China's Hu says climate change on APEC agenda
Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:54PM IST
BEIJING (Reuters) - Climate change is a priority for Beijing and should be on the agenda at the Asia-Pacific leaders summit next week, China's President Hu Jintao said during a phone chat with Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Wednesday.
"Climate change affects sustainable development and the well-being of all humanity. The Chinese government attaches great importance to the problem of climate change," the report quoted Hu saying.
He supports discussion of the issue at the summit and hopes the delegates can reach an agreement which reflects their common ground, it added.
China is coming under increasing international pressure about its carbon dioxide emissions, expected to overtake U.S. emissions by 2008. But its leaders have rejected caps on output for fear they will cramp growth.
Beijing says developed countries responsible for most of the greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere should do more to cut their output and transfer clean technology to poorer nations.
About 1,000 delegates are currently meeting in Vienna to seek a global deal that would tackle warming beyond 2012 and widen the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol to include outsiders such as the United States and China.
Howard said he was ready to work with China for a positive outcome at APEC on tackling climate change, the statement said.
Much of Australia is struggling with a 10-year drought, blamed on climate change by some, and which is expected to wipe up to one percent from the country's economic output.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum draws together leaders of 21 economies accounting for more than a third of the world's population, about 60 percent of global GDP and 47 percent of world trade volume.
Members are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan (under the name Chinese Taipei), Thailand, United States and Vietnam.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change
A People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals billboard chides Al Gore.
function getSharePasskey() { return ('Big animal rights groups do not share the same mission, but they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving.');
'Global Warming,Vegetarianism,Advertising and Marketing,Agriculture,Food and Agriculture Organization,People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,Humane Society of the United States,Sierra Club,Al Gore');
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH
Published: August 29, 2007
EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
The Humane Society links environmental issues and food.
The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.
Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
When that report came out, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups expected their environmental counterparts to immediately hop on the “Go Veggie!” bandwagon, but that did not happen. “Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.
So the animal rights groups are mobilizing on their own. PETA is outfitting a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming meat as the top cause of global warming. It will send the vehicle to the start of the climate forum the White House is sponsoring in Washington on Sept. 27, “and to headquarters of environmental groups, if they don’t start shaping up,” Mr. Prescott warned.
He said that PETA had written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism, and that it would soon distribute leaflets that highlight the impact of eating meat on global warming.
“You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said Mr. Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”
•
The Humane Society of the United States has taken up the issue as well, running ads in environmental magazines that show a car key and a fork. “Which one of these contributes more to global warming?” the ads ask. They answer the question with “It’s not the one that starts a car,” and go on to cite the United Nations report as proof.
On its Web page and in its literature, the Humane Society has also been highlighting other scientific studies — notably, one that recently came out of the University of Chicago — that, in essence, show that “switching to a plant-based diet does more to curb global warming than switching from an S.U.V. to a Camry,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director of the factory farming campaign for the Humane Society.
The society, Mr. Shapiro said, is not only concerned with what happens to domesticated animals, but also with preventing the carnage that global warming could cause to polar bears, seals and other wildlife. “Our mission is to protect animals, and global warming has become an animal welfare issue,” he said.
Even tiny pro-veggie operations are starting to squeeze dollars out of their shoestring budgets to advertise the eating meat/global warming connection. Vegan Outreach, a 14-year-old group in Tucson with just three full-time workers and a $5 million annual budget, is spending about $800 this month to run ads and links to its Web page on about 10 blogs. And, it will give more prominence to the global warming aspect of vegetarianism in the next batch of leaflets it orders.
“We know that vegetarian organizations have sometimes made exaggerated health and environmental claims, but that U.N. report is an impartial, unimpeachable source of statements we can quote,” said Matt Ball, executive director of Vegan Outreach.
Like Mr. Prescott, Mr. Ball is incensed that high-profile people like Al Gore — or environmental groups with deeper pockets than his — have not stepped up to the plate.
“Al Gore calls global warming an existential risk to humanity, yet it hasn’t prompted him to change his diet or even mention vegetarianism,” he complained. “And I guess the environmentalists recognize that it’s a lot easier to ask people to put in a fluorescent light bulb than to learn to cook with tofu.”
•
Advertising specialists warn that this new attention to global warming may attract enemies as well as converts.
“Using global warming as a tactic for advancing the cause of vegetarianism feels a bit opportunistic,” said Hank Stewart, senior copywriter at Green Team Advertising, which specializes in environmentally themed ads.
He also questions the logistics. “You want to get the message as close to the meat-purchasing moment as possible,” he said, “but can you imagine a supermarket allowing ‘Attention, Planet-Destroying Carnivores’ on the in-store radio?”
Environmental groups, meanwhile, readily concede that mobilizing against meat eaters is not their highest priority.
“We try to be strategic about doing the things where each unit of effort has the most impact,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. Mr. Pope notes that his group has stopped short of castigating people for driving S.U.V.’s or building overly large homes, too.
“We’ll encourage companies to make more efficient S.U.V.’s, and we’ll encourage consumers to buy them,” he said, “but we do not find lecturing people about personal consumption choices to be effective.”
Environmental Defense is also “in agreement on the value of eating less meat,” said Melanie Janin, director of marketing communications. But, she added, her group would rather spend its time and money influencing public policy — specifically, getting Congress to regulate greenhouse gases.
Mr. Gore declined to make himself available for comment. Chris Song, his deputy press secretary, simply noted that a suggestion to “modify your diet to include less meat” appears on Page 317 of Mr. Gore’s book version of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
He did not address Mr. Gore’s personal food choices.
Next Article in Business (14 of 24) »
A People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals billboard chides Al Gore.
function getSharePasskey() { return ('Big animal rights groups do not share the same mission, but they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving.');
'Global Warming,Vegetarianism,Advertising and Marketing,Agriculture,Food and Agriculture Organization,People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,Humane Society of the United States,Sierra Club,Al Gore');
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH
Published: August 29, 2007
EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
The Humane Society links environmental issues and food.
The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.
Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
When that report came out, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups expected their environmental counterparts to immediately hop on the “Go Veggie!” bandwagon, but that did not happen. “Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.
So the animal rights groups are mobilizing on their own. PETA is outfitting a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming meat as the top cause of global warming. It will send the vehicle to the start of the climate forum the White House is sponsoring in Washington on Sept. 27, “and to headquarters of environmental groups, if they don’t start shaping up,” Mr. Prescott warned.
He said that PETA had written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism, and that it would soon distribute leaflets that highlight the impact of eating meat on global warming.
“You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said Mr. Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”
•
The Humane Society of the United States has taken up the issue as well, running ads in environmental magazines that show a car key and a fork. “Which one of these contributes more to global warming?” the ads ask. They answer the question with “It’s not the one that starts a car,” and go on to cite the United Nations report as proof.
On its Web page and in its literature, the Humane Society has also been highlighting other scientific studies — notably, one that recently came out of the University of Chicago — that, in essence, show that “switching to a plant-based diet does more to curb global warming than switching from an S.U.V. to a Camry,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director of the factory farming campaign for the Humane Society.
The society, Mr. Shapiro said, is not only concerned with what happens to domesticated animals, but also with preventing the carnage that global warming could cause to polar bears, seals and other wildlife. “Our mission is to protect animals, and global warming has become an animal welfare issue,” he said.
Even tiny pro-veggie operations are starting to squeeze dollars out of their shoestring budgets to advertise the eating meat/global warming connection. Vegan Outreach, a 14-year-old group in Tucson with just three full-time workers and a $5 million annual budget, is spending about $800 this month to run ads and links to its Web page on about 10 blogs. And, it will give more prominence to the global warming aspect of vegetarianism in the next batch of leaflets it orders.
“We know that vegetarian organizations have sometimes made exaggerated health and environmental claims, but that U.N. report is an impartial, unimpeachable source of statements we can quote,” said Matt Ball, executive director of Vegan Outreach.
Like Mr. Prescott, Mr. Ball is incensed that high-profile people like Al Gore — or environmental groups with deeper pockets than his — have not stepped up to the plate.
“Al Gore calls global warming an existential risk to humanity, yet it hasn’t prompted him to change his diet or even mention vegetarianism,” he complained. “And I guess the environmentalists recognize that it’s a lot easier to ask people to put in a fluorescent light bulb than to learn to cook with tofu.”
•
Advertising specialists warn that this new attention to global warming may attract enemies as well as converts.
“Using global warming as a tactic for advancing the cause of vegetarianism feels a bit opportunistic,” said Hank Stewart, senior copywriter at Green Team Advertising, which specializes in environmentally themed ads.
He also questions the logistics. “You want to get the message as close to the meat-purchasing moment as possible,” he said, “but can you imagine a supermarket allowing ‘Attention, Planet-Destroying Carnivores’ on the in-store radio?”
Environmental groups, meanwhile, readily concede that mobilizing against meat eaters is not their highest priority.
“We try to be strategic about doing the things where each unit of effort has the most impact,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. Mr. Pope notes that his group has stopped short of castigating people for driving S.U.V.’s or building overly large homes, too.
“We’ll encourage companies to make more efficient S.U.V.’s, and we’ll encourage consumers to buy them,” he said, “but we do not find lecturing people about personal consumption choices to be effective.”
Environmental Defense is also “in agreement on the value of eating less meat,” said Melanie Janin, director of marketing communications. But, she added, her group would rather spend its time and money influencing public policy — specifically, getting Congress to regulate greenhouse gases.
Mr. Gore declined to make himself available for comment. Chris Song, his deputy press secretary, simply noted that a suggestion to “modify your diet to include less meat” appears on Page 317 of Mr. Gore’s book version of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
He did not address Mr. Gore’s personal food choices.
Next Article in Business (14 of 24) »
German Biodiesel Industry Peaks, Trouble Ahead
by Jane Burgermeister, Contributing Writer
Vienna, Austria [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
Germany's biodiesel production capacity is set to rise to a record 5 million tons in 2007, but analysts have warned that the boom in the country's biodiesel industry is coming to an end after the industry failed to block the government from rolling back a key tax relief scheme in court this July.
"More pure biodiesel would require a new network of petrol stations to be built and for car engines to be modified, and that doesn't make economic sense. We would like to see the second generation biofuels developed as soon as possible."
-- Tobias Dunow, Spokesperson for the German Environment Ministry
Starting in 2004, the German government exempted biofuels from taxes in a bid to reduce CO2 emissions—and introduced a raft of subsidies that sparked a rapid expansion of the biodiesel industry, the biggest in the world. Boosted by high oil prices, biodiesel sales in Germany rose to 2.8 million tons in 2006, accounting for almost 5 percent of the country's total transport fuel sales.
But biodiesel industry sources in Germany estimate that only about half the 5 million ton capacity will be used in 2007 following a dramatic slump in demand after taxes on biofuels were introduced. The government made the move in response to a ruling by the European Commission that Germany's tax relief scheme overcompensated biofuel producers.
"The biodiesel industry has peaked; capacity has grown very quickly and outstripped production and now some companies might even go bankrupt as the industry consolidates," Norbert Allnoch, director of the International Economic Platform for Renewable Energies (IWR Internationales Wirtschaftsforum Regenerative Energien), an independent research body located in Munster, told RenewableEnergyAccess.com.
The Berlin government is nonetheless continuing to target support to the one biodiesel used in a blend with convention diesel fuel—1.5 million tons in 2006. On January 1, 2007, the government made it legally binding for all fuel companies to add 5 percent biodiesel to conventional diesel sold on their forecourts and so eased the simultaneous imposition of the tax of 47 euro cents on every liter of biodiesel for blends.
As a result of the requirement, Germany is set to meet the European Union's target for biofuel use of 5.75% in 2010. It is estimated that biofuels saved Germany 12.7 million tons of C02 in 2006. Another 1.3 million tons of pure biodiesel was sold in Germany on the open market in 2006, and it is these sales that have been hammered by the new taxes amounting to 9 euro cents introduced in August last year.
"Pure biodiesel is not competitive when taxes are put on it, especially if the oil price falls," Karin Retzlaff from the Association of German Biofuel Industry (Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie), told RenewableEnergyAccess.com.
This is a problem since customers of pure biodiesel are mainly transport companies that are looking to reduce the fuel bills of their huge fleets of lorries by tanking with the cheapest fuel wherever they find it.
"The price difference right now is already critical for pure biodiesel but we fear that sales will drop even more next year," said Retzlaff.
A liter of biodiesel was 5 euro cents cheaper than conventional diesel at the petrol stations in Germany on Friday, August 17th, 2007, but a liter of biodiesel gives 5 to 7 percent less energy than the equivalent in diesel.
Taxes on pure biodiesel are set to increase further by 6 cents every year starting on January 1, 2008 and to reach 44 euro cents a liter by 2012, Retzlaff said.
Future of Pure Biodiesel in Germany Bleak
"Biodiesel producers will need to find new export markets to make up for the drop in demand in Germany, but there are opportunities, for example, in eastern and southern Europe," said Alloch.
In addition to the new taxes, it is predicted that biodiesel producers will be squeezed by a rise in the price of rapeseed. Rapeseed oil is the raw material that is used to produce more than 70 percent of biodiesel in Germany.
"The reports we are getting are that the harvest this year has been poor and the rapeseed has a low oil content." Retzlaff said. "Higher rapeseed prices will make biodiesel producers uncompetitive even if oil prices rise."
In 2006, rapeseed was grown on about 1.5 million hectares of land in Germany, or 11 percent of the total agricultural land area; approximately 7.0 million hectares was used to grow crops for food.
Imported soybean and palm oil made up another 20 percent of the raw material for biodiesel.
"Looking to the future, more set-aside land in Germany and also in the European Union will probably be needed to produce crops for food because of poor harvests due to climate change, and so there is not much room for expanding the production of rapeseed," Allnoch said.
The environmental advantages of growing rapeseed for biodiesel have also been hotly debated. A recent study by scientists claimed that the amount of nitrous oxide produced by rapeseed is more damaging to the earth's atmosphere than the equivalent amount of CO2 produced by burning conventional fossil fuels in vehicles.
Tobias Dunow, spokesperson for the German environment ministry, said that the key objective of the government is accelerating the development of a second generation of biofuels.
"More pure biodiesel would require a new network of petrol stations to be built and for car engines to be modified, and that doesn't make economic sense," Dunow told RenewableEnergyAccess.com. "We would like to see the second generation biofuels developed as soon as possible."
Dunow said the government is looking at technologies such as Biomass-To-Liquid processing.
Allnoch predicted that biodiesel would remain an important part of Germany's energy mix until the second generation of biofuels comes onto the market in 2015 or later.
"Biodiesel is an important fuel in our transition to the next generation of biofuels," he said. "The experience that has been gathered in producing biodiesel will pave the way for the second and third generation technologies, but these technologies might not be the perfect solution either."
In 2006, Germany used 28,200,000 tons of diesel for transport fuel, 21,800,000 tons of petrol, 2.5 million tons of biodiesel, 1,080,000 tonnes of plant oil and 480,000 tons of bioethanol.
Previous Article Next Article View
by Jane Burgermeister, Contributing Writer
Vienna, Austria [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
Germany's biodiesel production capacity is set to rise to a record 5 million tons in 2007, but analysts have warned that the boom in the country's biodiesel industry is coming to an end after the industry failed to block the government from rolling back a key tax relief scheme in court this July.
"More pure biodiesel would require a new network of petrol stations to be built and for car engines to be modified, and that doesn't make economic sense. We would like to see the second generation biofuels developed as soon as possible."
-- Tobias Dunow, Spokesperson for the German Environment Ministry
Starting in 2004, the German government exempted biofuels from taxes in a bid to reduce CO2 emissions—and introduced a raft of subsidies that sparked a rapid expansion of the biodiesel industry, the biggest in the world. Boosted by high oil prices, biodiesel sales in Germany rose to 2.8 million tons in 2006, accounting for almost 5 percent of the country's total transport fuel sales.
But biodiesel industry sources in Germany estimate that only about half the 5 million ton capacity will be used in 2007 following a dramatic slump in demand after taxes on biofuels were introduced. The government made the move in response to a ruling by the European Commission that Germany's tax relief scheme overcompensated biofuel producers.
"The biodiesel industry has peaked; capacity has grown very quickly and outstripped production and now some companies might even go bankrupt as the industry consolidates," Norbert Allnoch, director of the International Economic Platform for Renewable Energies (IWR Internationales Wirtschaftsforum Regenerative Energien), an independent research body located in Munster, told RenewableEnergyAccess.com.
The Berlin government is nonetheless continuing to target support to the one biodiesel used in a blend with convention diesel fuel—1.5 million tons in 2006. On January 1, 2007, the government made it legally binding for all fuel companies to add 5 percent biodiesel to conventional diesel sold on their forecourts and so eased the simultaneous imposition of the tax of 47 euro cents on every liter of biodiesel for blends.
As a result of the requirement, Germany is set to meet the European Union's target for biofuel use of 5.75% in 2010. It is estimated that biofuels saved Germany 12.7 million tons of C02 in 2006. Another 1.3 million tons of pure biodiesel was sold in Germany on the open market in 2006, and it is these sales that have been hammered by the new taxes amounting to 9 euro cents introduced in August last year.
"Pure biodiesel is not competitive when taxes are put on it, especially if the oil price falls," Karin Retzlaff from the Association of German Biofuel Industry (Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie), told RenewableEnergyAccess.com.
This is a problem since customers of pure biodiesel are mainly transport companies that are looking to reduce the fuel bills of their huge fleets of lorries by tanking with the cheapest fuel wherever they find it.
"The price difference right now is already critical for pure biodiesel but we fear that sales will drop even more next year," said Retzlaff.
A liter of biodiesel was 5 euro cents cheaper than conventional diesel at the petrol stations in Germany on Friday, August 17th, 2007, but a liter of biodiesel gives 5 to 7 percent less energy than the equivalent in diesel.
Taxes on pure biodiesel are set to increase further by 6 cents every year starting on January 1, 2008 and to reach 44 euro cents a liter by 2012, Retzlaff said.
Future of Pure Biodiesel in Germany Bleak
"Biodiesel producers will need to find new export markets to make up for the drop in demand in Germany, but there are opportunities, for example, in eastern and southern Europe," said Alloch.
In addition to the new taxes, it is predicted that biodiesel producers will be squeezed by a rise in the price of rapeseed. Rapeseed oil is the raw material that is used to produce more than 70 percent of biodiesel in Germany.
"The reports we are getting are that the harvest this year has been poor and the rapeseed has a low oil content." Retzlaff said. "Higher rapeseed prices will make biodiesel producers uncompetitive even if oil prices rise."
In 2006, rapeseed was grown on about 1.5 million hectares of land in Germany, or 11 percent of the total agricultural land area; approximately 7.0 million hectares was used to grow crops for food.
Imported soybean and palm oil made up another 20 percent of the raw material for biodiesel.
"Looking to the future, more set-aside land in Germany and also in the European Union will probably be needed to produce crops for food because of poor harvests due to climate change, and so there is not much room for expanding the production of rapeseed," Allnoch said.
The environmental advantages of growing rapeseed for biodiesel have also been hotly debated. A recent study by scientists claimed that the amount of nitrous oxide produced by rapeseed is more damaging to the earth's atmosphere than the equivalent amount of CO2 produced by burning conventional fossil fuels in vehicles.
Tobias Dunow, spokesperson for the German environment ministry, said that the key objective of the government is accelerating the development of a second generation of biofuels.
"More pure biodiesel would require a new network of petrol stations to be built and for car engines to be modified, and that doesn't make economic sense," Dunow told RenewableEnergyAccess.com. "We would like to see the second generation biofuels developed as soon as possible."
Dunow said the government is looking at technologies such as Biomass-To-Liquid processing.
Allnoch predicted that biodiesel would remain an important part of Germany's energy mix until the second generation of biofuels comes onto the market in 2015 or later.
"Biodiesel is an important fuel in our transition to the next generation of biofuels," he said. "The experience that has been gathered in producing biodiesel will pave the way for the second and third generation technologies, but these technologies might not be the perfect solution either."
In 2006, Germany used 28,200,000 tons of diesel for transport fuel, 21,800,000 tons of petrol, 2.5 million tons of biodiesel, 1,080,000 tonnes of plant oil and 480,000 tons of bioethanol.
Previous Article Next Article View
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Nuclear partnership won't lead to waste dump: Downer
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:05pm AEST
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says accepting an invitation to join a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will not lead to Australia being used as a nuclear waste dump site.
The United States is expected to ask Australia to join the group, which is set up to regulate the production of nuclear resources.
Mr Downer has told the 7.30 Report the Government will consider the idea closely but he says it will not result in Australia accepting nuclear waste.
"What we sign up, what we'd agree to, let's see what is actually put on the table," he said.
"Nobody can make us do anything and no matter what the scare-mongering of the Labor Party and their friends on the left may be, we've made it clear we won't be taking it back, and that's the beginning and that's the end of it."
Tags: nuclear-issues, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia
Search for news
Search
Help
My Tags
environment
government-and-politics
health
indigenous
offbeat
science-and-technology
climate-change
coal
mining
oil-and-gas
energy
uranium-mining
alternative-energy
nuclear-issues
View all tags Tag cloud
Help
My Stories
Bookmark stories, video and audio clips you may want to access later.
Also Of Interest
Downer rejects 'wacky' nuclear waste concerns 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Aust could become US nuclear waste dump: expert 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Labor disputes PM's assurance on nuclear waste 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
PM denies Australia will take nuclear waste 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Govt pushes for US nuke deal 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:05pm AEST
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says accepting an invitation to join a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will not lead to Australia being used as a nuclear waste dump site.
The United States is expected to ask Australia to join the group, which is set up to regulate the production of nuclear resources.
Mr Downer has told the 7.30 Report the Government will consider the idea closely but he says it will not result in Australia accepting nuclear waste.
"What we sign up, what we'd agree to, let's see what is actually put on the table," he said.
"Nobody can make us do anything and no matter what the scare-mongering of the Labor Party and their friends on the left may be, we've made it clear we won't be taking it back, and that's the beginning and that's the end of it."
Tags: nuclear-issues, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia
Search for news
Search
Help
My Tags
environment
government-and-politics
health
indigenous
offbeat
science-and-technology
climate-change
coal
mining
oil-and-gas
energy
uranium-mining
alternative-energy
nuclear-issues
View all tags Tag cloud
Help
My Stories
Bookmark stories, video and audio clips you may want to access later.
Also Of Interest
Downer rejects 'wacky' nuclear waste concerns 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Aust could become US nuclear waste dump: expert 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Labor disputes PM's assurance on nuclear waste 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
PM denies Australia will take nuclear waste 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Govt pushes for US nuke deal 20 Jul 2007 - 5 weeks ago
Monday, August 27, 2007
Blix backs nuclear energy
Posted 6 hours 41 minutes ago
Former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix says more energy should come from nuclear sources to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Dr Blix says nuclear power has come a long way and studies show it is now safer to produce than hydro-electricity.
The former nuke hunter has also voiced support for the sale of uranium to India, provided it is only used to generate energy and does not go into the production of nuclear weapons.
He says Australia's proposed uranium sales to India would not breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but other safeguards are needed.
"You would have a treaty which prohibits states from producing highly enriched uranium or plutonium for weapons purposes, and with international verification," he said.
"Such a treaty has been proposed for years, but it's not yet on the table. It requires negotiation.
"But that would, I think... [reduce] objection to the agreement with India."
Dr Blix says the sale of uranium to India would still raise concerns because the extra supply would free up India's other reserves for use in nuclear weapons.
Dr Blix says an international inspection regime and treaty would help remedy that, and ease the environmental pressures of India's growing economy.
"It is highly desirable that countries like India and China, huge counties that will consume more and more electricity, that they switch increasingly from the coal, which dominates enormously and which really hurts the environment, to nuclear power, that does not," he said.
"China does that in a big way and India wants to. And I think it would be good that they get access to the latest technology."
Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, trade, environment, alternative-energy, nuclear-issues, world-politics, nuclear-energy, uranium-mining, australia, india
Posted 6 hours 41 minutes ago
Former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix says more energy should come from nuclear sources to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Dr Blix says nuclear power has come a long way and studies show it is now safer to produce than hydro-electricity.
The former nuke hunter has also voiced support for the sale of uranium to India, provided it is only used to generate energy and does not go into the production of nuclear weapons.
He says Australia's proposed uranium sales to India would not breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but other safeguards are needed.
"You would have a treaty which prohibits states from producing highly enriched uranium or plutonium for weapons purposes, and with international verification," he said.
"Such a treaty has been proposed for years, but it's not yet on the table. It requires negotiation.
"But that would, I think... [reduce] objection to the agreement with India."
Dr Blix says the sale of uranium to India would still raise concerns because the extra supply would free up India's other reserves for use in nuclear weapons.
Dr Blix says an international inspection regime and treaty would help remedy that, and ease the environmental pressures of India's growing economy.
"It is highly desirable that countries like India and China, huge counties that will consume more and more electricity, that they switch increasingly from the coal, which dominates enormously and which really hurts the environment, to nuclear power, that does not," he said.
"China does that in a big way and India wants to. And I think it would be good that they get access to the latest technology."
Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, trade, environment, alternative-energy, nuclear-issues, world-politics, nuclear-energy, uranium-mining, australia, india
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Attitude to nuclear power will change, PM says
Posted
Prime Minister John Howard says he believes some Australian communities would vote in favour of having a nuclear power station built nearby.
The Government says residents in any area where a reactor is proposed will be given a say through binding plebiscites.
The Greens say communities would vote down any nuclear power plant proposal, but Mr Howard disagrees.
"I don't think that there's any doubt that in 10 or 15 years time the whole attitude towards nuclear power will be different," he told Southern Cross Radio.
"That's why I am perfectly happy to indicate there should be plebiscites."
Meanwhile, environmentalists say Mr Howard is optimistic to think any Queensland community would support a nuclear reactor in their area.
The Australia Institute identified the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island as possible sites.
Ian Christesen from the Sunshine Coast Environment Council says he does not believe any community, that meets the criteria for a nuclear reactor, would want one.
"He would have to be one of the greatest optimists if he believes that communities that meet the criteria ... are going to put their hands up for a nuclear reactor. I just can't see it happening," he said.
Search for news
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Research boom in Arctic village as oil reserves draw big powers
Countries battle for control of ocean tracts thought to be replete with fossil fuels
David Adam in Ny-Alesund The Guardian Wednesday August 22 2007
Conservative party leader David Cameron checking on the effects of climate change on the Norwegian island of Svalbard. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/PA
Lying barely 650 miles from the North Pole and shrouded in freezing darkness for several months of the year, the Norwegian islands of Svalbard make an unlikely property hotspot. Yet at Ny-Alesund, a tiny former coal-mining settlement on the west side, an international boom is under way.
The Chinese have moved in, bringing with them two marble lions that stand guard outside their Arctic Yellow River research station, and so too have Japan and South Korea. Scientists from India's first expedition to the Arctic are poised to join them. In June, a visiting delegation from Washington talked of beefing up US interests at Ny-Alesund, while the Russians are in negotiations.
Should, as some on Svalbard expect, the two former cold war superpowers move in, they will join established bases run by Norway, Holland, France, Germany and Britain.
On the surface, the multinational invasion of Ny-Alesund - little more than a bumpy airstrip and a scattering of colourful wooden buildings - is in the name of science. Experts who visit Svalbard are in an ideal position to study the atmosphere, glaciers and the region's unique wildlife.
The Svalbard islands have become a popular summer tourist destination, particularly with Britons. Last month a party of 17 were injured when their ship got too close to a melting glacier. In April last year, the Tory leader, David Cameron, made a two-day trip to the archipelago's glaciers to witness the effects of climate change.
But for the growing international community turning the islands into a base, there is another agenda: the region's oil and gas reserves.
"An awful lot of the reason that countries are here is flag waving," says Nick Cox, an Arctic and Antarctic veteran who runs the British station at Ny-Alesund for the government-funded Natural Environment Research Council. "The Arctic has become very important politically and that will only increase the pressure for countries to be represented."
The Chinese lions face east, but the real story is to the north. This month the Russians fired the latest shots in a long-running battle for control over huge tracts of the Arctic Ocean surrounding the North Pole below which oil and gas is believed to lie. Canada and Denmark are preparing similar claims, which rely on showing that a chain of underwater mountains that runs across the region are connected to their respective continental shelves.
Norway is convinced the sea around Svalbard also harbours reserves of oil and gas. And as the frozen cover of ice that once protected the ocean from drill ships retreats further north - this year looks set for a record low - nations are jostling for position to exploit them. Several oil companies already sponsor research in the region.
Kim Holmen, head of research at the Norwegian Polar Institute, said: "Everything on Svalbard is sticky. It is all about politics and there are other dimensions that must be considered."
Norway was granted sovereignty of the Svalbard archipelago, which is 300 miles off its north coast, in 1925, but an unusual clause grants other nations equal rights to its natural resources. Fast-forward nearly a century, and Norway claims the agreement covers terrestrial matters only, and so does not include the anticipated offshore fossil-fuel bounty, which it argues will be inside its territorial waters. Other countries, including Britain, take a different view, and the Foreign Office sparked a minor diplomatic row last autumn when it failed to invite Norway to a meeting with the US and Russia to discuss the future of the islands.
Ny-Alesund is no stranger to such political games. Norway, world leaders in hydroelectric power, ran an unprofitable coal mine at Ny-Alesund for decades, until an explosion in 1962 killed 21 people and forced its closure. Attention then switched to science, and Norway, Britain and France have had bases here for years. Critics have argued such scientific efforts are an expensive and unproductive cover for strategic goals - an accusation that has also dogged research in Antarctica.
For the Antarctic, that changed in the 1980s when British scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer, sparking worldwide action and a rapid ban on the CFC chemicals responsible. Now, scientists working at Ny-Alesund believe their research has been vindicated too, by the emergence of another worldwide environmental crisis: climate change.
"The Arctic warms first and it warms the fastest," says Dr Holmen. "If we don't want to be surprised by what is going to happen then we need to study the Arctic."
The state of the region's ice is well known. The mighty Kongsvegen glacier - a few miles down the coast from Ny-Alesund and shrinking fast - was the scene of David Cameron's high profile sledge ride in 2006. Well documented too is the plight of the polar bear, a clear and present danger on Svalbard that forces scientists doing nothing more hazardous that counting birds nests to carry a 0.44 Magnum handgun.
But global warming can still spring a surprise or two: just ask Nia Whiteley and Sam Rastrick, two biologists from the University of Wales, Bangor, who arrived in Svalbard via Tromso, a town on the Norwegian mainland well inside the Arctic Circle. Looking for amphipods, shrimp like crustaceans along the Tromso shoreline, they were forced to negotiate day trippers enjoying unseasonably warm weather.
Dr Whiteley said: "We turned up in our Arctic survival gear and there were families having barbecues on the beach and people jumping into the sea in their shorts."
There are signs of change at Ny-Alesund as well. The neighbouring fjord that shimmers in the constant daylight has failed to freeze over during the previous two winters - although scientists think this is due to unusual wind conditions and an influx of warm water, rather than a direct result of rising temperatures.
Despite its pristine appearance, the Arctic atmosphere is filthy. Pollutants are swept to the top of the world by air currents, so air filters at Ny-Alesund reveal telltale streaks of soot, while levels of mercury and industrial chemicals such as flame retardants can be higher than in the countries further south that produce them. Scientists have long known these substances can work their way up the food chain to the top predators such as the polar bears. Now they have found evidence that these chemicals are having a damaging effect.
Geir Gabrielsen, a biologist with the Norwegian Polar Institute, said: "We've found that the gulls exposed to the most chemicals take much longer to find food. As scientists all we can do is observe and point out these changes. It is up to the politicians and the people to decide what to do about it."
Backstory
Countries battle for control of ocean tracts thought to be replete with fossil fuels
David Adam in Ny-Alesund The Guardian Wednesday August 22 2007
Conservative party leader David Cameron checking on the effects of climate change on the Norwegian island of Svalbard. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/PA
Lying barely 650 miles from the North Pole and shrouded in freezing darkness for several months of the year, the Norwegian islands of Svalbard make an unlikely property hotspot. Yet at Ny-Alesund, a tiny former coal-mining settlement on the west side, an international boom is under way.
The Chinese have moved in, bringing with them two marble lions that stand guard outside their Arctic Yellow River research station, and so too have Japan and South Korea. Scientists from India's first expedition to the Arctic are poised to join them. In June, a visiting delegation from Washington talked of beefing up US interests at Ny-Alesund, while the Russians are in negotiations.
Should, as some on Svalbard expect, the two former cold war superpowers move in, they will join established bases run by Norway, Holland, France, Germany and Britain.
On the surface, the multinational invasion of Ny-Alesund - little more than a bumpy airstrip and a scattering of colourful wooden buildings - is in the name of science. Experts who visit Svalbard are in an ideal position to study the atmosphere, glaciers and the region's unique wildlife.
The Svalbard islands have become a popular summer tourist destination, particularly with Britons. Last month a party of 17 were injured when their ship got too close to a melting glacier. In April last year, the Tory leader, David Cameron, made a two-day trip to the archipelago's glaciers to witness the effects of climate change.
But for the growing international community turning the islands into a base, there is another agenda: the region's oil and gas reserves.
"An awful lot of the reason that countries are here is flag waving," says Nick Cox, an Arctic and Antarctic veteran who runs the British station at Ny-Alesund for the government-funded Natural Environment Research Council. "The Arctic has become very important politically and that will only increase the pressure for countries to be represented."
The Chinese lions face east, but the real story is to the north. This month the Russians fired the latest shots in a long-running battle for control over huge tracts of the Arctic Ocean surrounding the North Pole below which oil and gas is believed to lie. Canada and Denmark are preparing similar claims, which rely on showing that a chain of underwater mountains that runs across the region are connected to their respective continental shelves.
Norway is convinced the sea around Svalbard also harbours reserves of oil and gas. And as the frozen cover of ice that once protected the ocean from drill ships retreats further north - this year looks set for a record low - nations are jostling for position to exploit them. Several oil companies already sponsor research in the region.
Kim Holmen, head of research at the Norwegian Polar Institute, said: "Everything on Svalbard is sticky. It is all about politics and there are other dimensions that must be considered."
Norway was granted sovereignty of the Svalbard archipelago, which is 300 miles off its north coast, in 1925, but an unusual clause grants other nations equal rights to its natural resources. Fast-forward nearly a century, and Norway claims the agreement covers terrestrial matters only, and so does not include the anticipated offshore fossil-fuel bounty, which it argues will be inside its territorial waters. Other countries, including Britain, take a different view, and the Foreign Office sparked a minor diplomatic row last autumn when it failed to invite Norway to a meeting with the US and Russia to discuss the future of the islands.
Ny-Alesund is no stranger to such political games. Norway, world leaders in hydroelectric power, ran an unprofitable coal mine at Ny-Alesund for decades, until an explosion in 1962 killed 21 people and forced its closure. Attention then switched to science, and Norway, Britain and France have had bases here for years. Critics have argued such scientific efforts are an expensive and unproductive cover for strategic goals - an accusation that has also dogged research in Antarctica.
For the Antarctic, that changed in the 1980s when British scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer, sparking worldwide action and a rapid ban on the CFC chemicals responsible. Now, scientists working at Ny-Alesund believe their research has been vindicated too, by the emergence of another worldwide environmental crisis: climate change.
"The Arctic warms first and it warms the fastest," says Dr Holmen. "If we don't want to be surprised by what is going to happen then we need to study the Arctic."
The state of the region's ice is well known. The mighty Kongsvegen glacier - a few miles down the coast from Ny-Alesund and shrinking fast - was the scene of David Cameron's high profile sledge ride in 2006. Well documented too is the plight of the polar bear, a clear and present danger on Svalbard that forces scientists doing nothing more hazardous that counting birds nests to carry a 0.44 Magnum handgun.
But global warming can still spring a surprise or two: just ask Nia Whiteley and Sam Rastrick, two biologists from the University of Wales, Bangor, who arrived in Svalbard via Tromso, a town on the Norwegian mainland well inside the Arctic Circle. Looking for amphipods, shrimp like crustaceans along the Tromso shoreline, they were forced to negotiate day trippers enjoying unseasonably warm weather.
Dr Whiteley said: "We turned up in our Arctic survival gear and there were families having barbecues on the beach and people jumping into the sea in their shorts."
There are signs of change at Ny-Alesund as well. The neighbouring fjord that shimmers in the constant daylight has failed to freeze over during the previous two winters - although scientists think this is due to unusual wind conditions and an influx of warm water, rather than a direct result of rising temperatures.
Despite its pristine appearance, the Arctic atmosphere is filthy. Pollutants are swept to the top of the world by air currents, so air filters at Ny-Alesund reveal telltale streaks of soot, while levels of mercury and industrial chemicals such as flame retardants can be higher than in the countries further south that produce them. Scientists have long known these substances can work their way up the food chain to the top predators such as the polar bears. Now they have found evidence that these chemicals are having a damaging effect.
Geir Gabrielsen, a biologist with the Norwegian Polar Institute, said: "We've found that the gulls exposed to the most chemicals take much longer to find food. As scientists all we can do is observe and point out these changes. It is up to the politicians and the people to decide what to do about it."
Backstory
New catalysts may create more, cheaper hydrogen
A new class of catalysts created at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory may help scientists and engineers overcome some of the hurdles that have inhibited the production of hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)
46 cent per gallon Diesel - Revolutionary new fuel from Europe Not Biodiesel. No conversions. DieselSecret.com
Hydrogen Car - Be the first to see the new Renault Diesel engine range. www.renault.com.au
Fuel Cell Online Store - Complete range of fuel cells in our online catalogue www.bluecellstore.com
Argonne chemist Michael Krumpelt and his colleagues in Argonne's Chemical Engineering Division used "single-site" catalysts based on ceria or lanthanum chromite doped with either platinum or ruthenium to boost hydrogen production at lower temperatures during reforming. "We've made significant progress in bringing the rate of reaction to where applications require it to be," Krumpelt said. Most hydrogen produced industrially is created through steam reforming. In this process, a nickel-based catalyst is used to react natural gas with steam to produce pure hydrogen and carbon dioxide. These nickel catalysts typically consist of metal grains tens of thousands of atoms in diameter that speckle the surface of metal oxide substrates. Conversely, the new catalysts that Krumpelt developed consist of single atomic sites imbedded in an oxide matrix. The difference is akin to that between a yard strewn with several large snowballs and one covered by a dusting of flakes. Because some reforming processes tend to clog much of the larger catalysts with carbon or sulfur byproducts, smaller catalysts process the fuel much more efficiently and can produce more hydrogen at lower temperatures.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)
Hydrogen From Water Hydrogen generators to fuel cells Buy direct to save time and moneywww.HGenerators.com
Hydrogenics, Inc. Fuel Cells, Testing, Power Systems. World Leader Of Hydrogen Generationwww.Hydrogenics.com
Hydrogen Fuel Booster Experimenters Starter Kit FREE: Full Specifications.www.hohcells.com
Krumpelt's initial experiments with single-site catalysts used platinum in gadolinium-doped ceria that, though it started to reform hydrocarbons at temperatures as low as 450 degrees Celsius, became unstable at higher temperatures. As he searched for more robust materials that would support the oxidation-reduction reaction cycle at the heart of hydrocarbon reforming, Krumpelt found that if he used ruthenium – which costs only one percent as much as platinum – in a perovskite matrix, then he could initiate reforming at 450 degrees Celsius and still have good thermal stability. The use of the LaCrRuO3 perovskite offers an additional advantage over traditional catalysts. While sulfur species in the fuel degraded the traditional nickel, and to a lesser extent even the single-site platinum catalysts, the crystalline structure of the perovskite lattice acts as a stable shell that protects the ruthenium catalyst from deactivation by sulfur. Source: Argonne National Laboratory
A new class of catalysts created at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory may help scientists and engineers overcome some of the hurdles that have inhibited the production of hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)
46 cent per gallon Diesel - Revolutionary new fuel from Europe Not Biodiesel. No conversions. DieselSecret.com
Hydrogen Car - Be the first to see the new Renault Diesel engine range. www.renault.com.au
Fuel Cell Online Store - Complete range of fuel cells in our online catalogue www.bluecellstore.com
Argonne chemist Michael Krumpelt and his colleagues in Argonne's Chemical Engineering Division used "single-site" catalysts based on ceria or lanthanum chromite doped with either platinum or ruthenium to boost hydrogen production at lower temperatures during reforming. "We've made significant progress in bringing the rate of reaction to where applications require it to be," Krumpelt said. Most hydrogen produced industrially is created through steam reforming. In this process, a nickel-based catalyst is used to react natural gas with steam to produce pure hydrogen and carbon dioxide. These nickel catalysts typically consist of metal grains tens of thousands of atoms in diameter that speckle the surface of metal oxide substrates. Conversely, the new catalysts that Krumpelt developed consist of single atomic sites imbedded in an oxide matrix. The difference is akin to that between a yard strewn with several large snowballs and one covered by a dusting of flakes. Because some reforming processes tend to clog much of the larger catalysts with carbon or sulfur byproducts, smaller catalysts process the fuel much more efficiently and can produce more hydrogen at lower temperatures.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)
Hydrogen From Water Hydrogen generators to fuel cells Buy direct to save time and moneywww.HGenerators.com
Hydrogenics, Inc. Fuel Cells, Testing, Power Systems. World Leader Of Hydrogen Generationwww.Hydrogenics.com
Hydrogen Fuel Booster Experimenters Starter Kit FREE: Full Specifications.www.hohcells.com
Krumpelt's initial experiments with single-site catalysts used platinum in gadolinium-doped ceria that, though it started to reform hydrocarbons at temperatures as low as 450 degrees Celsius, became unstable at higher temperatures. As he searched for more robust materials that would support the oxidation-reduction reaction cycle at the heart of hydrocarbon reforming, Krumpelt found that if he used ruthenium – which costs only one percent as much as platinum – in a perovskite matrix, then he could initiate reforming at 450 degrees Celsius and still have good thermal stability. The use of the LaCrRuO3 perovskite offers an additional advantage over traditional catalysts. While sulfur species in the fuel degraded the traditional nickel, and to a lesser extent even the single-site platinum catalysts, the crystalline structure of the perovskite lattice acts as a stable shell that protects the ruthenium catalyst from deactivation by sulfur. Source: Argonne National Laboratory
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Global warming: No urgent danger; no quick fix
By PATRICK J. MICHAELSPublished on: 08/21/07
It's summer, it's hot and global warming is on the cover of Newsweek. Scare stories abound. We may only have 10 years to stop this! The future survival of our species is at stake!
OK, the media aren't exactly nonpartisan, especially on global warming. So what's the real story and what do we need to know?
(ENLARGE)
Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and is on leave as research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He is scheduled to testify at today's hearing in Atlanta.
Fact: The average surface temperature of the Earth is about 0.8 C warmer than it was in 1900, and human beings have something to do with it. But does that portend an unmitigated disaster? Can we do anything meaningful about it at this time? And if we can't, what should or can we do in the future?
These are politically loaded questions that must be answered truthfully, especially when considering legislation designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.
Unfortunately, they'll probably be ignored. Right now there are a slew of bills before Congress, and many in various states, that mandate massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Some actually propose cutting our CO2 output to 80 percent or 90 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
Let's be charitable and simply call that legislative arrogance. U.S. emissions are up about 18 percent from 1990 as they stand. Whenever you hear about these large cuts, ask the truth: How is this realistically going to happen?
I did that on an international television panel two weeks ago. My opponent, who advocated these cuts, dropped his jaw and said nothing, ultimately uttering a curse word for the entire world to hear. The fact of the matter is he had no answer because there isn't one.
Nor would legislation in any state or Washington, D.C., have any standing in Beijing. Although the final figures aren't in yet, it's beginning to look like China has just passed the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Like the United States, China has oodles of coal, and the Chinese are putting in at least one new coal-fired power plant a month. (Some reports have it at an astonishing one per week.) And just as it does in the United States, when coal burns in China, it turns largely to carbon dioxide and water.
What we do in the United States is having less and less of an effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere.
We certainly adapted to 0.8 C temperature change quite well in the 20th century, as life expectancy doubled and some crop yields quintupled. And who knows what new and miraculously efficient power sources will develop in the next hundred years.
The stories about the ocean rising 20 feet as massive amounts of ice slide off of Greenland by 2100 are also fiction. For the entire half century from 1915 through 1965, Greenland was significantly warmer than it has been for the last decade. There was no disaster. More important, there's a large body of evidence that for much of the period from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago, at least the Eurasian Arctic was 2.5 C to 7 C warmer than now in the summer, when ice melts. Greenland's ice didn't disappear then, either.
Then there is the topic of interest this time of year – hurricanes. Will hurricanes become stronger or more frequent because of warming? My own work suggests that late in the 21st century there might be an increase in strong storms, but that it will be very hard to detect because of year-to-year variability.
Right now, after accounting for increasing coastal population and property values, there is no increase in damages caused by these killers. The biggest of them all was the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. If it occurred today, it would easily cause twice as much damage as 2005's vaunted Hurricane Katrina.
So let's get real and give the politically incorrect answers to global warming's inconvenient questions. Global warming is real, but it does not portend immediate disaster, and there's currently no suite of technologies that can do much about it. The obvious solution is to forgo costs today on ineffective attempts to stop it, and to save our money for investment in future technologies and inevitable adaptation.
By PATRICK J. MICHAELSPublished on: 08/21/07
It's summer, it's hot and global warming is on the cover of Newsweek. Scare stories abound. We may only have 10 years to stop this! The future survival of our species is at stake!
OK, the media aren't exactly nonpartisan, especially on global warming. So what's the real story and what do we need to know?
(ENLARGE)
Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and is on leave as research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He is scheduled to testify at today's hearing in Atlanta.
Fact: The average surface temperature of the Earth is about 0.8 C warmer than it was in 1900, and human beings have something to do with it. But does that portend an unmitigated disaster? Can we do anything meaningful about it at this time? And if we can't, what should or can we do in the future?
These are politically loaded questions that must be answered truthfully, especially when considering legislation designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.
Unfortunately, they'll probably be ignored. Right now there are a slew of bills before Congress, and many in various states, that mandate massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Some actually propose cutting our CO2 output to 80 percent or 90 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
Let's be charitable and simply call that legislative arrogance. U.S. emissions are up about 18 percent from 1990 as they stand. Whenever you hear about these large cuts, ask the truth: How is this realistically going to happen?
I did that on an international television panel two weeks ago. My opponent, who advocated these cuts, dropped his jaw and said nothing, ultimately uttering a curse word for the entire world to hear. The fact of the matter is he had no answer because there isn't one.
Nor would legislation in any state or Washington, D.C., have any standing in Beijing. Although the final figures aren't in yet, it's beginning to look like China has just passed the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Like the United States, China has oodles of coal, and the Chinese are putting in at least one new coal-fired power plant a month. (Some reports have it at an astonishing one per week.) And just as it does in the United States, when coal burns in China, it turns largely to carbon dioxide and water.
What we do in the United States is having less and less of an effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere.
We certainly adapted to 0.8 C temperature change quite well in the 20th century, as life expectancy doubled and some crop yields quintupled. And who knows what new and miraculously efficient power sources will develop in the next hundred years.
The stories about the ocean rising 20 feet as massive amounts of ice slide off of Greenland by 2100 are also fiction. For the entire half century from 1915 through 1965, Greenland was significantly warmer than it has been for the last decade. There was no disaster. More important, there's a large body of evidence that for much of the period from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago, at least the Eurasian Arctic was 2.5 C to 7 C warmer than now in the summer, when ice melts. Greenland's ice didn't disappear then, either.
Then there is the topic of interest this time of year – hurricanes. Will hurricanes become stronger or more frequent because of warming? My own work suggests that late in the 21st century there might be an increase in strong storms, but that it will be very hard to detect because of year-to-year variability.
Right now, after accounting for increasing coastal population and property values, there is no increase in damages caused by these killers. The biggest of them all was the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. If it occurred today, it would easily cause twice as much damage as 2005's vaunted Hurricane Katrina.
So let's get real and give the politically incorrect answers to global warming's inconvenient questions. Global warming is real, but it does not portend immediate disaster, and there's currently no suite of technologies that can do much about it. The obvious solution is to forgo costs today on ineffective attempts to stop it, and to save our money for investment in future technologies and inevitable adaptation.
The jury is still out on global warming
Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe
Published: August 20, 2007
BOSTON: If there's anything climate-change crusaders are adamant about, it is that the science of the matter is settled. That greenhouse gases emitted through human activity are causing the planet to warm dangerously, they say, is an established fact; only a charlatan would claim otherwise.
In the words of Al Gore, America's leading global warming apostle: "There's no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. . . . There is no more scientific debate among serious people who've looked at the evidence."
But as with other claims Gore has made over the years ("I took the initiative in creating the Internet"), this one doesn't mesh with reality.
Scientists and other "serious people" who question the global warming disaster narrative are not hard to find. Last year 60 of them sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, urging him to undertake "a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science" and disputing the contention that "a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."
The letter cautioned that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models" and warned that since the study of climate change is relatively new, "it may be many years yet before we properly understand the earth's climate system."
Today in Opinion
The good war, still to be won
Musharraf's choices
How Asia weathers the global credit crisis
ord = Math.random() * 10000000000000000;
document.write('');
if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0){
document.write('');
}
Among those signing the letter to Harper were Fred Singer, the former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Ian Clark, hydrogeology and paleoclimatology specialist at the University of Ottawa; Hendrik Tennekes, the former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton; the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer, formerly senior scientist in climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, plus 55 other specialists in climate science and related disciplines.
The debate among scientists is over?
NASA administrator Michael Griffin told National Public Radio in May that while the general trend of global warming exists, that doesn't make it "a problem we must wrestle with." To insist that any change in climate must be bad news "is to assume that the . . . earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have." The planet's temperature has been fluctuating for millennia, he added. "I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change."
In 2003, environmental scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 530 of their peers in 27 countries on topics related to global warming. One question asked: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" On a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), the average score was 3.62, reflecting no clear consensus.
Asked whether abrupt climate changes will wreak devastation in some areas of the world, the percentage of scientists strongly agreeing (9.1) was nearly identical to the percentage strongly disagreeing (9.0). Another question asked: To what degree might global warming prove beneficial for some societies? A striking 34 percent of the scientists answered 1 or 2 (a great degree of benefit); just 8.3 percent answered 6 or 7 (very little/no benefit).
Plainly, the science isn't settled. It changes all the time.
Take the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike its previous report in 2001, which foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches.
Why the revision? "Mainly because of improved information," the IPCC notes in the fine print. It goes on to note that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: "Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood." The science is getting better, but it's far from settled.
Or take the discovery this month that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in the continental United States since record-keeping began. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies quietly changed its ranking after a Canadian statistician discovered an error in the official calculations. Under the new data, five of the 10 hottest U.S. years on record occurred before 1940; three were in the past decade.
Climate scientists are still trying to get the basics right. The latest issue of Science magazine notes that many researchers are only beginning to factor the planet's natural climate variations into their calculations. "Until now," reports Science, "climate forecasters who worry about what greenhouse gases could be doing to climate have ignored what's happening naturally. . . . In this issue, researchers take their first stab at forecasting climate a decade ahead with current conditions in mind."
Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe
Published: August 20, 2007
BOSTON: If there's anything climate-change crusaders are adamant about, it is that the science of the matter is settled. That greenhouse gases emitted through human activity are causing the planet to warm dangerously, they say, is an established fact; only a charlatan would claim otherwise.
In the words of Al Gore, America's leading global warming apostle: "There's no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. . . . There is no more scientific debate among serious people who've looked at the evidence."
But as with other claims Gore has made over the years ("I took the initiative in creating the Internet"), this one doesn't mesh with reality.
Scientists and other "serious people" who question the global warming disaster narrative are not hard to find. Last year 60 of them sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, urging him to undertake "a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science" and disputing the contention that "a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."
The letter cautioned that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models" and warned that since the study of climate change is relatively new, "it may be many years yet before we properly understand the earth's climate system."
Today in Opinion
The good war, still to be won
Musharraf's choices
How Asia weathers the global credit crisis
ord = Math.random() * 10000000000000000;
document.write('');
if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0){
document.write('');
}
Among those signing the letter to Harper were Fred Singer, the former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Ian Clark, hydrogeology and paleoclimatology specialist at the University of Ottawa; Hendrik Tennekes, the former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton; the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer, formerly senior scientist in climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, plus 55 other specialists in climate science and related disciplines.
The debate among scientists is over?
NASA administrator Michael Griffin told National Public Radio in May that while the general trend of global warming exists, that doesn't make it "a problem we must wrestle with." To insist that any change in climate must be bad news "is to assume that the . . . earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have." The planet's temperature has been fluctuating for millennia, he added. "I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change."
In 2003, environmental scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 530 of their peers in 27 countries on topics related to global warming. One question asked: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" On a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), the average score was 3.62, reflecting no clear consensus.
Asked whether abrupt climate changes will wreak devastation in some areas of the world, the percentage of scientists strongly agreeing (9.1) was nearly identical to the percentage strongly disagreeing (9.0). Another question asked: To what degree might global warming prove beneficial for some societies? A striking 34 percent of the scientists answered 1 or 2 (a great degree of benefit); just 8.3 percent answered 6 or 7 (very little/no benefit).
Plainly, the science isn't settled. It changes all the time.
Take the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike its previous report in 2001, which foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches.
Why the revision? "Mainly because of improved information," the IPCC notes in the fine print. It goes on to note that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: "Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood." The science is getting better, but it's far from settled.
Or take the discovery this month that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in the continental United States since record-keeping began. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies quietly changed its ranking after a Canadian statistician discovered an error in the official calculations. Under the new data, five of the 10 hottest U.S. years on record occurred before 1940; three were in the past decade.
Climate scientists are still trying to get the basics right. The latest issue of Science magazine notes that many researchers are only beginning to factor the planet's natural climate variations into their calculations. "Until now," reports Science, "climate forecasters who worry about what greenhouse gases could be doing to climate have ignored what's happening naturally. . . . In this issue, researchers take their first stab at forecasting climate a decade ahead with current conditions in mind."
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Obama says energy policy a moral issue
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 18, 5:38 PM ET
WAVERLY, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama said Saturday the country faces an "an urgent moral challenge" to reduce reliance on oil and needs a president willing to defy special interests in Washington that dictate energy policy.
| Obama, casting himself an agent of change in a crowded field of White House hopefuls, suggested that he is voters' best bet to shake up the status quo. "We've got to have a president in the White House who sets bold targets and sets broad goals and isn't intimidated by the barriers and the roadblocks and isn't driven by those who already have an investment in the status quo — somebody who can overcome the lobby-driven, divisive politics that characterizes this issue," Obama told about 300 people at Waverly Light and Power, the city utility. Words like "divisive" and "lobby-driven" are used by Obama supporters to describe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a former first lady who is billing herself on the 2008 campaign trail as the only candidate experienced enough to make a change in Washington. Obama did not mention Clinton or other rivals by name. But he did accuse the Bush administration of putting oil industry interests ahead of the public's. "We've got an energy policy that doesn't just seem like it's written by industry lobbyists," he said. "It was written by energy lobbyists." Vice President Dick Cheney led the administration's energy task force, which Obama said met once with environmentalists, once with renewable energy experts and 40 times with oil industry leaders. Environmentalists have their own special interest groups and lobbyists, but Obama did not decry them. Obama, Clinton and fellow Democratic candidate John Edwards have been arguing over their ties to lobbyists and special interests. Obama's visit to this riverside town of nearly 9,000 was one stop in a weekend of activity for Democratic candidates gearing up for a Sunday morning debate in Des Moines. In the eastern part of the state, Clinton and Edwards were joined by candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd at an event at a minor league baseball field where they ate boiled sweet corn and made their pitches to more than 1,000 people. "We need to make it absolutely clear that the Democratic party is the party of the people, not the party of Washington insiders," Edwards told the crowd that gathered in rain and unseasonably cool temperatures at Alliant Energy Field in Clinton. "We're going to have to reform Washington, and I know that's got to be a high priority," Clinton said. Biden also spoke about the middle class, and said the money spent on the war in Iraq is "bleeding us, our treasure and the blood of our children." Dodd, a longtime senator from Connecticut, touted his experience and said he's got the skills to lead the country. Most of the candidates were expected at a labor forum Saturday night in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Obama plans to attend fewer such multicandidate events in the future, his campaign manager wrote on Obama's 2008 Web site. "We simply cannot continue to hopscotch from forum to forum and run a campaign true to the bottom up movement for change that propelled Barack into this race," David Plouffe wrote. He added, "I think this approach will be better for the voters and the campaign." He said Obama was committed to five remaining debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, two Iowa debates in December and one in Florida on Sept. 9. Many of Obama's rivals also have complained about the overwhelming number of multicandidate gatherings and could follow suit. In Waverly, Obama outlined his plans to require the use of more renewable energy, lower carbon in fuels and increase fuel efficiency of cars. Obama noted that his call to increase the number of miles an automobile can go on a gallon of gas upset politically important special interests in Detroit. But he said smart energy policies are needed to reduce global warming, lower gas prices and make the country less reliant on foreign oil. "It's an urgent moral challenge that demands attention now," he said. "We can free ourselves from the tyranny of oil." ___ Associat |
| Diesel Exhaust Plus Cholesterol Equals Cardiovascular Problems | |
| 16 August 2007 |
Listen to Hoban report — Download 559k (mp3)
| Long exposure to air pollution from cars and trucks can cause a build up of cholesterol in blood vessels |
Now, new research from the University of California at Los Angeles sheds light on the connections between the particulate components of air pollution and the processes that cause atherosclerosis. Professor Andre Nel led the research. Nel explains that atherosclerosis is a process by which blood lipids clog arteries. "[The lipids] form lesions in the linings of blood vessels that come from the aorta and feed the coronary arteries and other important organs such as the brain."
 |
| Several factors are responsible for causing cardiovascular problems |
"Another interesting group of genes that came to the foreground were genes that protect us against the oxidant chemicals that are present on the particles," the researcher says. "These antioxidant genes may in fact play a role in protecting a lot of us against the bad effects of air pollution."
The next part of the study was to expose animals to air pollution near a Los Angeles freeway. Researchers took mice and placed them in a portable lab parked next to busy roadways. "We kept these animals there for eight weeks," Nel says.
They then studied tissue samples and saw "the same genetic imprint that we saw from the blood vessel lining cells, where the diesel exhaust chemicals interacted with cholesterol to cause an enhanced expression of genes that can play a role in atherosclerosis."
Nel says,indeed, the mice genes did work overtime, causing lipid buildup in the mice's blood vessels. Nel says this work confirms a link between pollution exposure and the processes that cause lipid and cholesterol build up in blood vessels. His research is published in the online journal Genome Biology.
- 19:10 16 August 2007
- NewScientist.com news service
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France (see Complete carbon footprint of biofuel - or is it?).
What is more, environmentalists have expressed concerns that the growing political backing that biofuel is enjoying will mean forests will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and sugarcane. "When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and 200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare]," says Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve rainforests.
Century-long wait
Righelato and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, UK, calculated how long it would take to compensate for those initial emissions by burning biofuel instead of gasoline. The answer is between 50 and 100 years. "We cannot afford that, in terms of climate change," says Righelato.
The researchers also compared how much carbon would be stored by replanting forests with how much is saved by burning biofuel grown on the land instead of gasoline.
They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline (see bar chart, right). "You get far more carbon sequestered by planting forests than you avoid emissions by producing biofuels on the same land," says Righelato.
He and Spracklen conclude that if the point of biofuels policies is to limit global warming, "policy makers may be better advised in the short term to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use, to conserve existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for food."
They do admit, however, that biofuels made from woody materials such as prairie grasses may have an advantage over reforestation – although it is difficult to say for now as such fuels are still in development (see Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel).
Forests at high latitudes have been found to sequester less carbon than tropical forests (see Some forests may speed global warming). But Righelato says this does not affect his calculations as biofuel crops are not, by and large, grown in these areas.
Journal reference: Science (DOI:10.1126/science.1141361)
Climate Change - Want to know more about global warming – the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.
Energy and Fuels - Learn mo- Catherine Brahic
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Keeping the Earth's plates oiled from PhysOrg.com
Earth’s surface is a very active place; its plates are forever jiggling around, rearranging themselves into new configurations. Continents collide and mountains arise, oceans slide beneath continents and volcanoes spew. As far as we know Earth’s restless surface is unique to the planets in our solar system. So what is it that keeps Earth’s plates oiled and on the move?
[...]
Friday, August 10, 2007
Uranium merger to create big explorer
CAMERON ENGLAND
August 07, 2007 02:15am
TORO Energy would become a $400 million uranium company under a merger proposal which was announced yesterday.
As flagged in The Advertiser on Saturday, Adelaide-based Toro plans to merge with West Australian company Nova Energy.
Toro will offer 5.5 of its shares for every Nova share, in a deal which would create one of Australia's largest uranium explorers.
Oxiana is a major shareholder in both and would control 46 per cent of the merged entity. Adelaide's Minotaur Exploration would control 7.3 per cent, Argonaut 4 per cent and Allarrow 3.5 per cent.
Each of these companies have agreed to the merger.
The new Toro would own or control advanced resources and greenfields uranium exploration projects in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory and as well as the African states of Namibia, Guinea and Morocco.
Toro chief executive Greg Hall would stay on in his current role,
"This is a paradigm shift for both companies," Mr Hall said yesterday.
The companies said the offer represented a 19 per cent premium to Nova's last trading price of $3.70 per share, valuing the merger target at $276 million or $4.40 per share.
CAMERON ENGLAND
August 07, 2007 02:15am
TORO Energy would become a $400 million uranium company under a merger proposal which was announced yesterday.
As flagged in The Advertiser on Saturday, Adelaide-based Toro plans to merge with West Australian company Nova Energy.
Toro will offer 5.5 of its shares for every Nova share, in a deal which would create one of Australia's largest uranium explorers.
Oxiana is a major shareholder in both and would control 46 per cent of the merged entity. Adelaide's Minotaur Exploration would control 7.3 per cent, Argonaut 4 per cent and Allarrow 3.5 per cent.
Each of these companies have agreed to the merger.
The new Toro would own or control advanced resources and greenfields uranium exploration projects in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory and as well as the African states of Namibia, Guinea and Morocco.
Toro chief executive Greg Hall would stay on in his current role,
"This is a paradigm shift for both companies," Mr Hall said yesterday.
The companies said the offer represented a 19 per cent premium to Nova's last trading price of $3.70 per share, valuing the merger target at $276 million or $4.40 per share.
Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009
Posted 10 hours 15 minutes ago Updated 3 hours 29 minutes ago
Pollution ... Cars are shrouded in smog as they drive through the Beijing CBD. (Reuters: Jason Lee)
Audio: New climate model suggests early start for global warming (AM)
A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.
Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the 10 years after 2005.
To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office, which deals with meteorology, have made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content.
Study author Douglas Smith says a forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming.
In research published in the journal Science, Dr Smith and his colleagues predict that the next three or four years will show little warming, but there will be overall warming over the decade.
"There is ... particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy and business development," the authors noted.
They say the real heat will start after 2009.
Until then, natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
Models based on history
To check their models, the scientists used a series of "hindcasts" - forecasts that look back in time - going back to 1982, and compared what their models predicted with what actually occurred.
The researchers found that factoring in the natural variability of ocean currents and temperature fluctuations yields an accurate picture.
This differs from other models, which mainly consider human-caused climate change.
"Over the 100-year timescale, the main change is going to come from greenhouse gases that will dominate natural variability, but in the coming 10 years the natural internal variability is comparable," Dr Smith said.
Soot study
In another climate change article in the online journal Science Express, United States researchers have reported that soot from industry and forest fires have a dramatic impact on the Arctic climate, starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Industrial pollution brought a seven-fold increase in soot - also known as black carbon - in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists at the Desert Research Institute found.
Soot, mostly from burning coal, reduces the reflectivity of snow and ice, letting Earth's surface absorb more solar energy and possibly resulting in earlier snow melts and exposure of much darker underlying soil, rock and sea ice.
This in turn led to warming across much of the Arctic region.
At its height from 1906 to 1910, estimated warming from soot on Arctic snow was eight times that of the pre-industrial era, the researchers said.
- Reuters
Tags: environment, climate-change, science-and-technology, research, united-kingdom, united-states
Posted 10 hours 15 minutes ago Updated 3 hours 29 minutes ago
Pollution ... Cars are shrouded in smog as they drive through the Beijing CBD. (Reuters: Jason Lee)
Audio: New climate model suggests early start for global warming (AM)
A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.
Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the 10 years after 2005.
To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office, which deals with meteorology, have made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content.
Study author Douglas Smith says a forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming.
In research published in the journal Science, Dr Smith and his colleagues predict that the next three or four years will show little warming, but there will be overall warming over the decade.
"There is ... particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy and business development," the authors noted.
They say the real heat will start after 2009.
Until then, natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
Models based on history
To check their models, the scientists used a series of "hindcasts" - forecasts that look back in time - going back to 1982, and compared what their models predicted with what actually occurred.
The researchers found that factoring in the natural variability of ocean currents and temperature fluctuations yields an accurate picture.
This differs from other models, which mainly consider human-caused climate change.
"Over the 100-year timescale, the main change is going to come from greenhouse gases that will dominate natural variability, but in the coming 10 years the natural internal variability is comparable," Dr Smith said.
Soot study
In another climate change article in the online journal Science Express, United States researchers have reported that soot from industry and forest fires have a dramatic impact on the Arctic climate, starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Industrial pollution brought a seven-fold increase in soot - also known as black carbon - in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists at the Desert Research Institute found.
Soot, mostly from burning coal, reduces the reflectivity of snow and ice, letting Earth's surface absorb more solar energy and possibly resulting in earlier snow melts and exposure of much darker underlying soil, rock and sea ice.
This in turn led to warming across much of the Arctic region.
At its height from 1906 to 1910, estimated warming from soot on Arctic snow was eight times that of the pre-industrial era, the researchers said.
- Reuters
Tags: environment, climate-change, science-and-technology, research, united-kingdom, united-states
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Chavez offers LatAm energy pact
Mr Chavez used a speech in Argentina to attack the USVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez has pledged to guarantee the energy needs of his allies in Latin America. Speaking in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, he announced the signing of what he called an "energy security treaty" with Argentina. Mr Chavez said he intended to sign similar treaties with Uruguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia. Venezuela regularly uses its large oil and gas reserves as a tool to help broker deals with other countries. The deal with Buenos Aires came at a good time for Argentina - which is currently suffering a severe winter and fuel shortages. 'Dracula' jibe Mr Chavez used a speech at the end of his trip to Argentina to launch a verbal attack on Washington. "The United States has 5% of the world's population, but it consumes more than 20% of the energy used in the planet," he said. He described the US as having an "insatiable voracity", before comparing the country to Count Dracula - sucking more than its fair share of fuel from the world's reserves. "The US has a very serious problem. Its oil reserves won't last for many more years. It has used up its own reserves, and it has used up the reserves of half the world." Mr Chavez said the country's insatiable appetite for oil had led it many times to impose its will on Latin America at the point of a gun.
Mr Chavez used a speech in Argentina to attack the USVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez has pledged to guarantee the energy needs of his allies in Latin America. Speaking in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, he announced the signing of what he called an "energy security treaty" with Argentina. Mr Chavez said he intended to sign similar treaties with Uruguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia. Venezuela regularly uses its large oil and gas reserves as a tool to help broker deals with other countries. The deal with Buenos Aires came at a good time for Argentina - which is currently suffering a severe winter and fuel shortages. 'Dracula' jibe Mr Chavez used a speech at the end of his trip to Argentina to launch a verbal attack on Washington. "The United States has 5% of the world's population, but it consumes more than 20% of the energy used in the planet," he said. He described the US as having an "insatiable voracity", before comparing the country to Count Dracula - sucking more than its fair share of fuel from the world's reserves. "The US has a very serious problem. Its oil reserves won't last for many more years. It has used up its own reserves, and it has used up the reserves of half the world." Mr Chavez said the country's insatiable appetite for oil had led it many times to impose its will on Latin America at the point of a gun.
Chavez offers LatAm energy pact
Mr Chavez used a speech in Argentina to attack the USVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez has pledged to guarantee the energy needs of his allies in Latin America.
Speaking in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, he announced the signing of what he called an "energy security treaty" with Argentina.
Mr Chavez said he intended to sign similar treaties with Uruguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Venezuela regularly uses its large oil and gas reserves as a tool to help broker deals with other countries.
The deal with Buenos Aires came at a good time for Argentina - which is currently suffering a severe winter and fuel shortages.
'Dracula' jibe
Mr Chavez used a speech at the end of his trip to Argentina to launch a verbal attack on Washington.
"The United States has 5% of the world's population, but it consumes more than 20% of the energy used in the planet," he said.
He described the US as having an "insatiable voracity", before comparing the country to Count Dracula - sucking more than its fair share of fuel from the world's reserves.
"The US has a very serious problem. Its oil reserves won't last for many more years. It has used up its own reserves, and it has used up the reserves of half the world."
Mr Chavez said the country's insatiable appetite for oil had led it many times to impose its will on Latin America at the point of a gun.
E-mail this to a friend
Mr Chavez used a speech in Argentina to attack the USVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez has pledged to guarantee the energy needs of his allies in Latin America.
Speaking in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, he announced the signing of what he called an "energy security treaty" with Argentina.
Mr Chavez said he intended to sign similar treaties with Uruguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Venezuela regularly uses its large oil and gas reserves as a tool to help broker deals with other countries.
The deal with Buenos Aires came at a good time for Argentina - which is currently suffering a severe winter and fuel shortages.
'Dracula' jibe
Mr Chavez used a speech at the end of his trip to Argentina to launch a verbal attack on Washington.
"The United States has 5% of the world's population, but it consumes more than 20% of the energy used in the planet," he said.
He described the US as having an "insatiable voracity", before comparing the country to Count Dracula - sucking more than its fair share of fuel from the world's reserves.
"The US has a very serious problem. Its oil reserves won't last for many more years. It has used up its own reserves, and it has used up the reserves of half the world."
Mr Chavez said the country's insatiable appetite for oil had led it many times to impose its will on Latin America at the point of a gun.
E-mail this to a friend
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Energy search goes underground
By ELIANE ENGELER and ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writers Sat Aug 4, 12:30 PM ET
BASEL, Switzerland - When tremors started cracking walls and bathroom tiles in this Swiss city on the Rhine, the engineers knew they had a problem.
"The glass vases on the shelf rattled, and there was a loud bang," Catherine Wueest, a teashop owner, recalls. "I thought a truck had crashed into the building."
But the 3.4 magnitude tremor on the evening of Dec. 8 was no ordinary act of nature: It had been accidentally triggered by engineers drilling deep into the Earth's crust to tap its inner heat and thus break new ground — literally — in the world's search for new sources of energy.
Basel was wrecked by an earthquake in 1365, and no tremor, man-made or other, is to be taken lightly. After more, slightly smaller tremors followed, Basel authorities told Geopower Basel to put its project on hold.
But the power company hasn't given up. It's in a race with a firm in Australia to be the first to generate power commercially by boiling water on the rocks three miles underground.
On paper, the Basel project looks fairly straightforward: Drill down, shoot cold water into the shaft and bring it up again superheated and capable of generating enough power through a steam turbine to meet the electricity needs of 10,000 households, and heat 2,700 homes.
Scientists say this geothermal energy, clean, quiet and virtually inexhaustible, could fill the world's annual needs 250,000 times over with nearly zero impact on the climate or the environment.
A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over. It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.
"The resource base for geothermal is enormous," Professor Jefferson Tester, the study's lead author, told The Associated Press.
But there are drawbacks — not just earthquakes but cost. A so-called hot rock well three miles deep in the United States would cost $7 million to $8 million, according to the MIT study. The average cost of drilling an oil well in the U.S. in 2004 was $1.44 million, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Also, rocks tapped by drilling would lose their heat after a few decades and new wells would have to be drilled elsewhere.
Bryan Mignone, an energy and climate-change specialist with the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., said alternative sources of energy face stiff price competition.
"Currently in the U.S. new technologies in the power sector are competing against coal, which is very cheap," he said.
Humans have used heat from the earth for thousands of years. The ancient Romans drew on hot springs for bathing and heating their homes. Geothermal energy is in use in 24 countries, including the U.S.
But those sources — geysers and hot springs — are close to the surface. Hot dry rock technology, also called "enhanced geothermal systems" or EGS, drills down to where the layers of granite are close to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. The equipment is similar to that used for oil, but needs to go much deeper, and be wider to accommodate the water cycle.
Hot dry rock technology is meant to stay well away from the 99 percent of the Earth's interior that is over 1,000 degrees.
Aeneas Wanner, a Swiss expert, says that if you imagine Earth as an egg, "a bore hole would only scratch the shell of the egg a little bit."
The United States led the way in demonstrating the concept with the Los Alamos geothermal project at Fenton Hill, N.M. The project begun in the 1970s demonstrated that drilling 15,000 feet deep was possible and that energy could then be extracted.
But the project came to a halt in 2000 when it ran out of funds. Meanwhile, the MIT report said, problems encountered in testing have been solved or can be managed — such as controlling how the water flows underground or limiting earthquakes and chemical interactions between water and rock.
Backers in the United States hope government funding will increase as oil and gas prices rise. But Steve Chalk, deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy, said the Department of Energy won't spend more money beyond the $2 million it has already allocated to hot rock technology.
However, he said the MIT study, which was funded by the Department of Energy, serves as a basis for studying the idea further.
Major energy companies, including Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and American Electric Power, told the AP they are following the research but not investing in it.
"This is an interesting technology for Chevron and we are currently evaluating its potential," said spokesman Alexander Yelland.
In Basel, the first shaft was bored last year by a 190-foot-tall drilling rig towering above nearby apartment buildings. Water was pumped down the injection well in the test phase in December, and as expected, it heated to above 390 F as it seeped through the layers of rock below.
But that's where the water remains for the time being; it caused the rock layers to slip, causing the tremors and rumbles that spooked the townspeople.
Geopower Basel, had forecast some rock slippage. In fact, it said the location on top of a fault line — the upper Rhine trench — was an advantage because it meant the heat was closer to the Earth's surface.
But with $51 million already spent, drilling stopped and the official launch date was moved back from 2009 to 2012.
Still to be drilled are the two wells that would suck the pressurized, superheated water out of the cracks and up to the surface to create steam for driving a turbine and generating electricity. The water, having cooled to around 340 degrees, would heat hospitals, public buildings and homes before being pumped back into the ground for another waste-free, gas-free cycle.
The rival project near the southern Australian town of Innamincka faces more benign geological conditions and less population. Its target date for operations is now two years ahead of Basel's, aiming to produce 40 megawatts of electricity by the end of 2010, enough to supply over 30,000 households.
Experts say hot rock geothermal energy can operate 24 hours a day and doesn't depend on sun or wind. But it's decades away from serious rivalry with existing energy sources.
Susan Petty, one of the 18 co-authors of the MIT study, works for Black Mountain Technology, a company promoting hot rock energy. She predicts that 10 percent of the world's power could come from geothermal sources in the next 50 years, from the current 0.3 percent, rising to half in around 100 years.
Promoters of the technology say that while geothermal drilling is costly, it's cheaper to run once it's in place. The MIT study said it could provide electricity at competitive prices. Price comparisons indicate it could be cheaper than other forms of renewable energy, including biomass and solar power. "The outlook is very good that we can do it," said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Geothermal Energy Association.
But others are waiting for proof that it's worth the expenditure.
"This technology sounds very promising," said Nick Nuttall, chief-spokesman of the U.N. Environment Program, "but let's wait and see."
___
By ELIANE ENGELER and ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writers Sat Aug 4, 12:30 PM ET
BASEL, Switzerland - When tremors started cracking walls and bathroom tiles in this Swiss city on the Rhine, the engineers knew they had a problem.
"The glass vases on the shelf rattled, and there was a loud bang," Catherine Wueest, a teashop owner, recalls. "I thought a truck had crashed into the building."
But the 3.4 magnitude tremor on the evening of Dec. 8 was no ordinary act of nature: It had been accidentally triggered by engineers drilling deep into the Earth's crust to tap its inner heat and thus break new ground — literally — in the world's search for new sources of energy.
Basel was wrecked by an earthquake in 1365, and no tremor, man-made or other, is to be taken lightly. After more, slightly smaller tremors followed, Basel authorities told Geopower Basel to put its project on hold.
But the power company hasn't given up. It's in a race with a firm in Australia to be the first to generate power commercially by boiling water on the rocks three miles underground.
On paper, the Basel project looks fairly straightforward: Drill down, shoot cold water into the shaft and bring it up again superheated and capable of generating enough power through a steam turbine to meet the electricity needs of 10,000 households, and heat 2,700 homes.
Scientists say this geothermal energy, clean, quiet and virtually inexhaustible, could fill the world's annual needs 250,000 times over with nearly zero impact on the climate or the environment.
A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over. It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.
"The resource base for geothermal is enormous," Professor Jefferson Tester, the study's lead author, told The Associated Press.
But there are drawbacks — not just earthquakes but cost. A so-called hot rock well three miles deep in the United States would cost $7 million to $8 million, according to the MIT study. The average cost of drilling an oil well in the U.S. in 2004 was $1.44 million, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Also, rocks tapped by drilling would lose their heat after a few decades and new wells would have to be drilled elsewhere.
Bryan Mignone, an energy and climate-change specialist with the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., said alternative sources of energy face stiff price competition.
"Currently in the U.S. new technologies in the power sector are competing against coal, which is very cheap," he said.
Humans have used heat from the earth for thousands of years. The ancient Romans drew on hot springs for bathing and heating their homes. Geothermal energy is in use in 24 countries, including the U.S.
But those sources — geysers and hot springs — are close to the surface. Hot dry rock technology, also called "enhanced geothermal systems" or EGS, drills down to where the layers of granite are close to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. The equipment is similar to that used for oil, but needs to go much deeper, and be wider to accommodate the water cycle.
Hot dry rock technology is meant to stay well away from the 99 percent of the Earth's interior that is over 1,000 degrees.
Aeneas Wanner, a Swiss expert, says that if you imagine Earth as an egg, "a bore hole would only scratch the shell of the egg a little bit."
The United States led the way in demonstrating the concept with the Los Alamos geothermal project at Fenton Hill, N.M. The project begun in the 1970s demonstrated that drilling 15,000 feet deep was possible and that energy could then be extracted.
But the project came to a halt in 2000 when it ran out of funds. Meanwhile, the MIT report said, problems encountered in testing have been solved or can be managed — such as controlling how the water flows underground or limiting earthquakes and chemical interactions between water and rock.
Backers in the United States hope government funding will increase as oil and gas prices rise. But Steve Chalk, deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy, said the Department of Energy won't spend more money beyond the $2 million it has already allocated to hot rock technology.
However, he said the MIT study, which was funded by the Department of Energy, serves as a basis for studying the idea further.
Major energy companies, including Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and American Electric Power, told the AP they are following the research but not investing in it.
"This is an interesting technology for Chevron and we are currently evaluating its potential," said spokesman Alexander Yelland.
In Basel, the first shaft was bored last year by a 190-foot-tall drilling rig towering above nearby apartment buildings. Water was pumped down the injection well in the test phase in December, and as expected, it heated to above 390 F as it seeped through the layers of rock below.
But that's where the water remains for the time being; it caused the rock layers to slip, causing the tremors and rumbles that spooked the townspeople.
Geopower Basel, had forecast some rock slippage. In fact, it said the location on top of a fault line — the upper Rhine trench — was an advantage because it meant the heat was closer to the Earth's surface.
But with $51 million already spent, drilling stopped and the official launch date was moved back from 2009 to 2012.
Still to be drilled are the two wells that would suck the pressurized, superheated water out of the cracks and up to the surface to create steam for driving a turbine and generating electricity. The water, having cooled to around 340 degrees, would heat hospitals, public buildings and homes before being pumped back into the ground for another waste-free, gas-free cycle.
The rival project near the southern Australian town of Innamincka faces more benign geological conditions and less population. Its target date for operations is now two years ahead of Basel's, aiming to produce 40 megawatts of electricity by the end of 2010, enough to supply over 30,000 households.
Experts say hot rock geothermal energy can operate 24 hours a day and doesn't depend on sun or wind. But it's decades away from serious rivalry with existing energy sources.
Susan Petty, one of the 18 co-authors of the MIT study, works for Black Mountain Technology, a company promoting hot rock energy. She predicts that 10 percent of the world's power could come from geothermal sources in the next 50 years, from the current 0.3 percent, rising to half in around 100 years.
Promoters of the technology say that while geothermal drilling is costly, it's cheaper to run once it's in place. The MIT study said it could provide electricity at competitive prices. Price comparisons indicate it could be cheaper than other forms of renewable energy, including biomass and solar power. "The outlook is very good that we can do it," said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Geothermal Energy Association.
But others are waiting for proof that it's worth the expenditure.
"This technology sounds very promising," said Nick Nuttall, chief-spokesman of the U.N. Environment Program, "but let's wait and see."
___
House OKs new taxes on oil companies
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 5, 9:02 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.
Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."
The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.
"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The two bills, passed at an unusual Saturday session as lawmakers prepared to leave town for their monthlong summer recess, will be merged with legislation passed by the Senate in June.
On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.
The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.
"This will save consumers money," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas. He noted that nearly half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.
The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent.
"It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.
Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring — at least for the time being — calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.
That issue, as well as whether to require huge increases in the use of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, were left to be thrashed out when the House bill is merged with energy legislation the Senate passed in June.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he was confident the final bill that will go to President Bush will contain a significant increase in automobile fuel economy requirements.
"This is a historic turn away from a fossil fuel agenda toward renewable energy. It's been a long time in coming," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., in an interview. Markey abandoned efforts to get an auto mileage provision into the bill, but also expressed confidence one will be added during negotiations with the Senate. The Senate in passing energy legislation in June called for a 40 percent increase auto mileage to 35 mpg by 2020.
Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.
"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said the bill was "a political exercise" to promote "pet projects, ... pet ideas." He predicted it "isn't going anywhere" because President Bush will veto it if it gets to his desk.
The White House indicated President Bush might veto the bill if he gets it saying it makes "no serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs" and would harm domestic oil and gas production.
The bill would repeal for oil companies a tax breaks given in 2004 to help domestic manufacturers compete against foreign companies, and another tax break pertaining to income from foreign oil production. Critics of the two tax provisions called them loopholes that the industry had taken advantage of.
The House-passed bill also includes an array of loan guarantees, federal grants and tax breaks for alternative energy programs. They include building biomass factories, research into making ethanol from wood chips and prairie grasses and producing better batteries for hybrid gas-electric automobiles.
The legislation would end a tax break for buying large SUVs, known as the "Hummer tax loophole" because it allows people who buy some of the most expensive SUVs to write off much of the cost.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 5, 9:02 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.
Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."
The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.
"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The two bills, passed at an unusual Saturday session as lawmakers prepared to leave town for their monthlong summer recess, will be merged with legislation passed by the Senate in June.
On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.
The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.
"This will save consumers money," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas. He noted that nearly half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.
The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent.
"It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.
Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring — at least for the time being — calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.
That issue, as well as whether to require huge increases in the use of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, were left to be thrashed out when the House bill is merged with energy legislation the Senate passed in June.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he was confident the final bill that will go to President Bush will contain a significant increase in automobile fuel economy requirements.
"This is a historic turn away from a fossil fuel agenda toward renewable energy. It's been a long time in coming," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., in an interview. Markey abandoned efforts to get an auto mileage provision into the bill, but also expressed confidence one will be added during negotiations with the Senate. The Senate in passing energy legislation in June called for a 40 percent increase auto mileage to 35 mpg by 2020.
Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.
"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said the bill was "a political exercise" to promote "pet projects, ... pet ideas." He predicted it "isn't going anywhere" because President Bush will veto it if it gets to his desk.
The White House indicated President Bush might veto the bill if he gets it saying it makes "no serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs" and would harm domestic oil and gas production.
The bill would repeal for oil companies a tax breaks given in 2004 to help domestic manufacturers compete against foreign companies, and another tax break pertaining to income from foreign oil production. Critics of the two tax provisions called them loopholes that the industry had taken advantage of.
The House-passed bill also includes an array of loan guarantees, federal grants and tax breaks for alternative energy programs. They include building biomass factories, research into making ethanol from wood chips and prairie grasses and producing better batteries for hybrid gas-electric automobiles.
The legislation would end a tax break for buying large SUVs, known as the "Hummer tax loophole" because it allows people who buy some of the most expensive SUVs to write off much of the cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
