels of energy efficiency in their territories.
_Reducing vehicle travel through insurance and registration pay-as-you-drive pricing.
_Establishing a permanent climate change commission.
_Retooling New York's planned power plant emission allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Auto industry should speed fuel economy fixes-expert - Yahoo! News
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - While plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells are likely one day to help cut U.S. gasoline consumption, major fuel savings can be achieved now if automakers put existing technologies to work under one hood.
So says Jason Mark, clean vehicles director for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, who toured the Los Angeles Auto Show on Wednesday pointing to conventional gasoline-fueled cars and trucks that employ some of the fuel-savings ideas.
While automakers use some of the ideas on some of their models, they don't use all of the ideas on all of their models, which Mark said could be done without difficulty and at minimal cost.
"The technology is here. It's a matter of putting all the pieces of the puzzle together," Mark said.
Existing fuel-saving technologies used on many cars and trucks already include six-speed automatic transmissions, cylinder deactivation and simply better aerodynamic designing.
The cost, he said, would be $500 to $1,200 per vehicle, which Mark claims would be recouped over the life of a car's warranty in fuel savings.
And it would, within a decade, cut U.S. oil consumption by 2.3 million barrels per day, or about as much as is imported from Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, Mark said.
By 2016, the average fuel use by all new U.S. cars and trucks would rise to 35 miles per gallon from today's 25 mpg, Mark claims, by using existing gas-saving methods on conventional gasoline-driven vehicles.
"It's important for (automakers) to invest in technologies of the future," Mark said. "It would be a mistake for us to sit on our hands and wait for alternative fuels to save us from foreign oil dependence. We can use these technologies now."
Ford Motor Co. spokesman Nick Twork said automakers like Ford are already on their way to improving mileage for conventional gasoline vehicles.
But, the Ford spokesman said, "The idea that you can just overlay technology upon technology is probably not the right thing for the consumer. Definitely, consumers' taste is changing (toward fuel-saving vehicles). The real point is you have diminishing returns."
Mark said the fuel savings can be achieved on all vehicles, and he's not saying America needs to cut out heavy trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
"It's not about getting people out of their SUVs and into subcompacts. It's about building better SUVs and subcompacts," Mark said.
A 2007 Lincoln Navigator weighs almost three tons and is longer than 17 feet, but even it can save fuel by employing more of the technologies, Mark said. The Navigator already does use the six-speed automatic transmission that adds a mile per gallon to its fuel economy, he said.
Among the methods Mark wants to see more widely used are also are continuous variable transmissions which can provide a countless number of gears for better fuel efficiency, increasing the number of valves per cylinder to four from three, and variable valve timing.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - While plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells are likely one day to help cut U.S. gasoline consumption, major fuel savings can be achieved now if automakers put existing technologies to work under one hood.
So says Jason Mark, clean vehicles director for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, who toured the Los Angeles Auto Show on Wednesday pointing to conventional gasoline-fueled cars and trucks that employ some of the fuel-savings ideas.
While automakers use some of the ideas on some of their models, they don't use all of the ideas on all of their models, which Mark said could be done without difficulty and at minimal cost.
"The technology is here. It's a matter of putting all the pieces of the puzzle together," Mark said.
Existing fuel-saving technologies used on many cars and trucks already include six-speed automatic transmissions, cylinder deactivation and simply better aerodynamic designing.
The cost, he said, would be $500 to $1,200 per vehicle, which Mark claims would be recouped over the life of a car's warranty in fuel savings.
And it would, within a decade, cut U.S. oil consumption by 2.3 million barrels per day, or about as much as is imported from Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, Mark said.
By 2016, the average fuel use by all new U.S. cars and trucks would rise to 35 miles per gallon from today's 25 mpg, Mark claims, by using existing gas-saving methods on conventional gasoline-driven vehicles.
"It's important for (automakers) to invest in technologies of the future," Mark said. "It would be a mistake for us to sit on our hands and wait for alternative fuels to save us from foreign oil dependence. We can use these technologies now."
Ford Motor Co. spokesman Nick Twork said automakers like Ford are already on their way to improving mileage for conventional gasoline vehicles.
But, the Ford spokesman said, "The idea that you can just overlay technology upon technology is probably not the right thing for the consumer. Definitely, consumers' taste is changing (toward fuel-saving vehicles). The real point is you have diminishing returns."
Mark said the fuel savings can be achieved on all vehicles, and he's not saying America needs to cut out heavy trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
"It's not about getting people out of their SUVs and into subcompacts. It's about building better SUVs and subcompacts," Mark said.
A 2007 Lincoln Navigator weighs almost three tons and is longer than 17 feet, but even it can save fuel by employing more of the technologies, Mark said. The Navigator already does use the six-speed automatic transmission that adds a mile per gallon to its fuel economy, he said.
Among the methods Mark wants to see more widely used are also are continuous variable transmissions which can provide a countless number of gears for better fuel efficiency, increasing the number of valves per cylinder to four from three, and variable valve timing.
Climate change killed Australia pre-historic animals - Yahoo! News
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Giant kangaroos and wombats bigger than cars which once roamed Australia were killed by climate change and not human hunters, Australian scientists said on Thursday.
The report comes as the country struggles with what could be its worst drought in 1,000 years, affecting more than half its farmlands.
Known as megafauna, the huge animals were driven into extinction by a steady warming of Australia's climate, which in turn saw a once-lush outback region turn to red desert and grasslands.
"For about the last half-million years it's been consistently getting drier in Australia," Dr Gregory Webb told Reuters after studying fossil-rich areas of south-east Queensland state.
"The apparent progressive megafaunal extinction on the Darling Downs does not support the sudden blitzkrieg model resulting from human hunting," Webb's report said.
The megafauna -- kangaroos 2.5 meters (8 feet) tall, wombats as big as cars and cattle, giant Ostrich-like Emus and lizards -- were common in vast areas of Australia 40,000 years ago before gradually disappearing.
Most theories on their vanishing center on the arrival in Australia around the same time of Aboriginal people, who were believed to have hunted the animals out of existence.
But Webb, from Queensland University of Technology, said a study done with colleague Dr Gilbert Price had found many animals were probably drought-stressed when they died.
If humans had been responsible, he said, the fossil evidence would show the vulnerable and easily-hunted animals dying out around the same period rather than over thousands of years.
"Whole habitats changed, from forests which required a lot of rainfall to grasslands, and now it has become much more open and scrubbier," Webb said.
"Of course the organisms that required more enclosed lush, green habitat simply had nowhere to live."
Scientists have said that Australia must brace itself for long-term climate change and water shortages due to the accelerating pace of global warming.
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Giant kangaroos and wombats bigger than cars which once roamed Australia were killed by climate change and not human hunters, Australian scientists said on Thursday.
The report comes as the country struggles with what could be its worst drought in 1,000 years, affecting more than half its farmlands.
Known as megafauna, the huge animals were driven into extinction by a steady warming of Australia's climate, which in turn saw a once-lush outback region turn to red desert and grasslands.
"For about the last half-million years it's been consistently getting drier in Australia," Dr Gregory Webb told Reuters after studying fossil-rich areas of south-east Queensland state.
"The apparent progressive megafaunal extinction on the Darling Downs does not support the sudden blitzkrieg model resulting from human hunting," Webb's report said.
The megafauna -- kangaroos 2.5 meters (8 feet) tall, wombats as big as cars and cattle, giant Ostrich-like Emus and lizards -- were common in vast areas of Australia 40,000 years ago before gradually disappearing.
Most theories on their vanishing center on the arrival in Australia around the same time of Aboriginal people, who were believed to have hunted the animals out of existence.
But Webb, from Queensland University of Technology, said a study done with colleague Dr Gilbert Price had found many animals were probably drought-stressed when they died.
If humans had been responsible, he said, the fossil evidence would show the vulnerable and easily-hunted animals dying out around the same period rather than over thousands of years.
"Whole habitats changed, from forests which required a lot of rainfall to grasslands, and now it has become much more open and scrubbier," Webb said.
"Of course the organisms that required more enclosed lush, green habitat simply had nowhere to live."
Scientists have said that Australia must brace itself for long-term climate change and water shortages due to the accelerating pace of global warming.
GOVERNMENT VOTES DOWN PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Labor Ignores Most Important Public Policy Issue Facing Tasmania
The Tasmanian Greens today accused the Government of ignoring the biggest public policy challenge facing Tasmanians after Labor voted against the formation of a Select Parliamentary Committee examining the impacts of climate change in Tasmania.
Greens Climate Change Spokesperson Nick McKim MHA said that while he welcomed the support of the Liberal Party, he was disappointed by the Government’s head-in-the-sand approach.
“Climate change will impact on every aspect of Tasmanian life, and for Labor to vote down a Parliamentary Committee into the issue demonstrates their lack of credibility on the issue,” Mr McKim said.
“The government’s current Draft Climate Change Response Strategy will not see the light of day unless Cabinet signs off on it; when what is really needed.”
“Climate change is too important to leave to a Labor government which has been slow off the mark and minimalist in its approach to date.”
“Tasmanians deserve an open, transparent process so that the whole community can sign on to Tasmania’s Climate Change response, which is exactly what a Parliamentary Committee would deliver.”
Mr McKim said that a Parliamentary Committee is necessary to give Tasmanians confidence in the process because the government’s Draft Climate Change Response Strategy is deficient in a number of areas including a failure to commit to emissions reduction targets and a failure to propose specific actions to reduce emissions from the forest and land use change sector.
Labor Ignores Most Important Public Policy Issue Facing Tasmania
The Tasmanian Greens today accused the Government of ignoring the biggest public policy challenge facing Tasmanians after Labor voted against the formation of a Select Parliamentary Committee examining the impacts of climate change in Tasmania.
Greens Climate Change Spokesperson Nick McKim MHA said that while he welcomed the support of the Liberal Party, he was disappointed by the Government’s head-in-the-sand approach.
“Climate change will impact on every aspect of Tasmanian life, and for Labor to vote down a Parliamentary Committee into the issue demonstrates their lack of credibility on the issue,” Mr McKim said.
“The government’s current Draft Climate Change Response Strategy will not see the light of day unless Cabinet signs off on it; when what is really needed.”
“Climate change is too important to leave to a Labor government which has been slow off the mark and minimalist in its approach to date.”
“Tasmanians deserve an open, transparent process so that the whole community can sign on to Tasmania’s Climate Change response, which is exactly what a Parliamentary Committee would deliver.”
Mr McKim said that a Parliamentary Committee is necessary to give Tasmanians confidence in the process because the government’s Draft Climate Change Response Strategy is deficient in a number of areas including a failure to commit to emissions reduction targets and a failure to propose specific actions to reduce emissions from the forest and land use change sector.
Europe sets tough caps on carbon dioxide emissions -
The European Commission set tough new caps on carbon dioxide emissions for 10 nations on Wednesday. The move means Europe has taken a significant step towards meeting its Kyoto Protocol commitments.
The caps set the amount of carbon dioxide each of the 10 nations will be allowed to emit during the second phase of Europe's emission trading scheme, between 2008 to 2012,. Experts say the allowances are stricter than for the scheme's first phase, from 2005 to 2008 (see table, right).
Overall, the European Commission (EC) set the allowances almost 7% below the levels requested by the national governments. They are also 7% below the actual recorded emissions in 2005.
The trading scheme is seen to be a key component of the Kyoto Protocol's success. The second phase is crucial as 2008 to 2012 is the period over which countries that have ratified the Protocol must meet their emissions targets. However, the trading scheme covers only industrial emissions, while the Protocol covers all emissions, such those from transportation and households.
Each country's government will divide its allocation between the nation's industries. Any industrial plant that wants to emit more than it has been given can buy emissions rights from any other European plant in the scheme.
Plummeting prices
In May 2006, the price of such rights plummeted after it was revealed that most countries had emitted less than their allowances – meaning demand for the rights all but disappeared overnight (see Carbon trading: Keeping the green dream alive). The EC was criticised for accepting overgenerous emissions targets from national governments.
"Today's announcement constitutes a strong set of decisions," says Michael Grubb, at the UK's Carbon Trust, a government funded company tasked with helping businesses reduce their carbon emissions.
Green campaigners WWF also praised the EC for clamping down on the weak allocation plans submitted by individual countries. "Today, the EC has given a clear warning shot to member states that they will not get away with weak cuts in emissions from heavy industry," says Keith Allott, head of climate change.
Grubb says he was pleased the EC did not opt for the "soft option of trying to cut everyone back by similar amount", but rather cut back on emissions plans where they had firm grounds for doing so. In particular, the EC turned down Germany's request to allow new industrial installations to be free of allocation restrictions. "Our study published a couple weeks ago that this would give free [emissions] rights to new coal power stations," says Grubb.
The EC expects to rule by the end of 2006 on the emissions caps for the other 15 member states of the European Union. Six of the countries have not yet submitted their plans, which were due in July.
The European Commission set tough new caps on carbon dioxide emissions for 10 nations on Wednesday. The move means Europe has taken a significant step towards meeting its Kyoto Protocol commitments.
The caps set the amount of carbon dioxide each of the 10 nations will be allowed to emit during the second phase of Europe's emission trading scheme, between 2008 to 2012,. Experts say the allowances are stricter than for the scheme's first phase, from 2005 to 2008 (see table, right).
Overall, the European Commission (EC) set the allowances almost 7% below the levels requested by the national governments. They are also 7% below the actual recorded emissions in 2005.
The trading scheme is seen to be a key component of the Kyoto Protocol's success. The second phase is crucial as 2008 to 2012 is the period over which countries that have ratified the Protocol must meet their emissions targets. However, the trading scheme covers only industrial emissions, while the Protocol covers all emissions, such those from transportation and households.
Each country's government will divide its allocation between the nation's industries. Any industrial plant that wants to emit more than it has been given can buy emissions rights from any other European plant in the scheme.
Plummeting prices
In May 2006, the price of such rights plummeted after it was revealed that most countries had emitted less than their allowances – meaning demand for the rights all but disappeared overnight (see Carbon trading: Keeping the green dream alive). The EC was criticised for accepting overgenerous emissions targets from national governments.
"Today's announcement constitutes a strong set of decisions," says Michael Grubb, at the UK's Carbon Trust, a government funded company tasked with helping businesses reduce their carbon emissions.
Green campaigners WWF also praised the EC for clamping down on the weak allocation plans submitted by individual countries. "Today, the EC has given a clear warning shot to member states that they will not get away with weak cuts in emissions from heavy industry," says Keith Allott, head of climate change.
Grubb says he was pleased the EC did not opt for the "soft option of trying to cut everyone back by similar amount", but rather cut back on emissions plans where they had firm grounds for doing so. In particular, the EC turned down Germany's request to allow new industrial installations to be free of allocation restrictions. "Our study published a couple weeks ago that this would give free [emissions] rights to new coal power stations," says Grubb.
The EC expects to rule by the end of 2006 on the emissions caps for the other 15 member states of the European Union. Six of the countries have not yet submitted their plans, which were due in July.
Europeans face fuel 'price surge'
Electricity prices could double in Europe if power firms are to meet emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol, says a report.
Carbon prices are set to surge, and firms might pass this rise on to the wholesale market, says a report by consultancy Global Energy Decision.
The report said European nations, such as France and Germany, will find it ever harder to meet emissions targets.
The carbon market is deemed a key tool under Kyoto to reduce emissions.
The report, entitled Countdown to Kyoto 2008-2012: The Carbon Challenge for Europe's Electric Power Sector, examined Northwest Europe including France, Germany, Benelux, Austria and Switzerland.
The report argues that forward carbon prices will be between 40 and 80 euros per metric ton - more than double current levels.
However the report also says it is unlikely "that costs will be permitted to be passed on to electricity consumers for long durations".
Challenges
As the deadline looms to meet Kyoto's phase one targets, firms will be trying to buy additional carbon allowances.
But allowances expected to be provided on a national basis "will fall far short of meeting industry requirements alone", which will further push up carbon prices.
"Utilities will need to make substantial purchases from the Kyoto mechanisms," to meet its targets, says the report.
These mechanisms refer to carbon reduction schemes in developing countries, which allow firms to reduce their carbon emissions at the lowest possible price.
One obvious way for firms in the power sector to reduce their emissions is to switch the type of energy they use, for example from inefficient coal-fired power stations to efficient gas stations.
But some European nations lack the flexibility in their power sectors to change from high to low carbon fuels.
And it would be impossible to completely cease using coal-fired power stations - especially in Germany - because of a lack of alternative capacity.
Moreover, industry "does not have the power sector's flexibility to respond to changes in carbon price by reducing their emissions".
"The fundamentals of this new reality must be more carefully assessed and understood by government, industry and especially the electric power sector," said Ron Mahan, chairman of Global Energy.
Electricity prices could double in Europe if power firms are to meet emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol, says a report.
Carbon prices are set to surge, and firms might pass this rise on to the wholesale market, says a report by consultancy Global Energy Decision.
The report said European nations, such as France and Germany, will find it ever harder to meet emissions targets.
The carbon market is deemed a key tool under Kyoto to reduce emissions.
The report, entitled Countdown to Kyoto 2008-2012: The Carbon Challenge for Europe's Electric Power Sector, examined Northwest Europe including France, Germany, Benelux, Austria and Switzerland.
The report argues that forward carbon prices will be between 40 and 80 euros per metric ton - more than double current levels.
However the report also says it is unlikely "that costs will be permitted to be passed on to electricity consumers for long durations".
Challenges
As the deadline looms to meet Kyoto's phase one targets, firms will be trying to buy additional carbon allowances.
But allowances expected to be provided on a national basis "will fall far short of meeting industry requirements alone", which will further push up carbon prices.
"Utilities will need to make substantial purchases from the Kyoto mechanisms," to meet its targets, says the report.
These mechanisms refer to carbon reduction schemes in developing countries, which allow firms to reduce their carbon emissions at the lowest possible price.
One obvious way for firms in the power sector to reduce their emissions is to switch the type of energy they use, for example from inefficient coal-fired power stations to efficient gas stations.
But some European nations lack the flexibility in their power sectors to change from high to low carbon fuels.
And it would be impossible to completely cease using coal-fired power stations - especially in Germany - because of a lack of alternative capacity.
Moreover, industry "does not have the power sector's flexibility to respond to changes in carbon price by reducing their emissions".
"The fundamentals of this new reality must be more carefully assessed and understood by government, industry and especially the electric power sector," said Ron Mahan, chairman of Global Energy.
EU outlines new carbon permits
The European Union has established carbon limits for the second phase of the carbon trading scheme, a key step in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Trading Scheme (ETS) aims to cut emissions by 8% of 1990 levels.
Critics say that nations involved in the scheme had set their carbon allowance levels too high, and have not been aggressive enough in cuts.
The EU set allowances for the 2008-2012 period to an average of 7% below the levels proposed by member states.
"Today's decisions send a strong signal that Europe is fully committed to achieving the Kyoto target and making the ETS a success," said EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
By creating a market for carbon, firms are meant to have a financial motive to cut emissions.
Heavy polluters, notably power firms, are obliged to own the right for each metric ton of carbon dioxide they produce.
Depending on their needs, they can buy or sell permits. Trading carbon is meant to enable firms to cut emissions at the lowest price.
Helping hand
Even so, there are concerns that the plan will do little to ease problems.
Critics argue that the plans are unlikely to help improve pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases.
According to Tony Ward, Energy Director at Ernst & Young, the cuts imposed by the EU "will make little material difference to the reduction of Europe's carbon emissions against a backdrop of accelerating global emissions.
"The move is small and is unlikely to encourage the necessary substantive behavioural change," he said.
Günter Verheugen, the EU's Industry Commissioner, has warned that Europe's competitiveness could be affected if the targets are too strict.
The latest emissions plans concern the UK, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Sweden.
France has withdrawn its plan for carbon allowances and will submit a tougher outline in a number of weeks, a French environment ministry spokeswoman said.
Blueprint?
The ETS scheme is the largest of its kind and was developed by the EU as a way to meet targets under the Kyoto protocol.
The protocol was aimed at tackling global warming by setting limits on greenhouse emissions - but was never ratified by two major players, the US and Australia.
Other trading schemes have looked to Europe's carbon system, which is worth some 7.2bn euros ($9.4; £4.8bn), as a template.
Even though the US and Australia failed to ratify Kyoto, they have both developed voluntary trading initiatives.
While the ETS currently covers large polluters - such as power firms and oil refineries - in time it is set to include emissions from planes among others.
Allocations will be set on Wednesday and they cannot be changed.
E-mail this to a friend
The European Union has established carbon limits for the second phase of the carbon trading scheme, a key step in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Trading Scheme (ETS) aims to cut emissions by 8% of 1990 levels.
Critics say that nations involved in the scheme had set their carbon allowance levels too high, and have not been aggressive enough in cuts.
The EU set allowances for the 2008-2012 period to an average of 7% below the levels proposed by member states.
"Today's decisions send a strong signal that Europe is fully committed to achieving the Kyoto target and making the ETS a success," said EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
By creating a market for carbon, firms are meant to have a financial motive to cut emissions.
Heavy polluters, notably power firms, are obliged to own the right for each metric ton of carbon dioxide they produce.
Depending on their needs, they can buy or sell permits. Trading carbon is meant to enable firms to cut emissions at the lowest price.
Helping hand
Even so, there are concerns that the plan will do little to ease problems.
Critics argue that the plans are unlikely to help improve pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases.
According to Tony Ward, Energy Director at Ernst & Young, the cuts imposed by the EU "will make little material difference to the reduction of Europe's carbon emissions against a backdrop of accelerating global emissions.
"The move is small and is unlikely to encourage the necessary substantive behavioural change," he said.
Günter Verheugen, the EU's Industry Commissioner, has warned that Europe's competitiveness could be affected if the targets are too strict.
The latest emissions plans concern the UK, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Sweden.
France has withdrawn its plan for carbon allowances and will submit a tougher outline in a number of weeks, a French environment ministry spokeswoman said.
Blueprint?
The ETS scheme is the largest of its kind and was developed by the EU as a way to meet targets under the Kyoto protocol.
The protocol was aimed at tackling global warming by setting limits on greenhouse emissions - but was never ratified by two major players, the US and Australia.
Other trading schemes have looked to Europe's carbon system, which is worth some 7.2bn euros ($9.4; £4.8bn), as a template.
Even though the US and Australia failed to ratify Kyoto, they have both developed voluntary trading initiatives.
While the ETS currently covers large polluters - such as power firms and oil refineries - in time it is set to include emissions from planes among others.
Allocations will be set on Wednesday and they cannot be changed.
E-mail this to a friend
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Oil rises on cold U.S. weather forecasts
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil rose on Tuesday, adding to sharp gains made the previous session on expectations that a cold spell in the U.S. Northeast this weekend would boost demand in the world's biggest heating oil market.
U.S. crude settled 67 cents higher at $60.99 a barrel after hitting a two-week high of $61.20 in earlier activity, adding to gains of $1.08 on Monday. London Brent crude rose 77 cents to $61.21 a barrel.
Private forecaster AccuWeather said on Monday cold weather would sweep into the U.S. East Coast by the weekend, ending a stretch of above-normal temperatures that has curbed demand. NYMEX heating oil futures rose 1.4 percent on Tuesday.
Despite the rally, oil has been stuck in a two-month trading rut of $58-$62 a barrel, as bulging inventories in consumer nations knocked crude off a record high over $78 a barrel struck in mid-July.
The market is looking ahead to an
OPEC' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> OPEC meeting on December 14 that could result in a further output cut, after the cartel last month agreed to reduce production by 1.2 million barrels per day to help trim inventories.
Further direction is expected from the release of weekly U.S. government data on Wednesday. U.S. crude stocks fell 100,000 barrels last week, according to a Reuters poll of analysts ahead of the data, as refinery utilization rates were forecast to rise by 0.8 percentage points.
Distillate stocks were expected to increase by 400,000 barrels and gasoline stocks by 500,000 barrels, according to the poll.
"The price is really treading water ahead of the inventory data," said Jason Schenker, economist for Wachovia Bank. "The inventory expectations really seem split this week."
WEAKER DOLLAR
The market also found support from a weaker dollar, which traded near a 20-month low against the euro.
"Oil's short-term rise is mainly fueled by the weakness in the dollar, which has triggered speculative buying in the broader commodity sector," said Frederic Lassere of SG CIB Commodities.
U.S.
Federal Reserve' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday said the economy of the top energy consumer is poised to expand at a moderate rate and that "uncomfortably high" core inflation should slow.
Inflation risks are "primarily to the upside," he added. Some energy analysts have said concern a slowing of economic growth in consuming nations could damp oil demand.
China's top energy official said on Tuesday that his country aimed to fill its strategic reserves during price dips. Pent-up Chinese demand to build these reserves is helping to underpin prices.
"When international oil prices come down, we will store some (oil)," Chen Deming, vice chairman of the energy policy-setting National Development and Reform Commission, said.
(Additional reporting by Cho Mee-young in Singapore and Randy Fabi in London)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil rose on Tuesday, adding to sharp gains made the previous session on expectations that a cold spell in the U.S. Northeast this weekend would boost demand in the world's biggest heating oil market.
U.S. crude settled 67 cents higher at $60.99 a barrel after hitting a two-week high of $61.20 in earlier activity, adding to gains of $1.08 on Monday. London Brent crude rose 77 cents to $61.21 a barrel.
Private forecaster AccuWeather said on Monday cold weather would sweep into the U.S. East Coast by the weekend, ending a stretch of above-normal temperatures that has curbed demand. NYMEX heating oil futures rose 1.4 percent on Tuesday.
Despite the rally, oil has been stuck in a two-month trading rut of $58-$62 a barrel, as bulging inventories in consumer nations knocked crude off a record high over $78 a barrel struck in mid-July.
The market is looking ahead to an
OPEC' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> OPEC meeting on December 14 that could result in a further output cut, after the cartel last month agreed to reduce production by 1.2 million barrels per day to help trim inventories.
Further direction is expected from the release of weekly U.S. government data on Wednesday. U.S. crude stocks fell 100,000 barrels last week, according to a Reuters poll of analysts ahead of the data, as refinery utilization rates were forecast to rise by 0.8 percentage points.
Distillate stocks were expected to increase by 400,000 barrels and gasoline stocks by 500,000 barrels, according to the poll.
"The price is really treading water ahead of the inventory data," said Jason Schenker, economist for Wachovia Bank. "The inventory expectations really seem split this week."
WEAKER DOLLAR
The market also found support from a weaker dollar, which traded near a 20-month low against the euro.
"Oil's short-term rise is mainly fueled by the weakness in the dollar, which has triggered speculative buying in the broader commodity sector," said Frederic Lassere of SG CIB Commodities.
U.S.
Federal Reserve' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday said the economy of the top energy consumer is poised to expand at a moderate rate and that "uncomfortably high" core inflation should slow.
Inflation risks are "primarily to the upside," he added. Some energy analysts have said concern a slowing of economic growth in consuming nations could damp oil demand.
China's top energy official said on Tuesday that his country aimed to fill its strategic reserves during price dips. Pent-up Chinese demand to build these reserves is helping to underpin prices.
"When international oil prices come down, we will store some (oil)," Chen Deming, vice chairman of the energy policy-setting National Development and Reform Commission, said.
(Additional reporting by Cho Mee-young in Singapore and Randy Fabi in London)
Thinning thermosphere gives satellites a boost
Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth’s upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag (Science 314 1253).
Boosting the Space Station
Carbon dioxide warms the lower atmosphere by trapping heat in a well-known process called the greenhouse effect. However, scientists believe that carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere -- the region about 50-800 km above Earth’s surface. Here the density of carbon dioxide is too low to maintain greenhouse warming and instead the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth with a net cooling effect.
Most atmospheric physicists believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere will boost this radiative effect and cause the temperature and density of that region to decrease. However, obtaining global historical data on the temperature, density and size of the upper atmosphere can be a tricky business, which has made these effects difficult to confirm.
Now, Jan Laštovička of the Institute of Atmospheric Physicists in the Czech Republic and colleagues in the US, India and Germany believe that these effects have been observed in a sufficient number of independent studies to paint a consistent picture of the manmade changes occurring in the upper atmosphere.
According to the researchers, comprehensive studies of the mesosphere – the portion of the upper atmosphere at 50-90 km altitude – reveal that most of this region is cooling at a rate of about 3 Celsius degrees per decade. This cooling is in agreement with models based on increasing carbon dioxide levels. Further up in the thermosphere (90-800 km) there have been no direct measurements of temperature. However, a dramatic drop in the “ion temperature” of 17 degrees per decade has been observed at heights of about 350 km. The ion temperature is a measure of the thermal motion of ions and is related directly to temperature. This drop is also consistent with rising carbon dioxide levels.
Careful studies of the orbital trajectories of satellites in the thermosphere reveal that the satellites are experiencing less atmospheric drag than before. This implies that the density of this part of the upper atmosphere has been dropping at 2-3% per decade, which is also in line with theoretical predictions based on rising carbon dioxide levels. Laštovička and colleagues also point out that the contraction of the upper atmosphere has been indirectly observed in terms of the downward movement of the ionized layers of the upper atmosphere – referred to as the ionosphere.
Laštovička told Physics Web that the thinning of the thermosphere could be good news for operators of some low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites such as the International Space Station, which orbits about 350 km above Earth. LEO satellites are slowly falling back to Earth because of atmospheric drag, which is proportional to atmospheric density. The Space Station, for example, must fire a booster rocket every so often to maintain its orbit – something that it may have to do less often as the thermosphere continues to thin.
About the author
Hamish Johnston is editor of Physics Web
Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth’s upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag (Science 314 1253).
Boosting the Space Station
Carbon dioxide warms the lower atmosphere by trapping heat in a well-known process called the greenhouse effect. However, scientists believe that carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere -- the region about 50-800 km above Earth’s surface. Here the density of carbon dioxide is too low to maintain greenhouse warming and instead the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth with a net cooling effect.
Most atmospheric physicists believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere will boost this radiative effect and cause the temperature and density of that region to decrease. However, obtaining global historical data on the temperature, density and size of the upper atmosphere can be a tricky business, which has made these effects difficult to confirm.
Now, Jan Laštovička of the Institute of Atmospheric Physicists in the Czech Republic and colleagues in the US, India and Germany believe that these effects have been observed in a sufficient number of independent studies to paint a consistent picture of the manmade changes occurring in the upper atmosphere.
According to the researchers, comprehensive studies of the mesosphere – the portion of the upper atmosphere at 50-90 km altitude – reveal that most of this region is cooling at a rate of about 3 Celsius degrees per decade. This cooling is in agreement with models based on increasing carbon dioxide levels. Further up in the thermosphere (90-800 km) there have been no direct measurements of temperature. However, a dramatic drop in the “ion temperature” of 17 degrees per decade has been observed at heights of about 350 km. The ion temperature is a measure of the thermal motion of ions and is related directly to temperature. This drop is also consistent with rising carbon dioxide levels.
Careful studies of the orbital trajectories of satellites in the thermosphere reveal that the satellites are experiencing less atmospheric drag than before. This implies that the density of this part of the upper atmosphere has been dropping at 2-3% per decade, which is also in line with theoretical predictions based on rising carbon dioxide levels. Laštovička and colleagues also point out that the contraction of the upper atmosphere has been indirectly observed in terms of the downward movement of the ionized layers of the upper atmosphere – referred to as the ionosphere.
Laštovička told Physics Web that the thinning of the thermosphere could be good news for operators of some low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites such as the International Space Station, which orbits about 350 km above Earth. LEO satellites are slowly falling back to Earth because of atmospheric drag, which is proportional to atmospheric density. The Space Station, for example, must fire a booster rocket every so often to maintain its orbit – something that it may have to do less often as the thermosphere continues to thin.
About the author
Hamish Johnston is editor of Physics Web
It's getting cooler up there in the thermosphere - what's this doing to climate change if this effect is true?
"Here the density of carbon dioxide is too low to maintain greenhouse warming and instead the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth with a net cooling effect. "
Thinning thermosphere gives satellites a boost
Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth’s upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag (Science 314 1253).
Boosting the Space Station
Carbon dioxide warms the lower atmosphere by trapping heat in a well-known process called the greenhouse effect. However, scientists believe that carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere -- the region about 50-800 km above Earth’s surface. Here the density of carbon dioxide is too low to maintain greenhouse warming and instead the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth with a net cooling effect.
Most atmospheric physicists believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere will boost this radiative effect and cause the temperature and density of that region to decrease. However, obtaining global historical data on the temperature, density and size of the upper atmosphere can be a tricky business, which has made these effects difficult to confirm.
Now, Jan Laštovička of the Institute of Atmospheric Physicists in the Czech Republic and colleagues in the US, India and Germany believe that these effects have been observed in a sufficient number of independent studies to paint a consistent picture of the manmade changes occurring in the upper atmosphere.
According to the researchers, comprehensive studies of the mesosphere – the portion of the upper atmosphere at 50-90 km altitude – reveal that most of this region is cooling at a rate of about 3 Celsius degrees per decade. This cooling is in agreement with models based on increasing carbon dioxide levels. Further up in the thermosphere (90-800 km) there have been no direct measurements of temperature. However, a dramatic drop in the “ion temperature” of 17 degrees per decade has been observed at heights of about 350 km. The ion temperature is a measure of the thermal motion of ions and is related directly to temperature. This drop is also consistent with rising carbon dioxide levels.
Careful studies of the orbital trajectories of satellites in the thermosphere reveal that the satellites are experiencing less atmospheric drag than before. This implies that the density of this part of the upper atmosphere has been dropping at 2-3% per decade, which is also in line with theoretical predictions based on rising carbon dioxide levels. Laštovička and colleagues also point out that the contraction of the upper atmosphere has been indirectly observed in terms of the downward movement of the ionized layers of the upper atmosphere – referred to as the ionosphere.
Laštovička told Physics Web that the thinning of the thermosphere could be good news for operators of some low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites such as the International Space Station, which orbits about 350 km above Earth. LEO satellites are slowly falling back to Earth because of atmospheric drag, which is proportional to atmospheric density. The Space Station, for example, must fire a booster rocket every so often to maintain its orbit – something that it may have to do less often as the thermosphere continues to thin.
About the author
Hamish Johnston is editor of Physics Web
"Here the density of carbon dioxide is too low to maintain greenhouse warming and instead the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth with a net cooling effect. "
Thinning thermosphere gives satellites a boost
Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth’s upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag (Science 314 1253).
Boosting the Space Station
Carbon dioxide warms the lower atmosphere by trapping heat in a well-known process called the greenhouse effect. However, scientists believe that carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere -- the region about 50-800 km above Earth’s surface. Here the density of carbon dioxide is too low to maintain greenhouse warming and instead the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth with a net cooling effect.
Most atmospheric physicists believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere will boost this radiative effect and cause the temperature and density of that region to decrease. However, obtaining global historical data on the temperature, density and size of the upper atmosphere can be a tricky business, which has made these effects difficult to confirm.
Now, Jan Laštovička of the Institute of Atmospheric Physicists in the Czech Republic and colleagues in the US, India and Germany believe that these effects have been observed in a sufficient number of independent studies to paint a consistent picture of the manmade changes occurring in the upper atmosphere.
According to the researchers, comprehensive studies of the mesosphere – the portion of the upper atmosphere at 50-90 km altitude – reveal that most of this region is cooling at a rate of about 3 Celsius degrees per decade. This cooling is in agreement with models based on increasing carbon dioxide levels. Further up in the thermosphere (90-800 km) there have been no direct measurements of temperature. However, a dramatic drop in the “ion temperature” of 17 degrees per decade has been observed at heights of about 350 km. The ion temperature is a measure of the thermal motion of ions and is related directly to temperature. This drop is also consistent with rising carbon dioxide levels.
Careful studies of the orbital trajectories of satellites in the thermosphere reveal that the satellites are experiencing less atmospheric drag than before. This implies that the density of this part of the upper atmosphere has been dropping at 2-3% per decade, which is also in line with theoretical predictions based on rising carbon dioxide levels. Laštovička and colleagues also point out that the contraction of the upper atmosphere has been indirectly observed in terms of the downward movement of the ionized layers of the upper atmosphere – referred to as the ionosphere.
Laštovička told Physics Web that the thinning of the thermosphere could be good news for operators of some low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites such as the International Space Station, which orbits about 350 km above Earth. LEO satellites are slowly falling back to Earth because of atmospheric drag, which is proportional to atmospheric density. The Space Station, for example, must fire a booster rocket every so often to maintain its orbit – something that it may have to do less often as the thermosphere continues to thin.
About the author
Hamish Johnston is editor of Physics Web
Report says CO2 emissions have doubled
SYDNEY, Australia - The rate at which humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has more than doubled since the 1990s, according to Australian research, the latest report warning about the high rate of emissions accumulating in the atmosphere.
Findings published by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization also showed that 2005 marked the fourth-consecutive year of increased carbon dioxide emissions.
"To have four years in a row of above-average carbon dioxide growth is unprecedented," Paul Fraser, a scientist with the CSIRO's center for marine and atmospheric research, said in a statement.
The study analyzed a 30-year record of air samples collected at an Australian Bureau of Meteorology observation station on the southern island state of Tasmania.
Mike Raupach, a scientist with the organization, said from 2000 to 2005 the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 percent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than 1 percent per year.
Raupach, who is also co-chairman of the Global Carbon Project, said 7.85 billion tons of carbon passed into the atmosphere last year, compared to 6.67 billion tons in 2000.
About half of all carbon dioxide emissions remain trapped in the atmosphere, and the rest are absorbed by the land and oceans, Raupach said. As emissions rise, so does the amount of carbon in the air.
Earlier this month, the
World Meteorological Organization' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> World Meteorological Organization reported the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 379.1 parts per million in 2005, more than 35 percent higher than in the late 18th century.
Raupach and Fraser presented their findings last week at an annual science meeting at Tasmania's Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station.
SYDNEY, Australia - The rate at which humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has more than doubled since the 1990s, according to Australian research, the latest report warning about the high rate of emissions accumulating in the atmosphere.
Findings published by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization also showed that 2005 marked the fourth-consecutive year of increased carbon dioxide emissions.
"To have four years in a row of above-average carbon dioxide growth is unprecedented," Paul Fraser, a scientist with the CSIRO's center for marine and atmospheric research, said in a statement.
The study analyzed a 30-year record of air samples collected at an Australian Bureau of Meteorology observation station on the southern island state of Tasmania.
Mike Raupach, a scientist with the organization, said from 2000 to 2005 the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 percent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than 1 percent per year.
Raupach, who is also co-chairman of the Global Carbon Project, said 7.85 billion tons of carbon passed into the atmosphere last year, compared to 6.67 billion tons in 2000.
About half of all carbon dioxide emissions remain trapped in the atmosphere, and the rest are absorbed by the land and oceans, Raupach said. As emissions rise, so does the amount of carbon in the air.
Earlier this month, the
World Meteorological Organization' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> World Meteorological Organization reported the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 379.1 parts per million in 2005, more than 35 percent higher than in the late 18th century.
Raupach and Fraser presented their findings last week at an annual science meeting at Tasmania's Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station.
WA to allow heritage listing of rock art
Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says his Government will no longer oppose a Commonwealth move to have the Dampier Archipelago, including the Burrup rock art, heritage listed.
Woodside Petroleum today also withdrew its opposition to the listing, in return for a 6.8 square kilometre area being excised from heritage listing so the company can create a gas precinct.
Mr Carpenter says his Government will work with the Commonwealth to establish heritage boundaries.
"Clearly there needs to be some concession given to the industrial area that's already designated, or otherwise we face the very real prospect of things being shut down up there and I don't think anyone wants that," he said.
Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says his Government will no longer oppose a Commonwealth move to have the Dampier Archipelago, including the Burrup rock art, heritage listed.
Woodside Petroleum today also withdrew its opposition to the listing, in return for a 6.8 square kilometre area being excised from heritage listing so the company can create a gas precinct.
Mr Carpenter says his Government will work with the Commonwealth to establish heritage boundaries.
"Clearly there needs to be some concession given to the industrial area that's already designated, or otherwise we face the very real prospect of things being shut down up there and I don't think anyone wants that," he said.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Scottish Power backs Spanish bid
Scottish Power has backed a £11.6bn ($22.5bn; 17.1bn euro) takeover offer from Spain's second largest electricity company Iberdrola.
Earlier this month Iberdrola confirmed it was in talks with the utility group as it searched for investment targets.
The tie-up will create Europe's third largest utility. Scottish Power has more than 5.2 million UK customers.
The deal values each Scottish Power share at 777p. In 2005, it rejected a 570p a share bid from Germany's E.On.
Spanish companies have been snapping up UK firms over the past year, the most recent being Ferrovial's purchase of airports operator BAA in June.
Earlier in the year mobile phone firm O2 was taken over by Telefonica, while Abbey was snapped up by Santander.
The offer values each Scottish Power share at 777p. Under the deal investors will get 400p a share cash as well as 0.1646 of a new Iberdrola share.
Iberdrola said the tie-up was "strategically attractive, creating create a leading European integrated utilities group with a broad geographical presence and a strong platform for future growth".
The offer could trigger rival bids from French utility EDF and German rival RWE, who have been watching the situation.
Scottish Power has backed a £11.6bn ($22.5bn; 17.1bn euro) takeover offer from Spain's second largest electricity company Iberdrola.
Earlier this month Iberdrola confirmed it was in talks with the utility group as it searched for investment targets.
The tie-up will create Europe's third largest utility. Scottish Power has more than 5.2 million UK customers.
The deal values each Scottish Power share at 777p. In 2005, it rejected a 570p a share bid from Germany's E.On.
Spanish companies have been snapping up UK firms over the past year, the most recent being Ferrovial's purchase of airports operator BAA in June.
Earlier in the year mobile phone firm O2 was taken over by Telefonica, while Abbey was snapped up by Santander.
The offer values each Scottish Power share at 777p. Under the deal investors will get 400p a share cash as well as 0.1646 of a new Iberdrola share.
Iberdrola said the tie-up was "strategically attractive, creating create a leading European integrated utilities group with a broad geographical presence and a strong platform for future growth".
The offer could trigger rival bids from French utility EDF and German rival RWE, who have been watching the situation.
Venezuela Enjoys, and Suffers from, Cheap Gas
Morning Edition, November 27, 2006 · At about a dime a gallon, Venezuela has the world's cheapest gas. The low prices are the result of a big government subsidy. Motorists love it. They're buying cars at a record clip. But the nation's capital, Caracas, is plagued with clogged streets and air pollution.
Morning Edition, November 27, 2006 · At about a dime a gallon, Venezuela has the world's cheapest gas. The low prices are the result of a big government subsidy. Motorists love it. They're buying cars at a record clip. But the nation's capital, Caracas, is plagued with clogged streets and air pollution.
East Asian countries to cut dependence on conventional fuels
MANILA (AFP) - Southeast Asian nations are to reduce their dependence on conventional fuels and explore stockpiling oil as part of a sweeping energy program, according to details of a draft pact obtained by AFP.
The draft is to be signed by the 10 leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) when they meet with their counterparts from Australia, China, India, Japan,
South Korea' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> South Korea and New Zealand in the second East Asian summit next month in the central Philippine province of Cebu.
The leaders will pledge to work closely to limit dependence on "conventional fuels through intensified energy efficiency programs, expansion of renewable energy systems and bio-fuel production and utilization."
ASEAN energy ministers earlier this year called for greater cooperation to boost renewable energy so as to minimise the impact of soaring oil prices which cast a shadow over one of the world's most dynamic regions.
The pact will also call for a greater effort to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and to "harmonize standards for bio-buels", the draft said.
The summit will also call on oil-rich countries to use the dollars they earn from rising world oil prices for "equity investment and long-term, low interest loan facilities" for developing countries that import energy.
The inaugural East Asian summit held in Kuala Lumpur last year expressed "grave concern" over the negative impact of a prolonged increase in oil prices on the region's growth prospects.
This could be addressed, the countries said, through promoting energy efficiency and developing alternative fuel sources.
The agreement in Cebu is seen as a significant step towards enhancing "international cooperation" to reduce energy consumption, the draft said.
ASEAN groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
MANILA (AFP) - Southeast Asian nations are to reduce their dependence on conventional fuels and explore stockpiling oil as part of a sweeping energy program, according to details of a draft pact obtained by AFP.
The draft is to be signed by the 10 leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) when they meet with their counterparts from Australia, China, India, Japan,
South Korea' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> South Korea and New Zealand in the second East Asian summit next month in the central Philippine province of Cebu.
The leaders will pledge to work closely to limit dependence on "conventional fuels through intensified energy efficiency programs, expansion of renewable energy systems and bio-fuel production and utilization."
ASEAN energy ministers earlier this year called for greater cooperation to boost renewable energy so as to minimise the impact of soaring oil prices which cast a shadow over one of the world's most dynamic regions.
The pact will also call for a greater effort to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and to "harmonize standards for bio-buels", the draft said.
The summit will also call on oil-rich countries to use the dollars they earn from rising world oil prices for "equity investment and long-term, low interest loan facilities" for developing countries that import energy.
The inaugural East Asian summit held in Kuala Lumpur last year expressed "grave concern" over the negative impact of a prolonged increase in oil prices on the region's growth prospects.
This could be addressed, the countries said, through promoting energy efficiency and developing alternative fuel sources.
The agreement in Cebu is seen as a significant step towards enhancing "international cooperation" to reduce energy consumption, the draft said.
ASEAN groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Groups fight plan to build power plant
FARMINGTON, N.M. - Environmentalists are fighting a proposal to build another coal-fired power plant in the Four Corners area, saying the region cannot handle more pollution.
Environmental groups have detailed 27 problems with the draft air permit for the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant that would be built south of here.
The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Environmental Protection Agency released the air permit in July. It sets limits for six pollutants.
The 10 environmental groups argue the permit should limit mercury and carbon dioxide, which the EPA said will be addressed in an environmental impact statement expected to be released in December.
Mike Eisenfeld, a member of the San Juan Citizen's Alliance, said if separate documents address the pollutants, those should have been given to the public.
Houston-based Sithe Global Power and the Navajo Nation's Dine Power Authority plan to build the $2.5 million, 1,500-megawatt power plant that would produce enough electricity for up to 1.5 million homes in the Southwest.
The project would bring in about $50 million a year in taxes and royalty payments for the tribe, making it the largest economic development project to be undertaken by the Navajos.
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Sithe, said his company has put more than two years of work into developing the air permit, and it should not be scrapped.
"Just picking up the ball and leaving doesn't accomplish the goals of meeting the reliability needs of the region," he said. "It doesn't meet the economic needs of the Navajo Nation and the Four Corners and, frankly, it would have a negative impact on the environment and the region."
Eisenfeld said Sithe portrays itself as a victim of the area's two existing coal-fired power plants.
___
Information from: The Daily Times, http://www.daily-times.com
Email Story
IM Story
Discuss
Printable View
FARMINGTON, N.M. - Environmentalists are fighting a proposal to build another coal-fired power plant in the Four Corners area, saying the region cannot handle more pollution.
Environmental groups have detailed 27 problems with the draft air permit for the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant that would be built south of here.
The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Environmental Protection Agency released the air permit in July. It sets limits for six pollutants.
The 10 environmental groups argue the permit should limit mercury and carbon dioxide, which the EPA said will be addressed in an environmental impact statement expected to be released in December.
Mike Eisenfeld, a member of the San Juan Citizen's Alliance, said if separate documents address the pollutants, those should have been given to the public.
Houston-based Sithe Global Power and the Navajo Nation's Dine Power Authority plan to build the $2.5 million, 1,500-megawatt power plant that would produce enough electricity for up to 1.5 million homes in the Southwest.
The project would bring in about $50 million a year in taxes and royalty payments for the tribe, making it the largest economic development project to be undertaken by the Navajos.
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Sithe, said his company has put more than two years of work into developing the air permit, and it should not be scrapped.
"Just picking up the ball and leaving doesn't accomplish the goals of meeting the reliability needs of the region," he said. "It doesn't meet the economic needs of the Navajo Nation and the Four Corners and, frankly, it would have a negative impact on the environment and the region."
Eisenfeld said Sithe portrays itself as a victim of the area's two existing coal-fired power plants.
___
Information from: The Daily Times, http://www.daily-times.com
Email Story
IM Story
Discuss
Printable View
Did snowball Earth's melting let oxygen fuel life?
We may owe our green Earth to a big freeze that covered the entire planet in thick sheets of ice 2.3 billion years ago, researchers say.
As this “snowball” Earth thawed, the new theory goes, it released strong oxidants into the oceans and atmosphere for the first time, setting off the chain of events that led to oxygen-tolerant marine organisms and photosynthesis as we know it today.
The evolution of efficient, oxygen-based photosynthesis has been hard to explain. Primitive life forms garnered energy from sunlight, using it to free electrons from sulphur and iron in an oxygen-free environment.
Oxygenic photosynthesis, which involves freeing electrons from water to produce oxygen, requires more energy. But oxygen was deadly to most primitive life on Earth. “The first organisms to do this would die,” says Hyman Hartman at MIT in Boston, US.
Glacial surfaces
So how did organisms evolve oxygen tolerance? Hartman and colleagues decided to focus on the role of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Ultraviolet light from the Sun produces H2O2 when it hits water molecules.
Today, sunlight destroys the peroxide as it forms. However, if UV light penetrated the surface of a glacier, small amounts of peroxide would have been trapped in the glacial ice for long periods, they say.
Indeed, H2O2 has been spotted on Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. The surface of a terrestrial ice sheet would have been very similar on a primitive Earth that lacked an oxygen-rich atmosphere and a protective ozone layer.
Primitive organisms
A thaw would have dissolved the peroxide into the oceans and atmosphere, releasing oxygen gradually, the researchers calculate. The water would have diluted the harmful oxidants enough for primitive organisms to survive. These organisms would have then gone on to evolve the enzymes that could protect them from oxidants, the team says.
Once they had those enzymes, cells could evolve oxygen-based photosynthesis, which is more efficient than its anaerobic form. Such organisms would then have generated more oxygen for the atmosphere.
But Jim Kasting of Penn State University at University Park, US, a specialist in the origin and evolution of Earth’s atmosphere, is not convinced by this scenario. One key sticking point for him is the presence of sterols in 2.7 billion year old rocks – these compounds are only made by living cells in the presence of oxygen.
If the sterol results are right, and that is by no means certain, then these rocks pre-date the snowball Earth by 400 million years, and Hartman’s theory is wrong.
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0608839103)
We may owe our green Earth to a big freeze that covered the entire planet in thick sheets of ice 2.3 billion years ago, researchers say.
As this “snowball” Earth thawed, the new theory goes, it released strong oxidants into the oceans and atmosphere for the first time, setting off the chain of events that led to oxygen-tolerant marine organisms and photosynthesis as we know it today.
The evolution of efficient, oxygen-based photosynthesis has been hard to explain. Primitive life forms garnered energy from sunlight, using it to free electrons from sulphur and iron in an oxygen-free environment.
Oxygenic photosynthesis, which involves freeing electrons from water to produce oxygen, requires more energy. But oxygen was deadly to most primitive life on Earth. “The first organisms to do this would die,” says Hyman Hartman at MIT in Boston, US.
Glacial surfaces
So how did organisms evolve oxygen tolerance? Hartman and colleagues decided to focus on the role of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Ultraviolet light from the Sun produces H2O2 when it hits water molecules.
Today, sunlight destroys the peroxide as it forms. However, if UV light penetrated the surface of a glacier, small amounts of peroxide would have been trapped in the glacial ice for long periods, they say.
Indeed, H2O2 has been spotted on Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. The surface of a terrestrial ice sheet would have been very similar on a primitive Earth that lacked an oxygen-rich atmosphere and a protective ozone layer.
Primitive organisms
A thaw would have dissolved the peroxide into the oceans and atmosphere, releasing oxygen gradually, the researchers calculate. The water would have diluted the harmful oxidants enough for primitive organisms to survive. These organisms would have then gone on to evolve the enzymes that could protect them from oxidants, the team says.
Once they had those enzymes, cells could evolve oxygen-based photosynthesis, which is more efficient than its anaerobic form. Such organisms would then have generated more oxygen for the atmosphere.
But Jim Kasting of Penn State University at University Park, US, a specialist in the origin and evolution of Earth’s atmosphere, is not convinced by this scenario. One key sticking point for him is the presence of sterols in 2.7 billion year old rocks – these compounds are only made by living cells in the presence of oxygen.
If the sterol results are right, and that is by no means certain, then these rocks pre-date the snowball Earth by 400 million years, and Hartman’s theory is wrong.
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0608839103)
CO2 emissions accelerating, scientists warn
Atmospheric scientists have warned that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing more rapidly, despite international efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels.
They have found the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has doubled in the past 20 years.
CSIRO scientists have found global carbon dioxide emissions reached almost eight billion tonnes last year.
New data from the Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in north-west Tasmania shows carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 2.5 per cent each year for the past five years.
Atmospheric scientist Paul Fraser says the increase in carbon dioxide comes mostly from developing countries and temperatures will continue to rise.
"Over the last 20 or so years the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has almost doubled," he said.
"It started off 20 odd years ago at one part per million per year and it's now up to two.
"Once we start reducing emissions, just what level of greenhouse gases the atmosphere will stabilise at is difficult to say.
"But I'm afraid it will be relatively high, which means something like a two degree warming over the next 100 years."
In other developments:
Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell says a proposed amendment to federal environment laws to reflect a New South Wales Environment Court ruling is not a solution to climate change. (Full Story)
Atmospheric scientists have warned that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing more rapidly, despite international efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels.
They have found the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has doubled in the past 20 years.
CSIRO scientists have found global carbon dioxide emissions reached almost eight billion tonnes last year.
New data from the Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in north-west Tasmania shows carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 2.5 per cent each year for the past five years.
Atmospheric scientist Paul Fraser says the increase in carbon dioxide comes mostly from developing countries and temperatures will continue to rise.
"Over the last 20 or so years the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has almost doubled," he said.
"It started off 20 odd years ago at one part per million per year and it's now up to two.
"Once we start reducing emissions, just what level of greenhouse gases the atmosphere will stabilise at is difficult to say.
"But I'm afraid it will be relatively high, which means something like a two degree warming over the next 100 years."
In other developments:
Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell says a proposed amendment to federal environment laws to reflect a New South Wales Environment Court ruling is not a solution to climate change. (Full Story)
Monday, November 27, 2006
Climate change requires 'global solution'.
The head of one of the world's biggest coal exporters says Australia can have no impact on climate change, no matter what it does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally.
The chief executive of Xstrata Coal, Peter Coates, addressed a climate forum hosted by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Sydney this morning.
Mr Coates says coal is the only long-term viable solution to the world's energy needs and any attempt to tackle climate change must include large developing nations.
"Renewables are important," he said.
"But they will always operate around the fringes or with the current technology they'll operate around the fringes of baseload power, whether that be coal or nuclear, and climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution.
"I stress whatever we do just in Australia will have absolutely no impact on world climate."
The head of one of the world's biggest coal exporters says Australia can have no impact on climate change, no matter what it does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally.
The chief executive of Xstrata Coal, Peter Coates, addressed a climate forum hosted by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Sydney this morning.
Mr Coates says coal is the only long-term viable solution to the world's energy needs and any attempt to tackle climate change must include large developing nations.
"Renewables are important," he said.
"But they will always operate around the fringes or with the current technology they'll operate around the fringes of baseload power, whether that be coal or nuclear, and climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution.
"I stress whatever we do just in Australia will have absolutely no impact on world climate."
Methane levels 'can be controlled', say researchers -
Methane's impact on the climate may be less than previously thought, say researchers who observed that its atmospheric levels have remained constant for the past seven years.
The findings are significant because they suggest that human activity can help cut down methane emissions, says Isobel Simpson, of the US-based University of California, Irvine, who led the study.
The research, published tomorrow (23 November) in Geophysical Research Letters, analysed global levels of methane since 1978.
Large-scale fires in Indonesia and Russia in the past decade produced observable peaks in atmospheric levels of the gas, confirming that biomass burning can significantly increase levels of this gas in the atmosphere.
"Two-thirds of methane sources are [caused by people]. These include energy use, landfills, ruminants [cattle], rice agriculture, and biomass burning," Simpson told SciDev.Net.
Given that atmospheric methane levels are currently stable, reducing emissions from any of these sources would reduce methane concentration.
Also, because methane has a much shorter lifespan as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide — eight years compared to 100 — any reductions take effect quickly. This means that even small emission reductions would help bring methane concentrations down, says Simpson.
"The fact that methane has not increased [means that] climate impact may be less than previously indicated," says Donald Blake, an atmospheric scientist at the Univerisity of California, Irvine and one of the study's authors.
Blake suggests that methane emissions could be cut by pumping it out of landfills and re-using it as a fuel. Also, improved technologies could prevent leaks from oil and gas lines and storage facilities, which the researchers believe partly explain why methane emissions have stopped rising. Methane is produced mainly by landfills, rice paddies, swamps, natural gas fields and cattle. Although significantly less methane is emitted than carbon dioxide, the gas traps more than 21 times more heat per molecule.
Methane's impact on the climate may be less than previously thought, say researchers who observed that its atmospheric levels have remained constant for the past seven years.
The findings are significant because they suggest that human activity can help cut down methane emissions, says Isobel Simpson, of the US-based University of California, Irvine, who led the study.
The research, published tomorrow (23 November) in Geophysical Research Letters, analysed global levels of methane since 1978.
Large-scale fires in Indonesia and Russia in the past decade produced observable peaks in atmospheric levels of the gas, confirming that biomass burning can significantly increase levels of this gas in the atmosphere.
"Two-thirds of methane sources are [caused by people]. These include energy use, landfills, ruminants [cattle], rice agriculture, and biomass burning," Simpson told SciDev.Net.
Given that atmospheric methane levels are currently stable, reducing emissions from any of these sources would reduce methane concentration.
Also, because methane has a much shorter lifespan as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide — eight years compared to 100 — any reductions take effect quickly. This means that even small emission reductions would help bring methane concentrations down, says Simpson.
"The fact that methane has not increased [means that] climate impact may be less than previously indicated," says Donald Blake, an atmospheric scientist at the Univerisity of California, Irvine and one of the study's authors.
Blake suggests that methane emissions could be cut by pumping it out of landfills and re-using it as a fuel. Also, improved technologies could prevent leaks from oil and gas lines and storage facilities, which the researchers believe partly explain why methane emissions have stopped rising. Methane is produced mainly by landfills, rice paddies, swamps, natural gas fields and cattle. Although significantly less methane is emitted than carbon dioxide, the gas traps more than 21 times more heat per molecule.
Conservation groups criticise carbon storage system.
Conservation groups have criticised the Federal Government for helping to fund the world's largest carbon capture and storage project off the Western Australian coast.
The proponents of the $15 billion Gorgon gas project on Barrow Island, off the Pilbara coast, plan to inject 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide underground each year.
The Federal Government has contributed $60 million towards the carbon capture program, which is expected to cost $850 million in total.
Environment Minister Ian Campbell says the technology will play a significant role in fighting global warming.
"About 25 per cent of all of the carbon dioxide emissions in Australia could be stored this way," he said.
But WA Conservation Council spokesman Chris Tallentire says he is concerned about the potential environmental impact.
"It's an unproven technology at this scale and it could see massive leakages," he said.
Government funding is conditional on environmental approvals.
In other developments:
The Federal Government is to contribute $60 million towards a carbon capture and storage system at the multi-billion dollar Gorgon Gas project in Western Australia. (Full Story)
Conservation groups have criticised the Federal Government for helping to fund the world's largest carbon capture and storage project off the Western Australian coast.
The proponents of the $15 billion Gorgon gas project on Barrow Island, off the Pilbara coast, plan to inject 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide underground each year.
The Federal Government has contributed $60 million towards the carbon capture program, which is expected to cost $850 million in total.
Environment Minister Ian Campbell says the technology will play a significant role in fighting global warming.
"About 25 per cent of all of the carbon dioxide emissions in Australia could be stored this way," he said.
But WA Conservation Council spokesman Chris Tallentire says he is concerned about the potential environmental impact.
"It's an unproven technology at this scale and it could see massive leakages," he said.
Government funding is conditional on environmental approvals.
In other developments:
The Federal Government is to contribute $60 million towards a carbon capture and storage system at the multi-billion dollar Gorgon Gas project in Western Australia. (Full Story)
Will Global Warming Unleash More Seismic Activity?
At first glance, there doesn’t seem like there could be any connection between global warming and seismic activity. After all, why would the earth become less stable just because it’s a little warmer?
Well, connected they are. The earth’s crust is a lot more sensitive than you might think. There are well documented cases of even the load of water in a new dam triggering earthquakes in the local area.
A number of geologists say glacial melting, in particular, will unleash pent-up pressures in the Earth's crust, causing extreme geological events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.
Consider this: a cubic meter of ice weighs nearly a ton and some glaciers are kilometers thick. This prodigious weight acts to suppress tectonic movements in the underlying crust, and plug cracks where volcanic magma might otherwise escape to the surface. When the weight is removed through melting, the suppressed strains and stresses of the underlying rock are free to come to life.
As reported only this year, Harvard seismologist Göran Ekström has found a striking increase in the frequency of glacial quakes, particularly in Greenland, but also in Alaska and Antarctica.
Greenland quakes have risen from 6 to 15 a year between 1993 and 2002, to 30 in 2003, 23 in 2004 and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005, closely matching the rise in Greenland's temperatures over the same period. Their source was traced to surges and slips within ice sheets, where rapid melting is causing water to collect under glaciers, making them glide faster into the sea, triggering quakes.
Similarly, retreating glaciers in southern Alaska are likely to open the way for future earthquake activity.
Already, as the ice melts, we are seeing evidence of new volcanic activity in Antarctica. A new, previously unknown volcano has appeared on the sea bottom in waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, in an area with no previous record of volcanic activity. Investigations into a large area of surface slumping on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet revealed a huge accumulation of water underneath that has now been shown to be due to an active volcano erupting under the sheet.
Glacial melting has a less direct but just as unsettling additional impact on global seismic activity. The reliquified water released raises sea levels and increases the weight on the ocean floor, unbalancing tectonic forces deep below the surface. Underwater quakes and therefore tsunamis could thus become more frequent. Though they get little attention, glacial melting of the Antarctic ice is already causing earthquakes and underwater landslides.
Other hotspots at high risk of submarine earthslides – similar to the one that set off the disastrous Asian tsunami in 2004 – include seaward of the mouths of the Ganges, Nile and Amazon rivers, as well as much of the Atlantic and US coast.
Even the shape of the Earth appears to have been significantly influenced by climate events due to changes in the mass of water stored in oceans, continents and atmosphere. Satellite data indicate the bulge in Earth's gravity field at the equator is growing, counteracting the long-term shrinking up to 1998 due to post-glacial rebound. Current estimates of polar ice melting are too small to explain the recent changes in the gravity field. Scientists postulate that global warming-induced redistribution of existing water mass is possibly behind the phenomenon. However, the specific cause still remains a mystery. This is yet another stress on the Earth’s crust.
Dramatic climate shifts of the past have also been associated with spectacular seismic activity. During the late glacial and early Holocene periods when climate was see-sawing from one extreme to another in the interval known as the Younger Dryas, submarine landslips were widespread. For example, 8,200 years ago an enormous slip in the Norwegian Sea involving over 3000 cubic kilometers of material set off a massive tsunami more than 20 meters high. At about the same time mega-earthquakes ruptured the crust and lifted Scandinavia’s mountain backbone by 5 to 15 meters.
In accord with scientific predictions it is entirely possible that, as redistribution of the Earth’s mass - induced by global warming - disturbs the relative equilibrium of its crust, monumental forces in the form of increasing earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity will be unleashed. And the forecasts from some quarters are dramatic - – not only will the earth shake, it will spit fire.
At first glance, there doesn’t seem like there could be any connection between global warming and seismic activity. After all, why would the earth become less stable just because it’s a little warmer?
Well, connected they are. The earth’s crust is a lot more sensitive than you might think. There are well documented cases of even the load of water in a new dam triggering earthquakes in the local area.
A number of geologists say glacial melting, in particular, will unleash pent-up pressures in the Earth's crust, causing extreme geological events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.
Consider this: a cubic meter of ice weighs nearly a ton and some glaciers are kilometers thick. This prodigious weight acts to suppress tectonic movements in the underlying crust, and plug cracks where volcanic magma might otherwise escape to the surface. When the weight is removed through melting, the suppressed strains and stresses of the underlying rock are free to come to life.
As reported only this year, Harvard seismologist Göran Ekström has found a striking increase in the frequency of glacial quakes, particularly in Greenland, but also in Alaska and Antarctica.
Greenland quakes have risen from 6 to 15 a year between 1993 and 2002, to 30 in 2003, 23 in 2004 and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005, closely matching the rise in Greenland's temperatures over the same period. Their source was traced to surges and slips within ice sheets, where rapid melting is causing water to collect under glaciers, making them glide faster into the sea, triggering quakes.
Similarly, retreating glaciers in southern Alaska are likely to open the way for future earthquake activity.
Already, as the ice melts, we are seeing evidence of new volcanic activity in Antarctica. A new, previously unknown volcano has appeared on the sea bottom in waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, in an area with no previous record of volcanic activity. Investigations into a large area of surface slumping on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet revealed a huge accumulation of water underneath that has now been shown to be due to an active volcano erupting under the sheet.
Glacial melting has a less direct but just as unsettling additional impact on global seismic activity. The reliquified water released raises sea levels and increases the weight on the ocean floor, unbalancing tectonic forces deep below the surface. Underwater quakes and therefore tsunamis could thus become more frequent. Though they get little attention, glacial melting of the Antarctic ice is already causing earthquakes and underwater landslides.
Other hotspots at high risk of submarine earthslides – similar to the one that set off the disastrous Asian tsunami in 2004 – include seaward of the mouths of the Ganges, Nile and Amazon rivers, as well as much of the Atlantic and US coast.
Even the shape of the Earth appears to have been significantly influenced by climate events due to changes in the mass of water stored in oceans, continents and atmosphere. Satellite data indicate the bulge in Earth's gravity field at the equator is growing, counteracting the long-term shrinking up to 1998 due to post-glacial rebound. Current estimates of polar ice melting are too small to explain the recent changes in the gravity field. Scientists postulate that global warming-induced redistribution of existing water mass is possibly behind the phenomenon. However, the specific cause still remains a mystery. This is yet another stress on the Earth’s crust.
Dramatic climate shifts of the past have also been associated with spectacular seismic activity. During the late glacial and early Holocene periods when climate was see-sawing from one extreme to another in the interval known as the Younger Dryas, submarine landslips were widespread. For example, 8,200 years ago an enormous slip in the Norwegian Sea involving over 3000 cubic kilometers of material set off a massive tsunami more than 20 meters high. At about the same time mega-earthquakes ruptured the crust and lifted Scandinavia’s mountain backbone by 5 to 15 meters.
In accord with scientific predictions it is entirely possible that, as redistribution of the Earth’s mass - induced by global warming - disturbs the relative equilibrium of its crust, monumental forces in the form of increasing earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity will be unleashed. And the forecasts from some quarters are dramatic - – not only will the earth shake, it will spit fire.
Global Warming Consensus: Folks Who Believe There is One Can't Tell you What It Is
From page one of today's (Nov. 25) Washington Post, an article by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin that begins with a reference to "the scientific consensus about climate change" as if the "consensus" were an established fact:
While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable. Question: If "the consensus" truly is an established fact, why is it referred to as "a consensus"? Why not just state the facts about which there is a "consensus"? (After all, no one refers to the "consensus" that gravity is the reason an apple falls down after separation from a tree. Folks just call it "gravity.")Answer: Because even among those who believe there is a consensus on global warming, there is no agreement about the consensus itself. To some believers it is a consensus that the planet has been warming (but with internal disagreement on since when and how much); to others it is a consensus that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing measurable warming (but how much it may cause and how quickly is disputed); to others it is a consensus that the expected warming will be catastrophic for the entire planet (while others believe it will benefit some areas while harming others, or believe warming would be negative but not necessarily catastrophic); to some it is a consensus that hurricanes, droughts, snowstorms, etc. have been altered by human behavior (while others say the jury is still out); to some it is a consensus in favor of one or more of the scientific theories combined with the advocacy of some specified political action, such as ratifying the Kyoto treaty (while others see the consensus as wholly scientific, with no political components). Etc.Bottom line: The supposed consensus itself is a mass of contradictory opinions, a fact which says clearly to anyone with open ears that the science isn't settled on global warming.So, even though the Washington Post apparently has decided to deny the existence of doubters to the global warming theory "consensus" (making Post reporters and editors "deniers" in the truest sense), the Post still can't do what it ought to have done in the lede: Define the consensus.Cross-posted at Newsbusters.Addendum: The Washington Post certainly has interesting ledes. From a November 26 global warming article by Blaine Harden and Juliet Eilperin:
SEATTLE -- As the Bush administration debates much of the world about what to do about global warming, butterflies and ski-lift operators, polar bears and hydroelectric planners are on the move. There is a world-wide debate "about global warming, butterflies and ski-lift operators"?
In their separate ways, wild creatures, business executives and regional planners are responding to climate changes that are rapidly recalibrating their chances for survival, for profit and for effective delivery of public services... As surprised as I am that climate changes have the ability to recalibrate their changes for survival, I'm even more surprised that, with their survival in doubt, the climate changes are still concerned about profit and the effective delivery of public services. (Shows what I know about climate changes.)Subject-verb agreement problems aside, I don't think the Post meant to say "recalibrate." I think it meant "recalculate."Oh, well, I shouldn't quibble about a few words. It is not as if we are trusting the Post to teach us about atmospheric physics or something.
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:23 PM
Copyright 2003-2006 National Center for Public Policy Research
From page one of today's (Nov. 25) Washington Post, an article by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin that begins with a reference to "the scientific consensus about climate change" as if the "consensus" were an established fact:
While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable. Question: If "the consensus" truly is an established fact, why is it referred to as "a consensus"? Why not just state the facts about which there is a "consensus"? (After all, no one refers to the "consensus" that gravity is the reason an apple falls down after separation from a tree. Folks just call it "gravity.")Answer: Because even among those who believe there is a consensus on global warming, there is no agreement about the consensus itself. To some believers it is a consensus that the planet has been warming (but with internal disagreement on since when and how much); to others it is a consensus that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing measurable warming (but how much it may cause and how quickly is disputed); to others it is a consensus that the expected warming will be catastrophic for the entire planet (while others believe it will benefit some areas while harming others, or believe warming would be negative but not necessarily catastrophic); to some it is a consensus that hurricanes, droughts, snowstorms, etc. have been altered by human behavior (while others say the jury is still out); to some it is a consensus in favor of one or more of the scientific theories combined with the advocacy of some specified political action, such as ratifying the Kyoto treaty (while others see the consensus as wholly scientific, with no political components). Etc.Bottom line: The supposed consensus itself is a mass of contradictory opinions, a fact which says clearly to anyone with open ears that the science isn't settled on global warming.So, even though the Washington Post apparently has decided to deny the existence of doubters to the global warming theory "consensus" (making Post reporters and editors "deniers" in the truest sense), the Post still can't do what it ought to have done in the lede: Define the consensus.Cross-posted at Newsbusters.Addendum: The Washington Post certainly has interesting ledes. From a November 26 global warming article by Blaine Harden and Juliet Eilperin:
SEATTLE -- As the Bush administration debates much of the world about what to do about global warming, butterflies and ski-lift operators, polar bears and hydroelectric planners are on the move. There is a world-wide debate "about global warming, butterflies and ski-lift operators"?
In their separate ways, wild creatures, business executives and regional planners are responding to climate changes that are rapidly recalibrating their chances for survival, for profit and for effective delivery of public services... As surprised as I am that climate changes have the ability to recalibrate their changes for survival, I'm even more surprised that, with their survival in doubt, the climate changes are still concerned about profit and the effective delivery of public services. (Shows what I know about climate changes.)Subject-verb agreement problems aside, I don't think the Post meant to say "recalibrate." I think it meant "recalculate."Oh, well, I shouldn't quibble about a few words. It is not as if we are trusting the Post to teach us about atmospheric physics or something.
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:23 PM
Copyright 2003-2006 National Center for Public Policy Research
Mines battle for business
THE mining industry has admitted it faces an uphill battle to win the hearts and minds of the community over nuclear energy while academics predict significant social conflict as communities protest against reactors in their area.Queensland Resources Council chief Michael Roche said despite the fight to win the public relations war, the benefit from uranium mining and nuclear power would be hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue as rich uranium deposits in northwest Queensland were developed.
He said there was a major opportunity for Queensland that would be lost to Western Australia and South Australia if the community opposed development of nuclear reactors.
Queensland has several major economic deposits of uranium but Mr Roche said there had been no real exploration since the 1950s and world demand was climbing.
The current known deposits were Valhalla, north of Mt Isa, Westmoreland, near the Northern Territory border in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Maureen, near Georgetown, and Ben Lomand, west of Townsville.
Several more have been found in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia and Australia is thought to have about 28 per cent of the known world resources.
However, Mr Roche said the world would beat a path to Queensland if the deposits were developed.
He said reactors were living off the stock from decommissioned nuclear weapons and this was coming to an end.
Academics claim the Federal Government's sudden embrace of nuclear energy has more to do with a need to replace the revenue from coal than to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
"I firmly believe we are in a mineral resource rich country and economically they (the Government) don't see any other way ahead except to keep pushing ahead with coal and other minerals," Queensland University of Technology's Professor Peter Grace said.
THE mining industry has admitted it faces an uphill battle to win the hearts and minds of the community over nuclear energy while academics predict significant social conflict as communities protest against reactors in their area.Queensland Resources Council chief Michael Roche said despite the fight to win the public relations war, the benefit from uranium mining and nuclear power would be hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue as rich uranium deposits in northwest Queensland were developed.
He said there was a major opportunity for Queensland that would be lost to Western Australia and South Australia if the community opposed development of nuclear reactors.
Queensland has several major economic deposits of uranium but Mr Roche said there had been no real exploration since the 1950s and world demand was climbing.
The current known deposits were Valhalla, north of Mt Isa, Westmoreland, near the Northern Territory border in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Maureen, near Georgetown, and Ben Lomand, west of Townsville.
Several more have been found in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia and Australia is thought to have about 28 per cent of the known world resources.
However, Mr Roche said the world would beat a path to Queensland if the deposits were developed.
He said reactors were living off the stock from decommissioned nuclear weapons and this was coming to an end.
Academics claim the Federal Government's sudden embrace of nuclear energy has more to do with a need to replace the revenue from coal than to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
"I firmly believe we are in a mineral resource rich country and economically they (the Government) don't see any other way ahead except to keep pushing ahead with coal and other minerals," Queensland University of Technology's Professor Peter Grace said.
How mirrors can light up the world
In the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.
We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.
Article continues
Most people in Britain think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology.
Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.
Focusing on Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, they say, Europe should build a new high-voltage direct current electricity grid to allow the easy, efficient transport of electricity from a variety of alternative sources. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydro, and central Europe biomass and geo-thermal. Together the region could provide all its electricity needs by 2050 with barely any fossil fuels and no nuclear power. This would allow a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production over the period.
CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.
The mirrors are very large and create shaded areas underneath which can be used for horticulture irrigated by desalinated water generated by the plants. The cold water that can also be produced for air conditioning means there are three benefits. "It is this triple use of the energy which really boost the overall energy efficiency of these kinds of plants up to 80% to 90%," says Dr Knies.
This form of solar power is also attractive because the hot liquid can be stored in large vessels which can keep the turbines running for hours after the sun has gone down, avoiding the problems association with other forms of solar power.
Competitive with oil
The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.
Dr Knies says CSP is not yet competitive with natural gas for producing electricity alone. But if desalination and air conditioning are added CSP undercuts gas and that is without taking into account the cost of the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers say a relatively small amount of the world's hot deserts -only about half a percent - would need to be covered in solar collectors to provide the entire world's electrical needs (see map).
The desert land is plentiful and cheap but, more importantly, there is roughly three times as much sunlight in hot deserts as in northern Europe. This is why the reports recommend a collaboration between countries of Europe, the Middle East and Africa to construct a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) grid for the sharing of carbon-free energy. Alternating current cables, which now form the main electricity grids in Europe, are not suitable for long distance transport of electricity because too much is lost on the way. Dr Trieb, of the German Air and Space Agency, says the advantage of DC cables is that the loss in transport is only about 3% per 1,000 kilometres, meaning losses between North Africa and Britain of about 10%.
"Contrary to what is commonly supposed it is entirely feasible, and cost-effective, to transmit solar electricity over long distances. Solar electricity imported to Europe would be amongst the cheapest source of electricity and that includes transporting it," he says. "CSP imports would be much less vulnerable to interruption than are current imports of gas, oil and uranium."
Algeria already exports huge quantities of oil and gas to Europe via pipelines but has a vast potential resource in sunlight that could make it a complete energy supplier to Europe. Many members of the Opec oil cartel, which have worried that alternative energies would kill demand for their oil, are blessed with hot, sunny deserts that could become a further source of energy income.
The two reports make it clear that an HVDC grid around Europe and North Africa could provide enough electricity by 2050 to make it possible to phase out nuclear power and hugely reduce use of fossil fuels.
An umbrella group of scientists has been formed across the region called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (Trec) but the idea has yet to excite the imagination of the British government in spite of the recent Stern review on climate change.
Neil Crumpton, renewables specialist at Friends of the Earth, said: "Most politicians on the world stage, particularly Tony Blair and George Bush, appear to have little or no awareness of CSP's potential let alone a strategic vision for using it to help build global energy and climate security."
European commission president José Manuel Barroso said recently that he wanted to see the European Union develop a common energy strategy based on low carbon emissions. The Trec scientists hope German chancellor Angela Merkel will use next year's joint presidency of the EU and Group of Eight leading economies to push for an agreement on a European DC grid and the launch of a widespread CSP programme.
The outlook is not promising. More than 30 countries last week agreed to spend £7bn on an experimental fusion reactor in France which critics say will not produce any electricity for 50 years, if at all.
That amount of money would provide a lot of CSP power, a proven, working and simple technology that would work now, not in 2056.
Safer and cheaper
Dan Lewis, energy expert at the Economic Research Council, calculates that CSP costs $3-5m per installed megawatt, one-fifth the cost of fusion. "Fusion is basically a job creation scheme for plasma physicists."
Mr Crumpton agreed: "Nuclear power accounts for just 3.1% of global energy supply and would be hard pushed to provide more. Yet CSP could supply 30% or 300% of future energy demand far more simply, safely and cost effectively. In the wake of the Stern report the enlightened investment is on hot deserts, not uranium mines or oil wells."
In the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.
We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.
Article continues
Most people in Britain think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology.
Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.
Focusing on Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, they say, Europe should build a new high-voltage direct current electricity grid to allow the easy, efficient transport of electricity from a variety of alternative sources. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydro, and central Europe biomass and geo-thermal. Together the region could provide all its electricity needs by 2050 with barely any fossil fuels and no nuclear power. This would allow a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production over the period.
CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.
The mirrors are very large and create shaded areas underneath which can be used for horticulture irrigated by desalinated water generated by the plants. The cold water that can also be produced for air conditioning means there are three benefits. "It is this triple use of the energy which really boost the overall energy efficiency of these kinds of plants up to 80% to 90%," says Dr Knies.
This form of solar power is also attractive because the hot liquid can be stored in large vessels which can keep the turbines running for hours after the sun has gone down, avoiding the problems association with other forms of solar power.
Competitive with oil
The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.
Dr Knies says CSP is not yet competitive with natural gas for producing electricity alone. But if desalination and air conditioning are added CSP undercuts gas and that is without taking into account the cost of the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers say a relatively small amount of the world's hot deserts -only about half a percent - would need to be covered in solar collectors to provide the entire world's electrical needs (see map).
The desert land is plentiful and cheap but, more importantly, there is roughly three times as much sunlight in hot deserts as in northern Europe. This is why the reports recommend a collaboration between countries of Europe, the Middle East and Africa to construct a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) grid for the sharing of carbon-free energy. Alternating current cables, which now form the main electricity grids in Europe, are not suitable for long distance transport of electricity because too much is lost on the way. Dr Trieb, of the German Air and Space Agency, says the advantage of DC cables is that the loss in transport is only about 3% per 1,000 kilometres, meaning losses between North Africa and Britain of about 10%.
"Contrary to what is commonly supposed it is entirely feasible, and cost-effective, to transmit solar electricity over long distances. Solar electricity imported to Europe would be amongst the cheapest source of electricity and that includes transporting it," he says. "CSP imports would be much less vulnerable to interruption than are current imports of gas, oil and uranium."
Algeria already exports huge quantities of oil and gas to Europe via pipelines but has a vast potential resource in sunlight that could make it a complete energy supplier to Europe. Many members of the Opec oil cartel, which have worried that alternative energies would kill demand for their oil, are blessed with hot, sunny deserts that could become a further source of energy income.
The two reports make it clear that an HVDC grid around Europe and North Africa could provide enough electricity by 2050 to make it possible to phase out nuclear power and hugely reduce use of fossil fuels.
An umbrella group of scientists has been formed across the region called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (Trec) but the idea has yet to excite the imagination of the British government in spite of the recent Stern review on climate change.
Neil Crumpton, renewables specialist at Friends of the Earth, said: "Most politicians on the world stage, particularly Tony Blair and George Bush, appear to have little or no awareness of CSP's potential let alone a strategic vision for using it to help build global energy and climate security."
European commission president José Manuel Barroso said recently that he wanted to see the European Union develop a common energy strategy based on low carbon emissions. The Trec scientists hope German chancellor Angela Merkel will use next year's joint presidency of the EU and Group of Eight leading economies to push for an agreement on a European DC grid and the launch of a widespread CSP programme.
The outlook is not promising. More than 30 countries last week agreed to spend £7bn on an experimental fusion reactor in France which critics say will not produce any electricity for 50 years, if at all.
That amount of money would provide a lot of CSP power, a proven, working and simple technology that would work now, not in 2056.
Safer and cheaper
Dan Lewis, energy expert at the Economic Research Council, calculates that CSP costs $3-5m per installed megawatt, one-fifth the cost of fusion. "Fusion is basically a job creation scheme for plasma physicists."
Mr Crumpton agreed: "Nuclear power accounts for just 3.1% of global energy supply and would be hard pushed to provide more. Yet CSP could supply 30% or 300% of future energy demand far more simply, safely and cost effectively. In the wake of the Stern report the enlightened investment is on hot deserts, not uranium mines or oil wells."
High court to weigh climate change case - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.
A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the
Environmental Protection Agency' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.
The Bush administration intends to argue before the court on Wednesday that the EPA lacks the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The agency contends that even if it did have such authority, it would have discretion under the law on how to address the problem without imposing emissions controls.
The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — much like lead and smog-causing chemicals — that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.
A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government in 2005. But last June, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, plunging for the first time into the politically charged debate over global warming. The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court's most important ever involving the environment.
"Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come," says Massachusetts' attorney general, Thomas Reilly.
David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the
Sierra Club' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Sierra Club, says a legal clarification of the EPA's authority could determine whether the current administration must regulate carbon dioxide emissions and whether a future one will be able to demand such limits.
At issue for now is pollution from automobiles. But the ruling indirectly may affect how the agency deals with carbon dioxide that comes from electric power plants.
In a separate lawsuit, the EPA says the Clean Air Act also prevents it from regulating such emissions from those plants. That claim would be undercut, Bookbinder says, if the high court rules in the states' favor in the auto emissions case.
President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush has rejected calls to regulate carbon dioxide. He favors voluntary steps by industry and development of new technologies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
"We still have very strong reservations about an overarching, one-size-fits-all mandate about carbon," James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, recently told a group of reporters.
The administration says in court papers the EPA should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions" when other ways are available to tackle climate change.
The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide from U.S. motor vehicles, power plants and other industry has increased on average by about 1 percent a year since 1990.
Now that Democrats will control the House and Senate in January after their election victories this month, there is expected to be increased pressure in Congress for mandatory limits on carbon emissions.
The election results "have signaled a need to change direction" on dealing with global warming, three Democratic senators who will play leading roles on environmental issues recently wrote the president.
But whether there is such a shift actually may depend, in the end, on the Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs in the suit are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by cities such as Baltimore, New York and the District of Columbia; the Pacific island of America Samoa; the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Greenpeace; and Friends of the Earth.
The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.
A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the
Environmental Protection Agency' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.
The Bush administration intends to argue before the court on Wednesday that the EPA lacks the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The agency contends that even if it did have such authority, it would have discretion under the law on how to address the problem without imposing emissions controls.
The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — much like lead and smog-causing chemicals — that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.
A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government in 2005. But last June, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, plunging for the first time into the politically charged debate over global warming. The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court's most important ever involving the environment.
"Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come," says Massachusetts' attorney general, Thomas Reilly.
David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the
Sierra Club' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Sierra Club, says a legal clarification of the EPA's authority could determine whether the current administration must regulate carbon dioxide emissions and whether a future one will be able to demand such limits.
At issue for now is pollution from automobiles. But the ruling indirectly may affect how the agency deals with carbon dioxide that comes from electric power plants.
In a separate lawsuit, the EPA says the Clean Air Act also prevents it from regulating such emissions from those plants. That claim would be undercut, Bookbinder says, if the high court rules in the states' favor in the auto emissions case.
President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush has rejected calls to regulate carbon dioxide. He favors voluntary steps by industry and development of new technologies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
"We still have very strong reservations about an overarching, one-size-fits-all mandate about carbon," James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, recently told a group of reporters.
The administration says in court papers the EPA should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions" when other ways are available to tackle climate change.
The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide from U.S. motor vehicles, power plants and other industry has increased on average by about 1 percent a year since 1990.
Now that Democrats will control the House and Senate in January after their election victories this month, there is expected to be increased pressure in Congress for mandatory limits on carbon emissions.
The election results "have signaled a need to change direction" on dealing with global warming, three Democratic senators who will play leading roles on environmental issues recently wrote the president.
But whether there is such a shift actually may depend, in the end, on the Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs in the suit are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by cities such as Baltimore, New York and the District of Columbia; the Pacific island of America Samoa; the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Greenpeace; and Friends of the Earth.
The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
