Marine life to thrive at Europe's first artificial surf reef

Hannah Strange, Times Online 17 Jul 08;

Marine life off the South Coast is set to be enriched by Europe's first artificial surf reef, construction of which began today.

The Bournemouth reef, one of only four in the world, has been eagerly anticipated by the hordes of surfers who descend on the stretch of sandy coastline at the merest hint of a swell. But it will also be a boon for fish populations, which ecologists say will find a perfect home among the molluscs and corals that are expected to colonise the two and a half acre construction.

Dr Kerry Black, the designer of the reef at Boscombe beach, says the coastline will also benefit, as the reef will suck power out of waves before they hit the beach. Coastal erosion is a significant problem in the area.

Meanwhile the congregation of diverse marine species is expected to turn the reef into one of the South Coast's diving hotspots.

Though construction of the £2.68 million structure hit delays over the concerns of local fishermen, marine ecologists from Bournemouth University, who have been working on the project, say fears of an adverse impact on fish stocks are unfounded.

“We anticipate positive things for the fish populations,” Dr Rodolphe Gozlan, reader in conservation ecology at the university, said.

“Because the area is mainly sandy, the reef will allow colonisation from shellfish and corals that would otherwise not be there. That will in turn attract fish,” he explained.

While artificial reefs had been shown to either concentrate or enhance marine populations depending on their location, in Bournemouth, it is expected to enhance marine life as there was no equivalent habitat nearby, Dr Gozlan added.

Some environmentalists cautioned that certain species must be carefully protected during the build, which is expected to take around three months.

"There are a range of inshore marine species which could be affected," Thomas Bell, coastal pollution officer at the Marine Conservation Society, said. "These are species which are notably in need of protection measures and include the zostera sea grass beds, brittle stars, the horse mussel Modiolus and the pink seafan."

Developers insist that the method of construction, which avoids dredging, is environmentally sensitive.


Read more!

Sir David Attenborough warns butterflies could die out

Aislinn Simpson, The Telegraph 17 Jul 08;

Sir David Attenborough warned that butterflies could die out unless something is done to help them as he launched a rescue plan to boost their numbers.

The BBC natural history presenter cautioned Britain could be entering a "post-butterfly era" because natural habits have been ploughed up or become overgrown.

He has set out plans to establish 20 locations in areas including Dartmoor in Devon, the Argyll Islands and the New Forest in Hampshire, where farmers and landowners will be urged to restore habitats and encourage butterflies to return.

The Butterfly Conservation scheme has already brought results in Dartmoor, where the rare Marsh Fritillary is staging a comeback. Sir David said: "Almost unbelievably, much of Britain's countryside is a no-go area for many favourite butterflies.

"Anybody who's been for a country walk recently will tell you butterflies are a rarity. Scientists fear that in some areas we're entering a post-butterfly era."

Butterfly numbers have been in decline ever since the onset of intensive farming practices using pesticides and fertilisers in the 1950s. Among species under threat is the Adonis Blue, which makes its home around areas of short-grazed grass in the Dorset Downs, and the Silver Spotted Skipper, which prefers the chalk downs of the Chilterns.

Sir David launched his Butterfly Survival Zones today at the Natural History Museum in London, which is hosting the Amazing Butterflies exhibition. The charity Butterfly Conservation, which this year celebrates its 40th birthday, is behind the scheme.

Its chief executive Dr Martin Warren said that butterflies are not just pretty additions to the natural environment but "nature's messengers".

"Because butterflies are small, they react quicker than most other species and so act as a kind of warning system about damaging changes to the countryside and the climate," he said.

Despite the additional pressures of fuel and food prices on farmers at present, he insisted that all of those in the pilot scheme on Dartmoor had responded well when approached by the charity. Butterfly Conservation helps farmers apply for EU grants promoting eco-farming, so providing a good habit for butterflies can work in their favour, he said.

"The 20 areas we have picked are absolutely crucial to the survival of some of our rarest butterflies," he said. "We are confident we can restore butterfly numbers, provided we do the right thing in these areas."


Read more!

Biofuels producers hit back at Opec over oil price

Terry Macalister, The Guardian 17 Jul 08;

The global biofuels sector has launched a ferocious attack on the Opec oil cartel by accusing it of deliberately "misleading" the public about who is responsible for soaring fuel prices.

An open letter to Chakib Khelil, president of Opec, from the main biofuel organisations in Europe, North America and Brazil accuses him of providing self-serving explanations by claiming that 40% of the $140-a-barrel crude price results from the intrusion of bioethanol into the market.

"Since you, as head of Opec, provide no explanation for what in our view constitutes a self-serving and misleading statement that goes counter to any independent analysis of the fuels market today, one can only conclude that Opec views competition with biofuels as a direct threat," says the letter signed by the European Bioethanol Fuel Association, the Renewable Fuels Association in the US, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and the Brazilian sugar-cane producers of Unica.

The organisations point instead to a recent piece of research from the investment bank Merrill Lynch suggesting that biofuels push crude prices 15% lower than they otherwise would be. They note that petrol prices in Brazil have not risen in two years because of competition from sugar cane-derived ethanol.

Last month Opec warned western countries that their efforts to develop biofuels as an alternative energy source to combat climate change risked driving the price of oil "through the roof".

Abdalla el-Badri, secretary general of Opec, said the cartel was considering cutting its investment in new oil production in response to moves by the developed world to use more biofuels.

The biofuels industry says Opec members are heading for revenues of $1.2tn (£600bn) this year as a result of the "exorbitant" price of oil. "We realise that biofuels may be reducing your windfall profits," said the letter, which was published as a whole-page advert in the FT. "But, perhaps, the time for Opec to face some competition has finally arrived."


Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 17 Jul 08


How many colour forms do nymphs of Stinkbug have?
on the Tiomanese's Blog

Snake@Labrador Nature Reserve
video clip on the sgbeachbum blog

Coat Buttons
a closer look at tiny flowers Urban Forest blog

Little Spiderhunter: Nectar from banana flowers
from Bird Ecology Study Group blog

What will you miss most?
as Seletar residents face their last 6 months, a series of polls on the postcards from seletar blog


Read more!

Ocean quest: The race to save the world's coral reefs

The Independent 17 Jul 08;

Last week, scientists issued their latest, grim assessment of the world's coral reefs. But as Steve Connor reports from Florida, extraordinary new ocean 'reseeding' techniques mean there may still be time to halt – or even reverse – the destruction of mother nature's marine marvels

Coral reefs are often described as the tropical rainforests of the oceans. But marine biologists sometimes use another analogy: that of the canary in the coalmine. These birds were used by miners as an early warning for lethal gas; corals, too, are extraordinarily sensitive to environmental change.

For Nancy Knowlton, a scientist at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, it's an apt description: "If that's the analogy, then the canary has passed out on the floor of the cage. Coral reefs are potentially immortal. They only have to die if we make them."

And that's just what we seem to be doing. In the 25 years that Knowlton has been studying the reefs, she has witnessed all the signs of their terminal decline. They are being degraded at a rate of 2 per cent a year. About a fifth of the world's stock has already gone, and nearly half of the remainder is in danger of disappearing within the next 20 years. And like so many other experts in her field, Knowlton is worried: a lethal combination of pollution, predators, disease, rising sea temperatures, over-fishing and the acidification of the sea have put our coral reefs on the critical list.

Its plight is bad news for all of us, but will horrify anyone who has put on flippers, mask and snorkel to experience its magnificence first-hand. Snorkelling over a reef for the first time, as I did last week off the coast of Florida, is like floating over a brilliantly coloured Garden of Eden landscaped by some maritime Capability Brown. Corals of all shapes and sizes grow in the dappled sunlight. Vast, bulbous species covered with beautifully etched crenulations look like the intricate folds on the surface of a human brain. Others resemble petrified trees, their branches sticking up like fingers, or flat pancakes woven with intricate lacework. Waving sea fans drift back and forth with the gentle pulse of the waves, a hypnotic motion that sends you into a trance-like state of awe.

And then there are the fish – lots of fish. Nothing quite prepares you for the variety of sizes, colours and shapes swimming in and out of the coral latticework. There are iridescent blue ones with fins like a teddy boy's quiff. There are green ones with metallic scales, each a slightly different hue from the next, like the scaly armour of a Scythian warrior. A much larger fish with camouflaged skin and a big, ugly head spies me with his swivelling eyes and tries to hide, ostrich-like, behind a skinny staghorn coral; a huge ray, five or six feet long, glides effortlessly past, trailing a menacingly spiked tail in its wake.

This scene is repeated everywhere on earth where tropical reefs form – which is just about anywhere on the vast, watery belt around the equator. The biggest of them all is the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, which is some 2,300km long. It took more than 10,000 years to get to where it is today, growing at a rate of a centimetre or two each year.

Coral reefs are the product of tiny animals called polyps, which secrete an exterior skeleton of aragonite, a mineral made of calcium carbonate. Each generation of polyp grows on the dead skeletons of its ancestors, but because they clone themselves they have achieved a kind of immortality. Some grow slower than the rate at which the continents move – fingernails grow faster. But eventually they form massive structures such as the Great Barrier Reef, which is more properly a collection of 3,000 separate reefs and 900 coral islands, divided by narrow channels. They are the only biological structures that can be seen from space.

With so much coral in the world, it is hard to see how they could be at risk of destruction. But they are. Last week, the latest warning came from scientists who warned that an estimated third of all reef-building coral species were in imminent danger of extinction.

The threat had been steadily growing, and has now become a full-blown crisis. The scientists, working on behalf of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, found that 231 reef-building coral species, out of a total of 704 that were capable of being studied, can be classified as either vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered, as defined by the IUCN's Red List of threatened species.

Equally alarming, however, was what happened when they extrapolated back to the situation before 1998, the year when a large-scale "bleaching" episode occurred worldwide. When they back-calculated using the same methodology, they could only find 13 species before 1998 that would have fallen into the same three categories. In other words, the situation now is something like 18 times worse than it was just 10 years ago.

The bleaching episode of 1998 is perhaps the single biggest milestone in the timeline of coral decline. As the name implies, the vividly coloured organisms turned a ghostly white, as a result of a king of marital row between the tiny polyp – the fleshy part of the stony coral – and its brightly decorated partner, a microscopic algae that lives inside the polyp.

Corals may look superficially like plants, but in fact each polyp feeds on passing food parcels floating in the marine plankton. Although technically an animal, the polyp forms a mutually beneficial relationship with photosynthetic algae called zooanthellae. It is a give-and-take marriage of convenience. The polyp offers shelter and possibly other nutritional benefits to the algae, while the zooanthellae provides the polyp with energy-packed carbohydrates left over from its daytime job of converting sunlight into sugar.

But, like many marriages, the relationship is fragile. When the corals are stressed out by something in the environment – in 1998, the trigger was excessively high sea temperatures exacerbated by an El Niño event and global warming – the polyp evicts the algae, and turns white in the process. Often the polyp survives, but it is almost always seriously weakened by the rift. As a result, the coral is prone to disease when some other stress comes along – a one-two punch that so often proves fatal for the reef.

Scientists predict that, as sea temperatures rise, mass bleaching will begin to occur on an annual basis within the next 30 or 50 years. But already there are signs that it is increasing in both frequency and severity on a more localised scale. Douglas Fenner, of the Marine and Wildlife Resources in American Samoa, says that bleaching is now a regular event on his small patch of the Pacific Ocean. In some of the warmer-water coral pools he studies, bleaching has occurred every month or so for the past five or six years. "It's the thin end of the wedge, and it's not good," he says.

But bleaching is just a symptom of the many deep-seated problems. Rising sea temperatures and pollution caused by run-off from the land – along with sewage and sedimentation – are just some of the factors that can either trigger a bleaching episode or kill the coral outright. Rising sea levels are another problem, because some corals are just not able to grow as fast as the sea level is rising.

"Rising temperatures could trigger mass coral bleaching once every couple of years," says Rich Aronson, of the University of South Alabama. "And corals are going to have a pretty hard time coping with rising sea levels if they are also suffering from chronic bleaching."

A still more sinister threat, however, is increasing ocean acidity, which is also caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide. Normally, the sea is slightly alkaline, but when carbon dioxide dissolves in it, the water becomes slightly more acidic. This makes it more difficult for the polyp to build its aragonite skeleton. At its worse, an acidic ocean will actually dissolve the coral reef, in the same way that tooth enamel dissolves in a glass of Coca-Cola.

When coral scientists from around the world met last week at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Florida, ocean acidification was high on the agenda as one of the most worrying unknowns. Scientist after scientist warned that acidification was one environmental insult that really could wipe out all reef-building corals. If the oceans do become as acidic as is predicted later this century, coral – and many of the species that rely on it – could go the way of the dinosaurs. As Joan Kleypas, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, says: "Ocean acidification is the evil twin of climate change. It is the osteoporosis of the oceans."

With so much doom and gloom, scientists are left wondering what else they can do to alert the wider world to the plight of the corals – some even talk about "compassion fatigue" and "paralytic nihilism". Is there any hope left within the community of coral researchers?

The answer, surprisingly, is yes. Corals may be on the verge of extinction, but scientists believe there is still a window of opportunity left open and they point to the other common analogy used to describe coral reefs – tropical rainforests.

Coral reefs are often described as the rainforests of the ocean because of the diversity of life that both support. And, like the rainforests, coral reefs are under threat. But until recently, few have thought it possible to regenerate a coral reef in the same way it is possible to regenerate a tropical rainforest. Now, however, many scientists believe it is feasible to talk about a "reforestation" programme for reefs to prevent, or at least slow down, the damage.

These researchers believe this is more than a forlorn hope, despite the widespread pessimism about the future for coral reefs in a warmer world. Indeed, if one message emerged from the International Coral Reef Symposium, it was that no matter how dire the threat to corals has become, there is still time to save them – and coral regeneration could provide a critical stop-gap that could allow at least some corals to live through the climatic rigours of the 21st century.

Rebuilding or regenerating a coral reef, even if the environment is right for it, is no simple matter, however. The first problem has to do with coral sex, a mysterious business that occurs just once a year within an hour or so of sunset, and (usually) precisely five days after a full moon. For some unknown reason, many coral species release all their sperm and eggs in one huge ejaculate, communicating their mass excitement to their partners in the coral equivalent of pillow talk.

The resulting microscopic larvae then drift away, with only some of them returning to the reef where they settle down – literally – on the rock to form baby corals. One scientist said that trying to think of a way of managing this process to help with reef regeneration is like trying to manage a herd of deer that produce millions of fawns, which then drift off into the wind like dandelion seeds.

Fortunately, there is another way to regenerate reefs, which is based on vegetative reproduction – cloning. Scientists can take fragments of coral and grow them on a movable substrate in an underwater nursery. Sometimes the fragments are taken from "corals of opportunity" formed, for instance, from the rubble left behind when a boat smashes into a reef.

On other occasions, scientists can take tiny samples of corals from existing reefs, grow them in a nursery and replant them back in the wild on a damaged or degraded reef.

"We can remove fragments as small as between one and 10 polyps, which is equivalent to the bite of a parrot fish. It does no harm," says Yael Horoszowski, of the National Institute of Oceanography in Israel, who has successfully regenerated reefs in the Red Sea using the "coral gardening" concept.

"The method involves generating and farming large stocks of new coral colonies in an in situ floating nursery prior to their installation into degraded reefs," Dr Horoszowski explains. "These nurseries liberated coral babies at the site. We intended to restore the coral reef but we ended up restoring all the creatures at the coral site."

Scientists working in such far-flung sites as Biscayne Bay off the south-east coast of Florida – which is in sight of a nuclear power plant and a landfill site known as "Mount Trashmore" – and the Komodo National Park in Indonesia, where fishermen have taken to using home-made bombs to increase their catch, are now actively engaged with different coral gardening techniques in the hope of regenerating their reefs.

But no one is under any illusion that this is the answer to the coral crisis. Any attempt at regenerating reefs with hi-tech methods of cloning corals, or low-tech methods of re-arranging the local rocks, are doomed to fail if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.

Rising sea levels, sea temperatures and ocean acidity will not be stopped otherwise. "The thinking behind this is that it's a stop-gap measure. We've got to do other things to address CO2," says Helen Fox of the WWF, who works on reef regeneration in the Komodo National Park.

Steve Palumbi, a coral scientist at Stanford University in California, says that nothing will stop the demise of the reefs unless the world addresses its addiction to fossil fuel.

"Planting coral has been successful, but it's really expensive to do, so you can only do it over a given area. The other alternative is to allow them to do it for themselves," Palumbi says. "I doubt that we can replant all the coral reefs in the world and get them back in a century. It's a really important concept, but you just can't rely on that."

Joan Kleypas probably speaks for the scientific consensus when she says that reef regeneration is just one important – albeit expensive – component in the conservation toolbox. But she says there is no way it will work unless carbon dioxide levels are stabilised at some point this century. "We need to think of things that can buy time so that when we do emerge from the climate crisis we'll still have some coral reefs left," Kleypas says.

But would life really be so different if there were no coral reefs left in the world? Aside from the aesthetic loss of one of the most beautiful habitats on earth, corals are a vital source of food and provide a livelihood for a surprising number of the world's inhabitants – somewhere between 200 million and 500 million people.

Rich Aronson points out that if all the coral reefs collapsed, then there would be broader implications for those of us who have no contact with reefs other than perhaps an occasional diving holiday.

"Coral reefs are an example of the type of ecosystem that, if they go, will produce social consequences that will ripple back to us all," Aronson says. "If they are lost, it will make the world a more difficult place to live."

Seven wonders of the world's oceans

By Rob Sharp

1. Belize Barrier Reef

A 300km section of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, which stretches from Cancun to Guatemala, this is Belize's top tourist destination, and vital to its fishing industry. Comprising fringing, barrier- and atoll-reef types, Charles Darwin once described it as "the most remarkable reef in the West Indies".

2. Red Sea Coral Reef

Hugging the shoreline off the coast of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the section in the Gulf of Aqaba has been the subject of intensive studies. This is some of the most northernmost reef found in the world, with 220 species of coral recorded.

3. Madagascar reefs

The south-western coast of Madagascar supports the third-largest coral reef system in the world, known as the Toliara reef system. Its range of marine habitats include barrier and fringing reefs, shallow lagoons and abyssal slopes that fall to a depth of more than a kilometre. Dive there and you might see any one of the 6,000 recorded species swimming past your eyes.

4. Maldives reefs

The Maldives themselves are a spectacular chain of 22 atolls – islands made out of coral – spanning 800km in the Indian Ocean. The population of the islands is dependent on offshore reefs for the success of their economy, a large chunk of which comes from tourism. Some fish dwelling there are taken for local consumption, but much is exported for profit.

5. Tubbataha Reef

More than 1,000 species reside in this reef in the Philippines, many of which are endangered, including manta rays, lionfish, tortoise and clownfish. Rivalling the Great Barrier in terms of biodiversity, tens of thousands of birds rest here during their migrations, and are monitored closely by the coast guard.

6. Great Barrier Reef

The world's largest, stretching for 3,000km. Fauna include 30 species of whale and six species of sea turtle. Pollution from farms threatens it, and bleaching occurred in 1998, 2002 and 2006.

7. New Caledonia Barrier Reef

Second only to the Great Barrier, this is a 1,500km-long spectacle of ecological abundance, where new species are discovered daily. Animals holed up here include rare crab, green turtle and molluscs.


Read more!

Subsidies the thorny issue for a sustainable renewable energy market

Jamie Lee, Business Times 17 Jul 08;

BUSINESSMEN in the renewable energy sector crossed swords with the government yesterday as the two camps debated the use of subsidies to lower energy costs in a roundtable discussion.

The discussion 'Is Singapore Ready for Renewable Energy', at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, concluded on a pessimistic note as industry players said Singapore - which is pumping substantial funds into green research - was not developing a sustainable market by shunning subsidy options.

Energy players Phoenix Solar and Conergy Renewable Energy Singapore suggested Singapore explore feed-in tariff systems or power purchase agreements (PPA). Under a feed-in tariff system, consumers are offered an incentive for every kilowatt hour of clean energy fed into the grid over a set number of years, said Stefan Mueller, Asia-Pacific managing director of Conergy Renewable Energy Singapore, adding that Germany rewards every kilowatt hour of feed-in with the equivalent of 40 Euro cents under a guaranteed payback period of 20 years.

Phoenix Solar suggested looking into PPA, under which utility companies pay for the feed-in tariff but recover the cost by raising the general retail tariff, said the company's managing director Christophe Inglin. He said that based on calculations over about 30 years, the maximum tax on the current retail tariff of about 25 cents/kwh would not exceed 0.3 cents/kwh. Based on an average consumption of 381kwh per month for a four-room HDB flat in 2007, the monthly surcharge would be limited to $1.15, Mr Inglin said.

But the government has rejected subsidies to avoid market distortion and to encourage energy conservation, said David Tan, deputy chief executive of the Energy Market Authority.

'We do not subsidise energy. We believe in the right pricing of energy because by pricing energy correctly, that would drive certain behaviour in consumers,' he said. 'As a result of that behaviour, we believe consumers will learn to conserve energy. The government has no plans to implement feed-in tariffs.'

The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is focused on raising energy efficiency through its $20 million Solar Capability Scheme that rewards developers that build certified environmentally friendly buildings and by pumping $50 million into research to develop green building technologies, said Tan Tian Chong, BCA's director of technology development division.

'Energy efficiency is a low- hanging fruit that is not going to cost us very much,' he said.

The government has said it will invest $350 million to develop clean energy technology. It expects to create a $1.7 billion clean energy industry here that will hire 7,000 people by 2015.


Read more!

CNG promise: Who and what's scuttling it

Letter from Looi Yew Chow, Straits Times Forum 17 Jul 08;

THE price of compressed natural gas (CNG) has gone up and up. For instance, at Smart Energy's Mandai station, it went up to $1.73 on Monday, up 14 cents since the last hike on July 8.

CNG occurs naturally, requires little processing other than filtering, and even less storage as it is delivered by pipeline. Compared to petrol, diesel and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), there is no distilling, cracking, additives or other cost involved. There are vast reserves which will outlast crude oil supplies.

So it appears consumers are trapped by the near-perfect monopoly of the CNG market, which currently seems to be unregulated.

In his Forum reply to a letter, Mr Paul Lim, GM of Sembcorp Gas, said the price of CNG is pegged to high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), an oil derivative ('Price of CNG pegged to that of oil derivative', July 2). Given the lower production cost and even greater supply, it does not seem to make sense to peg the price of CNG to HSFO.

When CNG was launched, it was trumpeted as a cheaper alternative to petrol, at promised savings of about 60 per cent.

At today's pump prices, it may not be true much longer. Drivers like me�went green believing that promise, braving the inconvenience of less boot space and limited fuel stations.

Others installed CNG in their cars voluntarily and hoped to break even in slightly over a year.

But the quantum and swiftness of CNG price hikes have scuttled that promise, leaping from $1.18 per kilo before May 1 to $1.73 in less than 21/2 months.

Comparing the price of 95-octane petrol at $2.21 per litre after discount, CNG is only 21.7 per cent cheaper.

If my CNG tank has a capacity of 10kg, I must still drive 20km to and from the nearest CNG station. I would be better off pumping petrol.


Read more!

Shippers may cut capacity

Today Online 17 Jul 08;

AFTER seeing oil prices more than double in the past year, shipping lines have warned they may cut capacity, especially on trade between Asia and Europe.

“If these fuel prices stay in the range where they are today, I think you are going to see some fairly substantial service pullbacks,’’ said Neptune Orient Lines new chief executive Mr Ron Widdows in an interview with Lloyd’s List.

Maersk Line, the world’s largest container shipping firm, yesterday said it plans to introduce a bunker fuel surcharge on its Asian contracts later this year to help tackle rising costs.

The surcharge, or bunker adjustment factor, has been implemented on its contracts in Europe and the United States. However, such a move is likely to irk the Asian Shippers’ Council, a body representing cargo owners. Earlier this month, it protested against a similar move by eight shipping lines in Asia, adding it was anticompetitive and would set a precedent for more surcharges.

“It’s an old rhetoric. We knew exactly what reaction would come from shippers,” said Jesper Praestensgaard, Maersk’s Asia-Pacific chief executive.

He said freight rates had been falling over the past five years and “if there was a cartel or abuse of that dominant position, freight rates would be rising”.

Bunker fuel prices have doubled over the past 12 months and now make up over half of shipowners’ operating costs. Benchmark 380-centistoke bunker fuel prices in Singapore reached around US$760 per metric tonne on Tuesday.

Besides passing on costs, Maersk, which consumes over 1 million tonnes of bunker fuel each month, is reducing fuel use by slowing ships down.

Slow steaming, or travelling at lower speeds, can save about 10 per cent of a ship’s total fuel use. However, it means that goods carrried are slower to market.

Maersk is also taking steps to improve its vessel designs by using silicon paint to reduce resistance and adding waste heat recovery systems.

All Maersk’s ships are told to keep strictly to schedule so they don’t waste fuel by waiting at ports or having to run at full speed if they are late.

Trade between Asia and Europe, which gained about 20 per cent last year, has slowed this year on weaker demand.

Shipping lines have deployed new, larger vessels on the route. The Howe Robinson Container Index, which tracks weekly charter rates for container vessels, has fallen for four straight months to the lowest since April last year.

Mr Praestensgaard predicts the industry’s global growth may slow to 7 to 8 per cent this year, compared with about 10 per cent last year.

“There’s going to be pressure (from excess ship supply and higher fuel costs) over the next couple of years, but there will still be healthy growth,” he said. “Container shipping has never had negative growth in the past 25 years.” Agencies


Read more!

Indonesia's energy crisis

Wanted: Bright ideas to fire up power grid
John McBeth, Straits Times 17 Jul 08;

BACK in 2002, a banking friend became so alarmed by a story I wrote warning of a looming electricity crisis across Java that he went out and bought an industrial-sized US$8,500 (S$11,400) generator. It fills half of his driveway.

In the years since, power utility Perusahaan Listrik Negara's (PLN's) laudable dispatch centre has somehow managed to keep the lights on, most notably in Jakarta's more affluent districts like Pondok Indah, where he lives.

In fact, outages have been so rare there that he has had to use the generator on only six brief occasions.

But I've yet to hear the end of it, even though - as a veteran of Manila's power-less days of the early 1990s - I am thankful I, too, bought a generator, albeit a much smaller one.

Now, with the Indonesian capital facing an unprecedented fortnight of rolling blackouts, the banker may be about to get some real use out of his mini-power station - if not today, then at some point just down the road.

A long-planned gas supply interruption has forced two of the city's stations to switch to oil, with a resulting downgrade in their generating capacity. That, it seems, has been enough to tip the 18,500MW Java-Bali grid over the edge.

So far, energy-saving measures imposed on PLN's larger customers have staved off the worst of the latest crisis.

But for how long and at what cost?

'There isn't any more elasticity in the system,' said one power expert. 'There's simply nothing left.'

Nor is there a quick fix.

Coming barely five months after storms interrupted coal supplies to a string of major power plants, the blackouts - and the prospect of more in the future - represent what central bank governor Boediono warns is a real threat to Indonesia's growth ambitions.

But long before the current squeeze, industrial users were already protesting over unannounced power cuts, which have thrown production schedules into chaos and caused havoc with the electronics that run assembly lines.

Mr Boediono said at a foreign press lunch last week that he hopes the situation will stabilise by the middle of next year, but he added: 'If we can manage for the next year or two, we will be okay.'

Vice-President Jusuf Kalla has said much the same.

In fact, the only new power plant expected to come onstream in Java next year will be a small 300MW unit - part of the government's long-delayed 10,000MW coal-fired 'fast-track' programme, unveiled in 2006, which involves cut-price Chinese developers.

Most of the programme's 10 Java projects are either still at the planning phase or in the early stages of construction. A further 25 smaller stations are planned for the equally power- starved Sumatra and other main Indonesian islands.

Project managers claim that West Java's 600MW Labuan plant is 64 per cent complete. Yet PLN only last month announced plans to borrow US$288.5 million from Bank Negara Indonesia to help pay for it.

While the 990MW Indramayu plant on Java's north coast appears to be more advanced, with one of the three 330MW units due to be commissioned in September next year, a progress report seen by The Straits Times suggests that it is well behind schedule as well.

China's designs for the 300MW-capacity stations may be simple, but turbine costs have doubled since 2006 and the units require bigger boilers to burn lower-quality Indonesian coal. Also, soil stability problems at some locations have meant deeper foundations and more delays and higher expenses.

Hopelessly optimistic, PLN had originally wanted to bring all the stations on line by next year. But endemic institutional foot-dragging and unforeseen financial issues have put paid to that. Industry sources say some of the plants will not be ready for seven or eight years.

The same delays apply to a parallel 10,000MW private power project. Marubeni's 660MW Cirebon station on the north Java coast is still two years away from completion, while two other plants that will add 2,000MW to the grid have yet to break ground.

Apart from that, little has even reached the blueprint phase. Said a Western power executive: 'There's a lot of outside interest, but no one is willing to step up to the plate until they see some real go-forward on existing projects.'

Now that the fast track has become the slow track, it would have been better for PLN to opt for modern, large-scale plants, instead of building a string of cheaper stations with old technology and few pollution safeguards that will be more costly to run in the long term.

The biggest problem is the state-run utility's seeming inability to take a proactive stance. Officials are reluctant to make difficult decisions because of fears that any false step could come back to haunt them in the form of corruption allegations.

In a number of non-PLN cases, bureaucrats have been jailed for incurring losses, even though the prosecution acknowledged that they did not benefit personally from their transgressions.

Then there is the laborious government decision-making mechanism under which power projects must pass through layers of committees and two different ministries before they get the seal of approval.

PLN had hoped the twin programmes would allow it to retire old thermal plants, but with the economy growing at more than 6 per cent, that is looking increasingly unlikely.

In the meantime, its bottom line is being killed by the fact that oil still makes up 36 per cent of its energy mix, followed by coal (33 per cent), gas (18 per cent) and hydro (10 per cent), in a country rich in alternative sources of power generation.

Weighed down by crude oil prices that have risen 88 per cent over the past year, PLN says it will need 72.6 trillion rupiah (S$10.7 billion) in government subsidies next year, compared with the 60.2 trillion rupiah budgeted for this year.

Long-term planning has never been one of Indonesia's cultural strengths, but what puzzles many in the power industry is the government's failure to pay more urgent attention to the country's vast geothermal resources.

Currently, geothermal sources contribute only 800MW, or 3 per cent, to PLN's generating capacity when experts estimate there is a potential of more than 27,000MW - much of it on volcanic Java.


Read more!

Fishing ban brings seas to life

Richard Black, BBC News 16 Jul 08;

Five years without fishing around Lundy Island off the coast of Devon have brought a significant revival in sea life, scientists report.

Lobsters are seven times more abundant within the protected zone than outside.

The eastern coast of Lundy is the UK's only "no-take" zone, where fishing is completely prohibited.

Conservation groups say UK seas need more of them, but the government's recent Marine Bill promises much vaguer "marine conservation zones".

It is not clear what levels of protection these areas would have.

The Lundy zone was set up five years ago by Natural England and the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, which administers fishing along the county's coasts, in partnership with local fishermen.

Natural England scientists believe the zone should help Devon's lobster-potters by providing a refuge where young lobsters can grow to maturity, then migrate into areas where commercial fishing is permitted.

On the up

"The main result we have seen is an increase in the number of large lobsters in the no-take zone compared to areas where fishing is on-going," said Miles Hoskin, the marine biologist engaged by Natural England to lead the research.

Recent surveys have found that lobsters above the minimum landing size are between six and seven times as abundant within the zone as outside.

"In recent years we've also found an increase in the number of small lobsters within the zone and adjacent to the zone," Dr Hoskin told BBC News.

"In the next year or two they're all going to be lobsters that fishermen can catch."

The team surveys five sites - one in the no-take zone, two commercially fished sites around Lundy, and two comparison sites further afield, one on the north coast of Devon and one in South Wales.

Surveying consists of laying and then retrieving strings of commercial lobster pots, and counting and sexing the animals inside.

The approximate doubling in numbers of young lobsters has not been seen at the two distant sites, suggesting that it is a consequence of the no-take zone.

Scientists are now putting tags on the lobsters they catch. Fishermen are being encouraged to report catches of tagged animals, in order to show how far they are migrating out of the no-take zones.

No expansion

Fishermen are generally cautious about no-take zones, which is one reason why the government plumped for the much more adaptable "marine conservation zone" concept in the draft Marine Bill.

"It's difficult to to say whether it's helped us - we didn't used to fish in there much anyway, except close to shore, but it was always good for lobsters," said John Barbeary, whose lobster and whelk boat works out of Ilfracombe.

"When we were asked about it we were all for it... (but) we couldn't afford to have the zone made any bigger because it would completely ruin our business, and I think you'd find that with a lot of fishermen around the country - it would make it totally uneconomic."

But Sarah Clark from the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee said she believed the zone was good for the industry.

"Having a larger brood stock especially of females within the no-take zone will obviously produce more juveniles," she said.

"We're tagging them to see if they're moving out - if they are, they'll be moving out of the no-take zone into the area that's being fished, and and that can only help with the fishery, and help fishermen too."

Natural values

Natural England's root reason for wanting the zone closed was not to help fishermen, but to return a tiny fraction - 0.002% - of the UK's seas to the state they were in before the era of modern fishing.

"The site wasn't only set up to protect lobsters - it's to protect the whole environment," said Chris Davis, the agency's senior specialist in marine policy.

"It's about protecting the fish and the sponges and the coral that's here as well, and it's doing a good job, though it's a bit difficult to say on some of the species because they don't reach maturity for 30 or 40 years."

A by-product of nature protection may be an increase in the tourist trade. A full analysis has yet to be done, but anecdotally the numbers of divers visiting Lundy has risen.

However, the views of fishermen are likely to be highly influential when it comes to deciding how many of the new marine conservation zones - which are several years away from being proposed - acquire full protection.

So will the views of the burgeoning renewables industry, given the potential of UK seas for generating electricity through tidal and wave technologies as well as offshore wind turbines.


Read more!

Anger at China's approval as ivory buyer

Yahoo News 16 Jul 08;

China's approval for the first time as a bonafide buyer of ivory drew flak Wednesday from some conservationists who blame the country for stoking the illegal ivory trade.

One of the world's biggest consumers of elephant ivory, China was given the go ahead on Tuesday to participate as a licensed buyer in an upcoming auction of 108 tonnes of ivory from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

"This sale has literally given the green light to the international poaching syndicates and organised crime and will present a nightmare to poorly resourced wildlife enforcement agencies in Africa," said Animal Rights Africa.

"In real terms this represents the death of an estimated 7,699 South African elephants (1.8 tusks per elephant and 3.68kg per tusk)," said a statement from the organisation, which is based in South Africa.

The decision to approve China for the auction was made by the standing committee that oversees the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

"All the proceeds of the sale are to be used exclusively for elephant conservation and local communities living side-by-side with elephants," it said in a statement.

A date for the auction has not yet been announced but CITES spokesman Juan Carlos Vasquez told AFP he envisaged it would take place "in the next three months."

While some animal rights campaigners were angry at China's participation, others recognised that the country had made an effort to be responsible on this issue.

"China has acted rather successfully against its own illegal domestic ivory market," said Tom Milliken, the east and southern Africa director of TRAFFIC, a monitoring network for the wildlife trade.

"Now China should help other countries do the same, especially in central Africa where elephant poaching is rampant and Chinese nationals have been implicated in moving ivory out of the region."

Susan Lieberman, director of the international species programme at the World Wildlife Fund, said she was satisfied with the decision as China had come along way.

"China did everything that it was asked to do," Lieberman said.

The auction of government-owned stockpiles includes 51 tonnes of ivory from South Africa, 43 tonnes from Botswana, nine tonnes from Namibia and three tonnes from Zimbabwe.

CITES would "closely supervise this sale and evaluate its impact on elephant population levels throughout Africa," Secretary-General Willem Wijnstekers said in a statement.

"We will continue monitoring the Chinese and Japanese domestic trade controls to ensure that unscrupulous traders do not take this opportunity to launder ivory from illegal origin," the CITES chief said.

But Animal Rights Africa spokeswoman Michele Pickover slammed CITES as a pro-trade organisation that had failed wild animals.

"What is even more abhorrent is that the South African government is already licking its lips at the prospect of this dishonourable and blood-soaked deal. We are also horrified that Britain and the EU supported this sale."

CITES, which groups 173 countries, banned international trade in ivory in 1989. But from 1997 onwards it authorised a few African nations to hold ivory sales at regular intervals.

The upcoming auction is the second organised by CITES since 1999, when Japan -- which has also won approval for the upcoming sale -- bought 50 tonnes of Ivory from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe for five million dollars.

China's booming economy and its traditional demand for ivory has pushed up prices to 750 dollars (470 euros) a kilogramme.

China's participation in the auction was approved by nine of the CITES permanent committee members. Australia, Ghana and Kenya voted against the move and there were two abstentions.

African elephants once numbered millions but are now thought to have a population of between 400,000 and 600,000. Experts say about 20,000 elephants fall prey to poachers every year.

CITES is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that trade in animals and plants does not threaten their survival.


Read more!

Kenya detains three Chinese nationals for smuggling ivory

Yahoo News 16 Jul 08;

Kenyan authorities on Wednesday detained three Chinese nationals at the country's main airport on suspicion of smuggling ivory, an official said.

"The three Chinese nationals -- two women and a man -- were arrested at the airport in Nairobi while in possession of 2.2 kilogrammes (4.8 pounds) of ivory," Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) spokesman Gichuki Kabukuru told AFP.

"Since they did not have a permit, we take it as smuggling of ivory."

The trio, who had stayed in Kenya for four days, were en route to the Zimbabwean capital Harare, he added.

Poaching slashed Kenya's elephant population from nearly 50,000 in 1965 to about 10,600 in the early 1990s but conservation efforts and anti-poaching measures have seen numbers climb back up to around 30,000 today.

The UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ban on the ivory trade in 1989 has also helped boost numbers.


Read more!

How Tides Could Power the Future

Michael Schirber, LiveScience.com Yahoo News 16 Jul 08;

Editor's Note: Each Wednesday LiveScience examines the viability of emerging energy technologies - the power of the future.

Sloshing back and forth in constant rhythm, the ocean's tides are a predictable source of renewable energy. Hoping to tap into this, the world's largest tidal turbine is set to start generating electricity this month.

The installation of the SeaGen marine current generator was completed this past May in Strangford Lough, a large inlet on the coast of Northern Ireland. The system, designed and built by Marine Current Turbines Ltd., has two rotors that each span 16 meters (52 feet) in diameter.

"The technology is very analogous to wind, except we are doing everything underwater," said Peter Fraenkel, the company's technical director.

The maximum power output of the SeaGen will be 1.2 megawatts - four times more than any other turbine. Operating for roughly 20 hours per day, it is expected to supply 1,000 homes.

Go with the flow and the ebb

The $20 million SeaGen is a single tower, moored to the seafloor a quarter mile (400 meters) from shore. It is designed to catch both the incoming (flow) and outgoing (ebb) tides by rotating its two rotors 180 degrees.

No power is generated during tide changes, as the turbine only works when the water is moving 2 knots (2.3 mph) or more.

The rotor blades are similar to those on wind turbines. That's because the same basic physics applies to wind streams and tidal currents. The big difference is that water is much denser than air, so it puts more stress on tidal system structures.

"The bad news is tidal turbines can't be as big as wind turbines," Fraenkel told LiveScience. "But the good news is that they don't need to be," since water carries more energy per area than air.

As a case in point: a wind turbine would need to be 65 meters (210 feet) in diameter to achieve the same 1.2 megawatts of power as SeaGen.

Just like clockwork

The other difference with wind is that tidal energy is completely predictable.

"Tides are not driven by weather, but instead by the relative motion of the moon, sun and Earth," Fraenkel explained. "You can predict what the tides will be 20 years ahead, whereas you can't tell if it will be windy."

The site at Strangford Lough was chosen because it has very fast tidal flows that reach up to 8 knots (9 mph).

These strong currents caused some problems during the installation of SeaGen. Likewise, other tidal projects have had difficulty with the unwieldy ocean.

"The whole point is to put these things in the most energetic environments," said Eoin Sweeney, head of the ocean energy development unit of Sustainable Energy Ireland. "By definition, they are going to be tricky places to work."

The Paris-based International Energy Agency has estimated that the global tidal energy potential is around 800 billion kilowatt-hours per year (about 5 percent of current world demand). This is considerably less than the potential of wind and wave energy.

Making sushi?

Stand-alone turbines are not the only way to capture tidal energy. In fact, a 240-megawatt tidal barrage has been working in La Rance, France, for over 40 years. It's essentially a large hydroelectric dam that gets its water from the incoming tide.

Although other tidal barrages have been built over the years, they have fallen out of favor because they completely alter the flow of water in what are often sensitive coastal eco-systems.

Turbines are thought to be more environmentally friendly. Even so, there are concerns over the turbine blades "making sushi" out of unsuspecting marine life. Fraenkel thinks this is unlikely since the blade tips move at most 15 meters per second (33 mph), slower than some boats.

Ongoing studies into the environmental impact and long-term reliability of tidal turbines may decide the industry's future.

"We're in a bit of a crystal-ball-gazing period right now," Sweeney said. But he predicts an increase of development over the next five years.


Read more!

OECD issues report critical of biofuels, favours moratorium

Yahoo News 16 Jul 08;

The OECD favours a moratorium on expanding biofuel production, a senior official with the Paris-based body said on Wednesday following the release of a report critical of vegetable-based fuels.

"It would make a lot of sense to have a moratorium," Stefan Tangermann, head of agriculture and trade analysis at the OECD told AFP.

"All these programmes should be reconsidered because we found them inefficient in terms of climate change."

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in a study published Wednesday found that costly public support for biofuel production has but a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and on improving energy security.

At the same time, according to the report, development of the biofuel sector "will contribute to higher food prices over the medium term and to food insecurity for the most vulnerable populations in developing countries."

It said for example that if production of biofuels were to remain at current levels, rather than growing at projected rates, medium-term coarse grain and sugar prices would respectively be 13 and 23 percent lower than currently foreseen.

Initially hailed as a weapon in the fight against global warming, biofuels are now denounced by United Nations agencies, the World Bank and non-government organisations as one of the causes of soaring global food prices.

Acreage and resources that could be used to produce food are now given over to biofuel production, reducing food supply.

Production of ethanol, from grain or sugar cane, and of fuels based on vegetable oils has expanded rapidly in the last few years and is expected to double over the next 10 years.

The United States is the world leader in ethanol output, accounting for 48 percent of worldwide production last year, ahead of Brazil at 31 percent.

The European Union is responsible for about 60 percent of global biodiesel production, based on oils such as rapeseed and canola.

The OECD found that in most countries the biofuel sector is heavily subsidised, through budgetary support, requirements that biofuels represent a certain share of the market for transport fuels and protectionist trade restrictions.

The United States, the European Union and Canada were providing overall support in 2006 in the amount of 11 billion dollars a year, a figure expected to rise to 25 billion dollars in 2013-2017, according to the report.

It noted that current overall government assistance to the biofuel sector in the United States, the European Union and Canada reduces net greenhouse gas emissions by less than 1.0 percent of total emissions from transport.

The OECD therefore issued several recommendations. Among then:

-- The redirection of efforts to save fossil fuel energy away from alternative fuels to lower energy consumption generally. "Generally, the costs of reducing greehouse gas emissions by saving energy are much lower than by substituting energy sources," the report said.

-- Governments engaged in biofuel production should make use of land not currently used for food crops and should discourage the use of environmentally sensitive areas.

-- Opening markets for biofuels and feedstocks to allow for more efficient and cheaper production.

-- Modifying official support policies to reduce upward pressure on food prices.


Read more!

Australia Government Releases Carbon Trade Paper

Rob Taylor and James Thornhill, PlanetArk 17 Jul 08;

CANBERRA - Australia, the world's biggest per head polluter, unveiled plans on Wednesday to rein-in greenhouse gas emissions, but said it would shield some companies and motorists from a carbon emissions trading scheme expected to drive up inflation.

The centre-left government, which swept to victory last year on the back of fury among working voters at rising prices under conservative rule, released an options paper for how emissions trading is likely to work from 2010.

"The effect of putting a price on carbon will be profound," Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said in a national television address.

"Placing a limit and a price on pollution will change the things we produce, the way we produce them, and the things we buy. It will open new doors to a cleaner energy future," she said.

The government's plan aims to curb Australia's carbon emissions by forcing 1,000 of the country's biggest-polluting firms, including global miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to purchase permits placing a cost on their emissions.

The regime would cover 75 percent of emissions in the A$1 trillion economy, with the inclusion of fuel from the 2010 start and hard-to-measure agricultural emissions from 2015, the government said.

But with officials predicting the scheme could add 0.9 percent to consumer prices in its first year, the proposals also pose deep political risks for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in an economy already battling inflation at 16-year highs.

To ward off a ballot backlash in 2010, when the scheme is to come into force, Wong said low-income households would be buffered from inevitable price hikes through tax and welfare breaks.

Motorists angered by soaring fuel pump prices, already up by 30 percent in recent months as world oil prices soar to fresh records, would be mollified by "cent-for-cent" fuel tax cuts balancing price hikes coming from the emissions scheme.

With Treasury officials on Wednesday estimating the sale of permits could net government up to A$20 billion, big polluting energy firms would receive up to 30 percent of total permits free of charge, including agriculture, the government said.

The largest polluters, producing more than 2,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per A$1 million of revenue, would initially pay for only 10 percent of their total emissions. Companies producing between 1,500-2,000 tonnes would pay for 40 percent of emissions.

Assistance would taper off with time to allow companies to replace dirty technology with cleaner production methods, the report said.

Other energy-intensive firms like cement and aluminium manufacturers exposed to cheap competitors in Asia would also receive grants from a new Climate Change Action Fund to be set up with the proceeds of emission permit sales.

Environmental critics and the government's top climate adviser, who two weeks ago recommended no assistance for motorists or major polluters, will accuse Rudd of taking too soft a line on climate shift.

The report did not say what Australia's overall emissions cap should be, or place a price on carbon emissions apart from a working assumption of A$20 a tonne, used for the inflation estimate.

The government is to release those figures, which will set the market price, later this year ahead of laws to go to parliament in early 2009 setting up the emissions scheme. (US$1=A$1.02)

Australia Scheme to Compensate Big Carbon Emitters
Rob Taylor and James Thornhill, PlanetArk 17 Jul 08;

CANBERRA - Australia on Wednesday unveiled plans for one of the world's biggest carbon trading schemes, including measures to protect motorists and large companies from higher costs which drew the ire of green activists.

The centre-left government, which swept to victory last year on the back of fury among working voters at rising prices under conservative rule, released an options paper for how emissions trading is likely to work from July 1, 2010.

"The effect of putting a price on carbon will be profound," Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said in a television address. "Placing a limit and a price on pollution will change the things we produce, the way we produce them, and the things we buy."

Australia is the world's biggest per-head polluter, with each person producing five times more emissions than the average in China.

The government's plan aims to curb carbon emissions by forcing 1,000 of Australia's biggest-polluting firms, including global miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to buy permits placing a cost on emissions.

The regime would cover 75 percent of emissions in the A$1 trillion (US$980 billion) economy, with the inclusion of fuel from the 2010 start and hard-to-measure agricultural emissions from 2015, the government said.

But with officials predicting the scheme could add 0.9 percent to consumer prices in its first year, the proposals also pose deep political risks for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in an economy already battling inflation at 16-year highs.

To ward off a ballot backlash in late 2010, after trading comes into force, Wong said low-earners would be buffered from inevitable price hikes through tax breaks and welfare.

Motorists angered by soaring fuel pump prices, already up by 30 percent in recent months as world oil prices soared to new highs, would be mollified by "cent-for-cent" fuel tax cuts to balance emission price hikes, to be reviewed every three years.

With Treasury officials estimating on Wednesday that the sale of permits could net government as much as A$20 billion, big polluting energy firms would receive up to 30 percent of total permits free of charge, including agriculture, the government said.

The largest polluters, producing more than 2,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per A$1 million of revenue, would initially pay for only 10 percent of their total emissions. Companies producing between 1,500-2,000 tonnes would pay for 40 percent of emissions.

Assistance would taper off with time to allow companies to replace dirty technology with cleaner production methods, the report said.

Other energy-intensive firms like cement and aluminium manufacturers exposed to cheap competitors in Asia would also receive grants from a new Climate Change Action Fund to be set up with the proceeds of emission permit sales.

DIRTY INDUSTRIES

Environmental critics accused Rudd of capitulating to the big polluting "greenhouse mafia" by compensating "dirty" energy firms after the government's top climate adviser two weeks ago recommended against assistance.

"All this proposed ETS does is prop up dirty industries, such as coal-fired electricity generation, allowing them to maintain the status quo. It will result in nothing more than paper shuffling," Greenpeace Climate spokesman Simon Roz said.

Climate experts said the scheme could be a model for Asia and fuse with an eventual global emissions trading system.

"What is good is that the coverage is broad. Unfortunately some parts of the science are crudely handled, and this matters in terms of its effectiveness," said Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at Adelaide University.

The report did not say what Australia's overall emissions cap should be or put a price on carbon emissions apart from a working assumption of A$20 a tonne, used for inflation impact estimates.

Emissions trade around the report's release indicated a soft start to the scheme in 2010, with initial prices starting at A$19-A$20 a tonne, but "speculative" buyers offering A$16, said Gary Cox, Manager of Environmental Derivatives at the Newedge Group in Sydney, which brokered one of six deals.

A Singapore-based carbon broker said the report contained no major surprises, but pointed to a broader scheme than in Europe, where 100 percent of emission allowances had been allocated free against only 30 percent in Australia.

The government is to release hard Treasury figures setting the market price in October ahead of laws to go to parliament in late 2008 setting up the emissions scheme. (US$1=A$1.02) (Editing by Jerry Norton)

FACTBOX - Timeline for Australian Carbon Trading
PlanetArk 17 Jul 08;

CANBERRA - The following is a chronology of events leading up to Australia's commitment to adopt a carbon emissions trading system, as well as a timeline for decisions remaining before the plan is finalised.

2007 - Former conservative government of John Howard proposes carbon trading by 2012, and promises a 15 percent clean energy target by 2020, up from its old target of 2 percent. His government announces a phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. But he refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Labor's Kevin Rudd promises to ratify Kyoto, introduce carbon trading by 2010, and set a 20 percent renewable energy target by 2020. Labor also promises to cut emissions by 60 percent of 2000 levels by 2050, but does not set an interim emissions target for 2020.

Nov. 24 - Rudd leads the left-leaning Labor Party to victory at national elections, ending nearly 12 years of conservative rule.

Dec. 3 - Rudd is sworn into office, and immediately signs documents to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Penny Wong is appointed Minister for Climate Change.

2008 March - Government-industry consultations start on emissions trading.

July 4 - Government adviser Ross Garnaut, an economics professor, releases his draft report on carbon trading after a 15-month inquiry.

July 16 - Climate Change Minister Penny Wong releases green paper on policy options for carbon trading.

September - Final Garnaut report due by Sept. 30.

October - Treasury modelling on the economic impact of carbon trading to be sent to government.

December - Public release of draft legislation. Government expected to announce emissions target for 2020.

2009 March to July - Carbon emissions laws considered by parliament.

- Ongoing consultation on carbon trading regulations. New laws to come into force in third quarter, 2009, and regulator to be established.

2010 July 1 - Carbon trading to start.

FACTBOX - Australia's Carbon Footprint
PlanetArk 17 Jul 08;

CANBERRA - Australia in 1997 signed the Kyoto Protocol, which set targets for developed countries to limit Greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, but did not ratify the agreement until December 2007.

Former conservative Prime Minister John Howard, who lost power after almost 12 years in office last November, refused to ratify the agreement, saying it would unfairly hurt Australia's economy and reliance on coal for energy and export income.

Left-leaning Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed documents to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on December 3, 2007, as his first official act after being sworn into power, and has promised to introduce carbon trading in 2010.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Australia must limit emissions growth to 108 percent of 1990 levels by 2012. The country says it is on track to meet its Kyoto target.

Here are some details about Australia's carbon emissions.

* Australia's net Greenhouse emissions totalled 576 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 1.5 percent of world emissions.

* Emissions in 2006 were 4.2 percent higher than 1990 levels, despite a 47 percent increase from stationary energy.

* Australia emits 28.1 tonnes of carbon per person, the highest per capita level in the developed world and five times more per person than China, due to use of coal for electricity.

* Transport and Energy account for 69.6 percent of Australian emissions, or 400.9 million tonnes.

* Stationary energy, which includes electricity generation, petroleum refining and gas processing, accounts for 49.9 percent of emissions, or 287.4 million tonnes.

* Transport accounts for 14 percent of emissions, or 79.1 million tonnes. Road transport and passenger cars accounted for 12 percent of national emissions.

* Agriculture created 15.6 percent of emissions, or 90.1 million tonnes.

* 10.9 percent of Australian emissions, or 62.8 million tonnes, come from sheep and cattle, due to gases produced when they digest food.

* Land use and forestry account for 6.9 percent of emissions, or 40 million tonnes, down more than 70 percent from 96.5 million tonnes in 1990.

* Carbon dioxide represents 74 percent of Australian emissions (427.8 million tonnes), methane 20.5 percent (118 million tonnes), and nitrous oxide 4 percent (24.2 million tonnes).

* The energy sector is the main source of carbon dioxide (86 percent), while agriculture is the main source of methane (59 percent).

* Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, with coal used to generate about 77 percent of Australia's electricity. Poland, China and South Africa also rely on coal for more than 75 percent of electricity generation.

* Australia has the world's largest reserves of uranium and is a major uranium exporter, but has no domestic nuclear power.

* Limited carbon trading already exists in Australia. The New South Wales state introduced a Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme in 2003, which forces electricity suppliers to meet Greenhouse targets by investing in projects to offset emissions. The Australian Capital Territory has a similar scheme.

Sources: Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory; Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics) (Reporting by James Grubel)

FACTBOX - Australia's Carbon Footprint
PlanetArk 17 Jul 08;

CANBERRA - Australia in 1997 signed the Kyoto Protocol, which set targets for developed countries to limit Greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, but did not ratify the agreement until December 2007.

Former conservative Prime Minister John Howard, who lost power after almost 12 years in office last November, refused to ratify the agreement, saying it would unfairly hurt Australia's economy and reliance on coal for energy and export income.

Left-leaning Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed documents to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on December 3, 2007, as his first official act after being sworn into power, and has promised to introduce carbon trading in 2010.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Australia must limit emissions growth to 108 percent of 1990 levels by 2012. The country says it is on track to meet its Kyoto target.

Here are some details about Australia's carbon emissions.

* Australia's net Greenhouse emissions totalled 576 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 1.5 percent of world emissions.

* Emissions in 2006 were 4.2 percent higher than 1990 levels, despite a 47 percent increase from stationary energy.

* Australia emits 28.1 tonnes of carbon per person, the highest per capita level in the developed world and five times more per person than China, due to use of coal for electricity.

* Transport and Energy account for 69.6 percent of Australian emissions, or 400.9 million tonnes.

* Stationary energy, which includes electricity generation, petroleum refining and gas processing, accounts for 49.9 percent of emissions, or 287.4 million tonnes.

* Transport accounts for 14 percent of emissions, or 79.1 million tonnes. Road transport and passenger cars accounted for 12 percent of national emissions.

* Agriculture created 15.6 percent of emissions, or 90.1 million tonnes.

* 10.9 percent of Australian emissions, or 62.8 million tonnes, come from sheep and cattle, due to gases produced when they digest food.

* Land use and forestry account for 6.9 percent of emissions, or 40 million tonnes, down more than 70 percent from 96.5 million tonnes in 1990.

* Carbon dioxide represents 74 percent of Australian emissions (427.8 million tonnes), methane 20.5 percent (118 million tonnes), and nitrous oxide 4 percent (24.2 million tonnes).

* The energy sector is the main source of carbon dioxide (86 percent), while agriculture is the main source of methane (59 percent).

* Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, with coal used to generate about 77 percent of Australia's electricity. Poland, China and South Africa also rely on coal for more than 75 percent of electricity generation.

* Australia has the world's largest reserves of uranium and is a major uranium exporter, but has no domestic nuclear power.

* Limited carbon trading already exists in Australia. The New South Wales state introduced a Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme in 2003, which forces electricity suppliers to meet Greenhouse targets by investing in projects to offset emissions. The Australian Capital Territory has a similar scheme.

Sources: Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory; Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics) (Reporting by James Grubel)

FACTBOX - Which Australian Firms are Big Carbon Emitters?
PlanetArk 17 Jul 08;

Australia issues a carbon Emissions Trading System options paper on Wednesday to help the country combat its greenhouse-gas emissions. It is already the world's largest carbon polluter per head of population.

The government says around 1,000 of Australia's biggest polluters will need to buy permits under an ETS, to be introduced by 2010, but it has not yet listed the names of these firms.

Here is a sector-by-sector list of some of the blue-chip companies that may be affected by the new scheme.*

FOOD AND BEVERAGE:

-- Coca-Cola Amatil

-- Foster's Group

-- Goodman Fielder

-- Lion Nathan

ENERGY:

-- Caltex Australia

-- Contact Energy

-- Origin Energy (electricity, LPG, natural gas, appliances)

-- Santos (oil and gas exploration)

-- Woodside Petroleum (petroleum exploration and production)

MINING:

-- Alumina

-- BHP Billiton

-- Oxiana

-- Newcrest Mining

-- Rio Tinto

OTHER:

-- AGL Energy (utilities, gas, electricity)

-- Amcor (packaging)

-- Boral (building materials)

-- Orica (mining, consumer products, chemicals)

-- Leighton Holdings (project development, contracting group)

-- Qantas Airways

-- Wesfarmers (retail conglomerate)

-- Woolworths (supermarkets)

STEEL MAKING:

-- BlueScope Steel

-- OneSteel

* These companies' exact carbon emissions are not known, but they all volunteered emissions data to the Carbon Disclosure Project. Several were also named by Citigroup as at risk because they have the highest operational exposure to carbon pricing.

Sources: Carbon Disclosure Project, Australia and New Zealand report 2007 (http://www.cdproject.net/currentreports.asp)

Citigroup Climate Change Report, Feb 2007 (http://www.aesltd.com.au/pdf/CitigroupClimateChangeReportFeb2007.pdf) (Writing by Gillian Murdoch, Beijing Editorial Reference Unit, Editing by Mark Bendeich)


Read more!