Best of our wild blogs: 14 Dec 08


TeamSeagrass on Pulau Semakau
on the teamseagrass blog and wonderful creations blog and wild shores of singapore blog

New Seahorse ID book available!!
on the ashira v3.0b blog

Cyrene
on talfryn.net

Life History of the Green Baron
on the Butterflies of Singapore blog

Food for a kingfisher and a bee-eater
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Syzygium sp. and the birds it attracts
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Collared Scops Owl feeding fledgling
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog


Read more!

Sewage and fish farm on St. John's Island

Repairs being done on damaged pipe
Reply to the Sunday Times 14 Dec 08;

We refer to the letter 'Sewage flow too close to fish farm' by Mr Freddie Choo (Nov 30), in which he raised concerns about the water quality near the pier at St John's Island.

A joint on-site inspection by Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) and PUB was carried out on Nov 30 and a defective discharge pipe from a sewage treatment plant was found to be the cause of the discharge.

Measures were taken immediately by SDC, which operates and maintains the sewerage facilities on the island, to rectify the problem.

The pump that discharges the water into the sea will be shut until the damaged pipe is repaired. SDC is also taking measures to enhance the maintenance of the plant to improve its treatment efficiency.

We would like to assure MrChoo that all water discharged into the sea is treated at a treatment plant first to remove contaminants, as required by the authorities.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regularly monitors the water quality at fish-farming areas.

Tests conducted last week have shown that water quality at AVA's experimental fish farm on St John's Island is within the guidelines set for fish culture, and that the fish from the farm are safe for consumption.

We would like to thank MrChoo for his feedback.

Suzanne Ho (Ms)
Deputy director, Communications
Sentosa Development Corporation

Goh Shih Yong
Assistant director, Corporate Communications
Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority

Tan Thai Pin
Director, Water Reclamation (Network)
PUB


Read more!

Frog farm in Singapore

Nice legs, shame about the croaky voice
Frog farm in Singapore urges visitors to come and enjoy its 6,000 strong 'frog orchestra' perform before they are sold for consumption
The Times 12 Dec 08;

American bullfrogs kick back at the the Jurong frog farm in Singapore, the only frog breeder in the city-state that raises bullfrogs primarily for human consumption. It is also an educational tourist attraction, urging visitors to come and enjoy its 6,000-strong “frog orchestra” and offering tips on how to tell male and female frogs apart.

The farm sells products such as Essence of Bullfrog with Ginseng and Cordyceps and Snow Frog Jelly, and offers recipes for “yummy frog porridge”. Singaporeans eat 2,000kg of frogs daily and the farm supplies 25 per cent of this amount.


Read more!

£5m fund to scrap fishing boats

BBC News 10 Dec 08;

Owners of inshore fishing boats in England are being offered £5m by the government to scrap their boats and leave the industry.

Boat owners welcomed the move, saying that tight EU fish quotas had made it increasingly tough to make a profit.

The scheme will compensate owners who scrap their boats and allow their share of the quota to be redistributed among the remaining fishing fleet.

But some crews said it would leave them without a boat and without a job.

Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca-Davies said: "I want to help keep as many fishermen in business as possible.

"Many fishermen are facing tough times, and we need to tackle the problems they face now and to lay the foundation that will get the inshore fleet on a sustainable long-term footing."

Mixed response

Nick Proust from the South-West Inshore Fishermen's Association welcomed the announcement, adding that the EU fishing quotas had made it uneconomic for many owners to keep sending their boats out to sea.

"We are not a failing industry; the only part of our industry that is failing is the legislation that is originating from Brussels," he told BBC News.

"At the end of the day, why shouldn't we be compensated for our businesses that we have legitimately run for years."

Ministers hope that reducing the size of inshore fishing fleets, which currently consists of 2,500 boats, will make more of the quota available to the remaining vessels.

However, Philip Hall, a skipper of a vessel based in Brixham, Devon, said the announcement offered nothing to the crews that worked on the boats.

"I've been here for six years, putting all my soul and effort into this boat, and we'll have to walk away with nothing.

"The owners won't give us a second thought; they'll just decommission the boats and that's us out of work."

Mr Irranca-Davies said: "I know these decisions will be difficult for some, but there are no easy answers and we have to make some tough choices."


Read more!

Crash in trash creates mountains of unwanted recyclables in US

American towns are being forced to abandon recycling their household waste after the global economic downturn has crashed the once profitable market for "trash".

Philip Sherwell, The Telegraph 13 Dec 08;

Mountains of used plastics, paper, metals and cardboard are piling up in the warehouses and yards of recycling companies across the US. Some contractors are negotiating to rent old military hangars and abandoned railway depots because they have run out of storage space for the glut of suddenly unwanted rubbish.

The collapse in the recycling market is a direct by-product of the financial crisis, as demand has slumped for material to be converted into everything from boxes for electronics to car parts and house fittings.

Householders have long been able to feel virtuous about their impact on the environment by sorting out their rubbish each week. But now the great trash market crash has even raised the environmentally alarming spectre that some waste intended for recycling may end up in landfills.

"The crash is all the more dramatic because as recently as mid-October the prices for recyclables stood at record highs," said Bruce Parker, president of the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA).

Newsprint is now fetching less than $60 (£40) a ton, down from $160; corrugated boxing has slumped from $50 a ton to $10; while tin fetches $5 a pound compared to about $25.

Other materials are performing even worse, Mr Parker said. His members are now having to pay for the removal of low-grade mixed paper that two months ago was bringing in $120 a ton. "And plastics, you cannot even give them away," he added with a sigh.

The previous surge in prices had largely been driven by soaring demand from China and India. The emerging economic powerhouses were swallowing up rubbish as soon Americans were discarding it - often to turn into goods and packing that were then sold back to the US.

But the demand from Asia has now collapsed as the economic crisis has spread around the globe. "We truly live in a global economy where what happens at one end of the earth directly affects business at the other end," said Mr Parker.

The impact is devastating commercially - and not just for recycling businesses. Already confronting crippling budget shortfalls, local and state authorities have now seen a lucrative source of income dry up as recycling centres are no longer paying for their rubbish.

Some towns have even suspended their recycling operations, although in much of the country those programmes are required by law.

Residents in West Virginia's Kanawha county, which includes the state capital Charleston, have been told to stockpile plastics and metals, the materials worst hit by the crash, as they will no longer be collected. Small towns with tight budgets are particularly badly affected – Frackville in Pennsylvania has recently suspended its recycling programme.

The collapse has even hit the nation's most prestigious academic institutions. Harvard University used to receive $10 a ton for mixed recyclables from a nearby centre, but last month was told that it would have to start paying $20 a ton to send students' discarded newspapers and empty bottles there.

"I have been in the recycling business for 30 years and never seen a time as bad as this," said Johnny Gold, senior vice-president of the Newark Group, one of America's biggest recycling companies.

"It's a combination of the economic collapse and Chinese over-capacity.

"Our industry is a textbook case of supply and demand. We sell our product to paper mills that make boxes to supply companies making goods and if those goods are not selling, then they don't need the boxes and they don't buy our product."

Mr Parker believes that the market may not bounce back until late 2010 - and by then the mountains of unwanted rubbish would have turned into major mountain ranges. The NSWMA argues that to handle the crisis, the US will have to step up investment in its own recycling mills to fill the gap left by Asia and that contractors may have to impose recycling surcharges.

"It may cost communities more in the meantime but from an environmental point of views, the savings in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions and other benefits are still much greater," he said.


Read more!

Cheaper Plastic Solar Cells In the Works

Diane Hinkens, livescience.com Yahoo News 13 Dec 08;

This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.

Sunlight, or solar radiation, is a remarkable phenomenon. It is the energy source in photosynthesis, makes us warm on summer days, and if future solar cells can be made more efficient and less costly, it may be our best source for reliable, clean and renewable energy.

As a postdoctoral researcher in the South Dakota State University (SDSU) Department of Electrical Engineering, I am working with my advisor Qiquan Qiao, an assistant professor in the department's Center for Advanced Photovoltaics, and Seth Darling, an assistant scientist at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory Center for Nanoscale Materials, to design, synthesize and eventually fabricate a more efficient and less costly solar cell.

We are trying to develop a cell that addresses the main challenge facing solar energy devices: absorb more of the sun's energy for electricity production.

Plastic cells

Unlike the vast majority of today's solar cells, which are expensive because they are made from silicon-based, or inorganic, semiconductors, the solar cell we are creating will be less costly as it will be made from organic, or carbon-based, semiconductors made from polymers. We will use two different types of polymers: one which is electron-deficient, an organoborane polymer, and one which is electron-rich, a thiophene polymer.

Since my skills are focused on creating organoborane molecules, which are made from carbon, boron and hydrogen, I rely heavily on Qiao, who is an expert in the physics of solar cells, and Darling, who is an expert in self-assembly and chemical computation. As we each have expertise in specialized areas of science, putting our ideas together to make this project work is really a great interdisciplinary research collaboration!

The organoborane and thiophene polymers are chain-like molecules made from carbon, boron, sulfur and hydrogen. These polymers have alternating double bonds and are flat, characteristics necessary for electrons to travel through the backbones of the polymers and produce electricity.

When we connect the organoborane and thiophene polymers, each with opposing electronic properties, we will create a "molecular p-n junction," key to collecting and using electrons for electricity.

By synthesizing the p-n junction within the polymer molecules, we hope to overcome many of the limitations of current organic solar cells.

Additionally, we will incorporate molecules known to absorb different wavelengths of light into the polymer chains. By doing this, we hope that these polymers will be able to absorb nearly the entire spectrum of visible light, which has wavelengths ranging from approximately 400 nanometers (violet light) to 750 nanometers (red light), thereby harnessing much more of our sun's energy.

Self-assembling arrays

One reason my collaborators and I chose to research these polymers is because they may be capable of self-assembling in just a few seconds to form very tiny, ordered arrays of materials. The arrays will allow the electrons to more easily find their path out of the ordered blocks to produce electricity.

The proposed solar cell would consist of approximately 1015, or one quadrillion, polymer molecules enclosed in an area of just one square centimeter.

The immediate goal for our research project is to develop a greater understanding of this class of materials, knowledge that will be used down the line to develop and fabricate our proposed solar cell.

Printing cells

To identify which polymer structures best fit our requirements, I have been using a commercial computational chemistry software program that will give me direction for the biggest challenge of this project, which will be making and characterizing these polymers.

These solar cells may be inexpensive to produce because the organic polymers can be created using low-cost techniques like reel-to-reel processing, similar to the method behind newspaper printing, which results in a material that is lightweight and mechanically flexible.

In September 2008, I was awarded an inaugural National Science Foundation American Competitiveness in Chemistry Fellowship, a two-year grant that is giving me an opportunity to both contribute to U.S. competitiveness and to involve students from traditionally underrepresented groups in this important area of science. I plan to develop a solar cell laboratory for the Chicago Science Alliance, which supports science teachers in the Chicago Public Schools, and to work with my advisor to develop hands-on activities describing solar cell materials for inclusion in a mobile science laboratory. The lab would travel across South Dakota to reach small rural schools as well as schools on Native American reservations.


Read more!

Greenwash: Are carbon offsetters taking us for a ride?

The carbon offset industry cannot agree on how much to charge for CO2 emissions, nor how much you produce when you fly, writes Fred Pearce
Comments (19)

Fred Pearce, guardian.co.uk 11 Dec 08;

Flying somewhere this Christmas, or planning a ski trip? Arguably, given the carbon emissions involved, you just shouldn't.

But if you do, will you offset those flight emissions? Some people fuss that the offset companies are a green con. How do we know the trees we pay for won't die? Are we just subsidising renewable energy projects that were going to happen anyway?

Fair questions. But questions for another day. I have another problem. Why does the price of offsetting vary so much? Are we being ripped off?

Spend even a few minutes searching the internet offsetters and you will find two things. First, the prices charged for offsetting every tonne of CO2 you emit vary hugely. Second, the offsetters can't even agree on how great your emissions are for any particular flight.

Let's start with ClimateCare, based in Oxford. I have offset with them before, because I like the people and the projects. For a return economy flight from Heathrow to JFK in New York, they reckon my emissions are 1.53 tonnes. Earlier this week they wanted to charge me nearly £9 a tonne, making a total of £13.22. Type in your credit card details and it's done. Your money goes to fund some cooking stoves in Cambodia or wind turbines in Inner Mongolia.

But a more or less random sample of other offsetters this week provided me with some very different offers. The London-based CarbonNeutral company and Carbonpassport in Glasgow both say my New York return journey emits just over 1.3 tonnes. Terrapass in San Francisco puts it at just 0.84 tonnes. While Atmosfair in Berlin suggests I will be responsible for 3.48 tonnes. All are measuring the CO2 the same way; all are assuming a regular economy flight. The differences are baffling.

Then there is the price charged per tonne, which ranges from £17.50 at Carbonpassport to only half that with CarbonNeutral.

Put it all together, and Terrapass swears that I can offset my transatlantic hop with them for a measly $11.90 or £8.00. CarbonNeutral sound competitive at £11.90. But Atmosfairs wants €81, or £69.85.

And my spot survey didn't find the full range. A couple of weeks ago, Paul Hooper of Manchester Metropolitan University's centre for air transport and the environment published his own study, conducted last winter, of more than 42 online offsetters. He found a sixfold difference in the price charged per tonne of carbon emitted. And, taking in the higher charges that some offsetting companies make for a bigger, business- or first-class seat, discovered price tags for a return trip from London to Sydney that ranged from £9.48 to a staggering £643.39, almost a 70-fold difference.

Now, if I was buying a laptop or something similar and got offered such a range of prices, I'd probably just pay the least and send it back if it didn't work. But with offsets, there is nothing to take out of the box. At the end of the day, I have no real idea what exactly it is that I have bought. And maybe it is ethically better to pay more. The offsetters are all supposed to be good guys, doing their bit for the planet, after all. The more money they get, the more they can help. But maybe not.

So what's going on? I'm still not quite sure why some companies reckon they can absorb a tonne of carbon so much more cheaply than others. I'd welcome inside information on this from any companies not delivering.

But after a bit of pestering, I have established why they can't agree on the mileage. There are a few technical things like how full you assume the plane is. And maybe the odd discrepancy over flight routes and aircraft type. New planes generally emit less. But the big difference is a scientific disagreement.

It turns out that the companies with low emission estimates simply calculate how much carbon dioxide planes kick out of their engines per passenger-kilometre. But the rest try to factor in other emissions from the engines that also add to the global warming. Things like the contrails and the nitrous oxide emissions that do a bunch of different things to atmospheric chemistry that I won't go into here.

The problem is that factoring these in is complicated. There is no single answer. Some companies reckon these emissions double the global warming effect. Some triple it. Some go even higher.

This is because the answer depends on timescales. If you mostly care about the short-term effects over the next decade or so, then these other gases are big players. But if you have your ambitions set on protecting the climate for your grandchildren, then they will have long since gone, while the CO2 will still be hanging round in the atmosphere.

You would have thought the offsetting companies might have come up with some agreed rules about how to measure the overall global warming impact of greenhouse gases. But they haven't. Instead confusion reigns.

Once, we might have shaken our heads indulgently, thinking that at least they are encouraging us to cough up our cash for good projects that somewhere along the line will help clean up the atmosphere. Maybe the details don't matter too much.

After all, you wouldn't insist on personally checking the health of an Oxfam goat before giving that to your nearest and dearest for Christmas.

But in recent months, there has been a shake-down in the carbon offsetting business. The start-ups are being taken over. The enthusiasts in cardigans and riding bicycles are giving way to money men in sharp suits driving limos. A few months ago my own favourite, ClimateCare, got gobbled up by Wall Street investment bank JPMorgan. Call me prejudiced, but suddenly I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.


Read more!

Poor accuse rich of meanness in U.N. climate fight

Gerard Wynn and Gabriela Baczynska, Reuters 13 Dec 08;

POZNAN, Poland (Reuters) - Developing nations accused the rich of meanness on Saturday at the end of U.N. climate talks that launched only a tiny fund to help poor countries cope with droughts, floods and rising seas.

They said the size of the Adaptation Fund -- worth just $80 million -- was a bad omen at the halfway mark of two years of negotiations on a new treaty to fight global warming designed to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.

"We are so sad and so disappointed," Colombian Environment Minister Juan Lozano said of the December 1-12 talks, which went on into the early hours of Saturday and have been overshadowed by worries that global economic woes are drying up donor cash.

"The human side of climate change is the suffering of our orphans and our victims and that was not considered here. It's a bad signal on the road to Copenhagen," said Lozano.

"I must say that this is one of the saddest moments I have witnessed in all these years," Indian representative Prodipto Ghosh told delegates at the 189-nation talks, adding he had attended U.N. climate meetings for 12 years.

Several other nations including Brazil, Costa Rica and Maldives made similar remarks.

Many delegates expressed hopes that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama would adopt more aggressive climate policies.

Environment ministers at the talks in Poland set rules for the Adaptation Fund, which is meant to help poor nations build flood defenses, develop drought-resistant crops, or produce storm warnings.

Polish Environment Minister Maciej Nowicki, the host, said the launch of the fund was the biggest achievement of Poznan. The fund, which can start paying out cash in 2009, has just $80 million but could rise to $300 million a year by 2012.

BILLIONS NEEDED

U.N. projections are that poor nations will need tens of billions of dollars a year by 2030 to cope with climate change. Poland spent 24 million euros ($31.84 million) just to host the December 1-12 conference.

Developing nations accused the rich of blocking agreement in Poznan on a wider funding mechanism that could raise about $2 billion a year. The issue was delayed until 2009.

Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said the talks achieved all they had set out to do but acknowledged there was "some bitterness."

"Half the work (for Copenhagen) hasn't been done," he said.

Still, he said Poznan had achieved a main task of reviewing progress toward a sweeping new global climate treaty in Copenhagen in December 2009 to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Environmentalists disagreed.

"We are desperately disappointed with the progress here," said Stephanie Tunmore of the Greenpeace environmental group. "The stocktaking bit wasn't difficult: 'What did we do in 2008? Not much'."

Environmentalists accused Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand of blocking progress and failing to set ambitious new goals to cut emissions. By contrast, countries including Mexico, China and South Africa laid out ideas to curb rising emissions.

European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said talks were on track. "Everyone said the fight against climate change is consistent with tackling the economic crisis," he said.

European Union ministers in Poznan expressed relief after EU leaders in Brussels agreed a pact on Friday to cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- after making costly concessions to east European countries.

Under the Adaptation Fund, cash is raised by a 2 percent levy on a U.N. system of projects to cut greenhouse gas emissions in poor nations. The levy has raised 60 million euros ($80 million) so far.

(Additional reporting by Anna Mudeva, Megan Rowling and Alister Doyle)

(Editing by Michael Roddy and Ralph Gowling)


Read more!

EU accused of subsidising climate change after 'watered-down' deal

Emissions target agreed, but only after concessions granted to 'dirty' industries

Andrew Grice, The Independent 13 Dec 08;

Green groups accused the European Union of watering down its trail-blazing pledge to tackle climate change last night, after EU leaders made concessions to "dirty" industries in Germany and eastern Europe.

The compromise allowed the EU to agree on its commitment to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2020. Its leaders said the deal, and the election of Barack Obama, will boost the prospects of a historic global agreement on climate change in talks in Copenhagen in a year's time.

Without a common EU front, the UN-led global negotiations would have collapsed. If there is an agreement in Copenhagen, the EU will raise its emissions cut target to 30 per cent.

A two-day EU summit scaled down its original plans, bowing to Germany, which wanted to protect its big manufacturing sector in the recession, and Poland and Hungary, which depend on coal. Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, greeted cameras with a victory sign as he left the meeting.

Instead of being required to buy 100 per cent of their "carbon emission permits" in 2020, as proposed by the European Commission, heavy industries including cement, chemicals and steel will have to buy only 70 per cent.

Robin Webster, Friends of the Earth's climate campaigner, said: "This could have been one of the EU's finest moments, but once again short-sighted national self-interest has been put ahead of the long-term safety of the planet. Huge loopholes allow big energy users to carry on polluting."

Joris Den Blanken, a spokesman for Greenpeace EU, added: "At the time that the US is finally re-engaging with the international community on climate, the EU's leadership is dropping away. Instead of acting to stop climate change, EU leaders are subsidising it."

Lower emissions from cars and renewable energy would be crucial, EU leaders said. Gordon Brown hailed the agreement as "ambitious", saying: "Europe and America acting together on climate change can persuade the rest of the world that we can reach a global agreement in Copenhagen next year. Europe's claim to be the leader on climate change will be not only upheld but advanced by what we agree today."

British officials said Mr Brown won a last-minute concession under which the EU will spend £9bn on carbon capture and storage, paving the way for "clean coal" plants if it works on a commercial basis. Britain hopes to win two of 12 demonstration projects. Britain also helped defeat attempts to delay power companies paying for 100 per cent of their carbon credits by auction from 2013 instead of getting them free.

Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, admitted that the concessions risked handing windfall profits to some of Europe's biggest polluters and that the original plans had been scaled down. "We would have preferred our initial proposals. But the suggestion that this is a watered-down ambition is nonsense, to put it mildly," he said. "We had to accept changes. That's the price to pay for unity in the end and it's a fair price."

Mr Barroso urged President-elect Obama to respond positively to the EU's move. "Our message to our global partners is: 'Yes, you can ... ' especially to our American partners," he said.

Climate deal: Key elements

*20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

*20 per cent increase in use of renewable energy by 2020.

*20 per cent cut in energy consumption via improved efficiency by 2020.

*Allocation of "carbon permits" under EU emissions trading scheme to be cut by a fifth from 2005 levels.

*Power companies will have to buy their permits at auction from 2013.

*Auctioning for other industrial sectors and aviation phased in by 2020.

EU leaders claim historic leap towards low-carbon future
Ambitious climate change pact makes generous concessions to the big polluters in European heavy industry

Ian Traynor and Nick Watt, guardian.co.uk 12 Dec 08;

European leaders tonight announced they were leading the world towards a low-carbon future after sealing an ambitious climate change pact by making generous concessions to the big polluters in European heavy industry.

A two-day summit of 27 government leaders in Brussels ended a two-year effort to agree mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and came as a triumph for President Nicolas Sarkozy of France in the closing days of his six-month presidency of the EU.

Not noted for his understatement, the French leader declared: "This council will go down in the history of Europe."

The French navigated a route through conflicting claims from Poland, Hungary, Germany, and Italy to finalise a deal that keeps the EU's key carbon dioxide reduction targets intact, while easing the costs of the package for European manufacturers and heavy industry.

The climate accord orders Europe to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. This is to be achieved through national reduction targets which vary among the 27 countries and through a Europe-wide carbon trading scheme in which industries and power plants buy permits to pollute from 2013.

The rules for the emissions trading scheme (ETS), however, were relaxed under German pressure to exempt most companies in the processing industries, such as steel and cement, from paying for the permits and power stations in central Europe, mostly coal-fired, were awarded large discounts on the price of carbon.

"To address the specific concerns of some countries, we had to accept some changes," said Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission whose draft legislation on the package was much stiffer than that agreed yesterday.

The decisions, to be turned into law by the European parliament next week, also cut CO2 emissions from cars by 19% by 2015, set binding national targets for renewable energy to total 20% of the European energy mix by 2020, encourage the use of "sustainable" biofuels, and order 20% greater energy efficiency by 2020.

Gordon Brown said: "This is a major advance. Europe, after these decisions, remains the leader on climate change."

But critics complained that the package was too little too late, that EU leaders had capitulated to fierce lobbying from European industry, that the loopholes in the system and the awarding of pollution permits free to most non-energy firms in the scheme would trigger a bonanza in windfall corporate profits.

"Industry has to do next to nothing," said Claude Turmes, a Green MEP from Luxembourg who helped draft part of the legislation. "If they are honest, these leaders know they haven't agreed something really ambitious."

Robin Webster, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "This could have been one of Europe's finest moments. But huge loopholes allow big energy-users to carry on polluting."

Barroso admitted that the terms of the deal could bring windfall profits for industry, reversing the logic of the polluter pays principle that is supposed to underpin the carbon trading scheme.

But he and others stressed that these concessions did not affect the overall targets. The accord was the first such agreement in the world and put Europe in a strong position to strike a broader pact with the incoming Obama administration in the US ahead of the effort to reach a worldwide global warming agreement in Copenhagen a year from now, Barroso said.

"This is a message especially to our US partners," said Barroso. "Obama is still far from what we are proposing…The idea that this has been watered down is nonsense."

"Combined with the spirit of engagement from president-elect Obama, there is now everything to play for as we put the pieces in place for a global climate deal in Copenhagen next December," said Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.

The package also includes provision for 12 pilot projects on carbon capture and storage — using novel technology to collect CO2 emitted from power stations and bury it underground.

The projects are to be funded from the proceeds of the carbon trading which is supposed to generate tens of billions in revenue by 2020. Under pressure from the British, the summit agreed to double the funding available for these projects.

"This is a transformational funding stream for a transformational technology," said David Miliband, the foreign secretary. "Nowhere else in the world has got that."

Green lobby cry foul as biggest polluters get more time to clean up
Summit criticised as missed opportunity for giving heavy industry concessions over carbon emissions
David Charter in Brussels and Lewis Smith, Times Online 13 Dec 08;

Heavy industry won extra time to go green yesterday as fears of factory closures during the economic crisis led Europe’s leaders to water down climate change proposals.

The EU stuck to its target to cut 20 per cent of greenhouse gases by 2020 and boost renewable energy, winning praise from John Kerry, Barack Obama’s envoy to a UN climate change summit in Poznan, Poland.

The goals are the world’s most ambitious and the EU hopes that Mr Obama will use them to steer the US towards a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

But big concessions for polluting industries such as steel and cement, under pressure from the German Government, led to accusations that yesterday’s EU summit in Brussels was a missed opportunity.

Plans to make all industries buy permits to emit pollution from 2013 onwards were deferred by EU leaders amid fears that these costs would cause job cuts and an exodus of production to countries with less stringent controls.

While electricity generators will have to buy their carbon permits the EU decided to hand free credits to key industries in a move that will reduce revenue for green measures such as developing carbon capture projects.

European industries exposed to international competition will receive free emissions permits if they face a 5 per cent increase in costs, a measure that is viewed as covering more than 90 per cent of EU industry. They will still have to reduce emissions year on year.

James Wilsdon, of the Royal Society, said that the EU climate change deal could represent “a missed opportunity” because of the way it had been watered down.

He said that too much attention had been paid to short-term economic considerations instead of the longer and more deadly problems of climate change.

“Europe must have a fully functioning Emissions Trading Scheme covering all sectors, where permits are not just given away. Those who cannot see beyond the short term must not hold sway – the consequences are too serious,” he said.

“Large-scale investment now in green technologies can reap long-term economic gains. A failure to invest in these will leave Europe dependent on others for our energy and increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.”

In the wide-ranging compromise deal struck by EU leaders, Britain won €3 billion (£2.6 billion) for extra investment in carbon capture and storage, taking the total to €9 billion. President Sarkozy of France, who chaired the EU summit, hailed the deal as seminal. “It is quite historic what has happened here. No continent has given itself such binding rules,” he said.

But Greenpeace, the WWF and other environmental groups denounced the agreement as “a dark day for European climate policy” despite the commitment to retain the headline target of 20 per cent CO2 cuts by 2020. “European heads of state and government have turned their backs on global efforts to fight climate change,” they said in a joint statement.

They accused the German, Italian and Polish leaders, plus Mr Sarkozy, of choosing “private profits of polluting industry over the will of European citizens, the future of their children and the plight of millions of people”.

Mr Kerry said that the EU’s overall agreement would serve as a blueprint for the rest of the world. He said that the deal would have an impact at talks planned for Copenhagen next December when world leaders will meet to try to seal an international accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

Europe has been the driving force for getting a fresh pact to succeed Kyoto in 2013, but delays and disagreements on its own measures have damaged its reputation in recent weeks.

Its failure to sign off its climate change package until yesterday was one of the chief stumbling blocks at the Poznan summit, where other countries were reluctant to commit themselves to becoming low-carbon economies until wealthier nations acted. The global economic downturn has meant rich and poor nations have been less willing to spend money on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Even though it was watered down, the accord served as a catalyst to break two weeks of deadlock at Poznan. Within hours of learning of the agreement, delegates moved towards releasing hundreds of millions of dollars to help poor nations protect themselves from the impact of climate change.

Negotiators in the Polish city agreed to release cash from the Adaptation Fund to poor nations where it will be used to help them cope with global warming. Mozaharul Alam, a delegate from Bangladesh, said: “This is an important step.”

As 145 ministers and 10,000 delegates prepared to head home they were addressed by Al Gore, the former US Vice-President who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change. He urged them to work to seal an accord in Copenhagen next year on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was clear that “increased CO2 emissions anywhere are a threat to the integrity of this planet’s climate balance everywhere”, Mr Gore said.


Read more!