Awesome Dives @ Pulau Hantu
on the colourful clouds blog
Sharing Sentosa with ITE
on the wild shores of singapore blog and blooming Tongkat Ali
Aground
on the annotated budak blog and nip and duck and field trip
Crane Dance Structure construction at Sentosa
NOT a new tourist attraction on the wild shores of singapore blog
Chinese Pond Heron and the earthworm
from Bird Ecology Study Group blog
Lamp post storks
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
BBC News 31 Mar 09;
The Thames Barrier will protect London from flooding until 2070, the Environment Agency has said.
A new study into London's flood defences found the barrier should work for 40 years longer than expected.
The nine concrete barriers in Woolwich Reach, south-east London, will need upgrading by 2035. By 2075, a new barrier should be built at Long Reach.
The study was based on a worst case climate change scenario with sea-levels rising to 2.7m (8.9ft).
The Thames Barrier, built in 1982, protects 45 sq miles of the capital which is at risk of flooding.
'Rigorous study'
The future of the Thames Barrage and other flood defences for the capital were also outlined in plans which looks into managing flooding until 2100.
If rising sea levels destroy wildlife habitat new and alternative intertidal habitats will be created for them, the plan said.
Dr Paul Leinster, chief executive of the Environment Agency, said the launch of the study would reassure more than 1.25 million people who live in the Thames flood plain.
"Rigorous study and scientific research into the estuary, the defences, climate change and our options for the future, have culminated in a plan that will safeguard the Thames estuary, and the people, buildings and natural habitats that make this area so unique."
"If over time sea levels are found to be rising faster then expected then we are already prepared and have identified the necessary solutions."
A consultation will be held on the draft plans before they are submitted to the government in 2010.
Straits Times Forum 31 Mar 09;
I REFER to last Wednesday's report, "Pack them in, build them up".
Any expert who thinks it is a great idea to keep on increasing the population of Singapore should spend a week or so living like the average Singaporean and not just stay in prime, low-density neighbourhoods which are 10 minutes from the centre of the city.
It is not right to compare Singapore to other major cities; the packed-in residents of New York, Tokyo or London can simply take a drive to the countryside on the weekends to 'get away from it all'.
Singaporeans who want to do the same will have to travel to another country - Malaysia - and suffer long delays to leave and enter. So much for de-stressing.
I thought our aspiration was for a Swiss standard of living, not a Hong Kong manner of living. The Hong Kongers are "richer" than us in terms of the value of their properties, but poorer indeed in terms of their quality of life.
Unlike many policies which can be corrected if shown to be wrong, it will not be easy to reverse the population if the policy is shown to have taken the country down the wrong path.
Singapore still has an enviable lifestyle. It might not be the case when it becomes over-populated.
Cheah Swee Keat
Patwant Singh, Channel NewsAsia 30 Mar 09;
SINGAPORE: By end-2011, Singaporeans will enjoy motor racing in the country's first permanent track. The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) has called for tenders or a Request For Proposal for the Changi Motorsports Hub.
The 3.5-kilometre-long track will sit on a 41-hectare site, which is about the size of 58 football fields. It will face the sea, near Singapore's Changi Airport on the eastern end of the island.
The Grade 2 track, with an 8,000 capacity grandstand, can be used for all races from A1 to MotoGP, except Formula One.
The government was supposed to call for tenders last year after the location was confirmed in October 2007. However, the SSC delayed it to better meet the requirements of potential bidders, such as doubling the land size from the original 20 hectares.
The government said there are interested parties, despite the current economic downturn and the estimated cost of several hundred million dollars.
Alex Chan, chairman of SSC, said: "In this case, it is a wholly private sector project and from our assessment, talking to various parties who have shown interest, they like this thing to go on."
This is partly due to the hub's unique features, which will have entertainment, retail, education, training and even R&D under one roof.
Fan Chian Jen, deputy director, Motorsports Industry Development, SSC, said: "(We want) to have a circuit that runs 24/7, whether or not there are motorsports activities, so that people go there, wine and dine and experience motorsports in other ways."
Another plus is that the hub will be located close to the city and airport, making it a viable tourist destination.
The Singapore Sports Council is hoping that the successful bidder would target transit passengers at the Changi Airport. These travellers could come for a quick spin around the track and be awarded a certificate for their best times as a memento before they catch their next flight.
The track's compact size is also a bonus for fans. Enzo Biagioni-Froudist, track consultant, Changi Motorsports Hub, said: "In some of the larger events, we really see only snippets of the action. This facility offers other opportunities, which allow much greater visual access to the racing."
Tenders for the 30-year lease must be submitted by August this year, with the winning bid to be announced in the first quarter of 2010. Tender documents are available at the Singapore Sports Council. - CNA/so
Related links
Changi race track - more land might be set aside on the wild shores of singapore blog
Visitor unhappy that Alexandra Hospital charges for plastic bag in its bid to go green
The New Paper 31 Mar 09;
THE supermarkets are doing it, and so is a furniture retail giant.
One hospital has also jumped on the Bring Your Own Bag bandwagon.
Since November last year, the pharmacy at Alexandra Hospital has been charging patients 10 cents for a small plastic bag and 20cents for a big one.
The small bag is like the one you get at the doctor when you are given your medicine. Anything bigger than that is considered a big bag.
Patients can also buy a reusable bag for $2.
So far, it appears Alexandra is the only hospital doing it. The New Paper checked with 10 other hospitals, and all said they do not charge patients for plastic bags.
SingHealth and National Healthcare Group polyclinics also do not have such a policy, and their spokesmen said they have no plans for it in the near future.
While some patients and visitors are supportive of the move, others ask if a hospital should be doing this.
The New Paper also spoke to members of the public outside the hospital.
Mr Jan Chan, 31, said: 'It feels more calculative than educational. People who go to a hospital are often in a rush and may not bring bags, especially the elderly.'
Another man, a 50-year-old bank officer who gave his name only as Mr Amir, said: 'Hospital fees are already high.'
Mr Liak Teng Lit, CEO of Alexandra Hospital, told The New Paper that the initiative was part of the hospital's green push.
The hospital was awarded the President's Award for the Environment last year.
Mr Liak said: 'The message we are trying to convey here is, 'Use what you need, don't waste'.'
He added that notices were placed in the hospital pharmacy last September to inform patients that the hospital would not give plastic bags for free from November.
A notice was also put up on the hospital's website.
Mr Liak said: 'We began encouraging our staff to recycle six or seven years ago and we're aggressive about it.'
Other green initiatives taken up by the hospital include switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs and placing solar panels where possible.
Despite the notices, some patients and visitors said they did not know that they would be charged for plastic bags.
Two weeks ago, Madam Mary Anchiraya took her mother, who is in her 70s, to the hospital for outpatient treatment after the latter had a fall.
When Madam Anchiraya, a customer service officer in her 40s, went to collect the medicine at the pharmacy, she was told that she would need to pay.
As she was heading to work and her mother did not have a bag, she paid for a small bag.
But she was unhappy that the hospital was charging for plastic bags.
'There was no sign at the pharmacy (about the charges) and I did not know I needed to bring my own bag,' she said.
'Not every patient goes there frequently. Maybe they should give the first bag free and charge for subsequent bags.'
Student Chen Rui Ping, 18, however, said she does not mind having to pay for the plastic bags.
'Medicines are given out in small packets that can be easily slipped into bags or pockets,' she pointed out.
Ms Vivien Ding, 26, a customer service officer, said having to pay for plastic bags will make people think twice about whether they need the bags.
'If bags are free, people will take one whether they need it or not.'
Mr Liak said each plastic bag costs the hospital three to four cents and it has seen a 10 to 20 per cent decrease in plastic bag consumption since implementing the scheme.
'Plastic bags are not free and I don't see why we should give it out for free. I either price it into the product or price it separately,' Mr Liak added.
He said that patients who do not want to pay for the bags can take used plastic bags that are also provided at the pharmacy.
But most of the people we spoke to said they would not take the used bags.
Mr Wong Kok Hong, 61, who works in the construction industry, said: ' I don't know what was in them before.'
Pearly Tan, newsroom intern
Consumption also expected to drop in March, reflecting economic slowdown
Ronnie Lim, Business Times 31 Mar 09;
ELECTRICITY demand in Singapore declined in January and February, according to the latest Energy Market Company data - continuing a slide which started last October when the global economic downturn began. March will be no different, say industry sources.
'Electricity demand in January 2009 fell to its lowest level since February 2006 to 4,153 megawatts, owing to the Chinese New Year effect. Demand thereafter rose modestly to 4,340 MW in February,' said EMC, which operates the wholesale electricity market here.
'Comparing year-on- year for January and February 2009, the percentage change in demand remained negative for the fifth consecutive month, with January and February 2009 recording minus 8.6 and minus 1.6 per cent respectively,' the EMC said.
This continues a fall in year-on-year demand which started in the last quarter of 2008 with October recording minus 3.2 per cent, November minus 2.7 per cent and December minus 3 per cent.
'Demand continues to be lacklustre,' said EMC's chief executive Dave Carlson.
While March figures are not in yet, 'this month we are expecting demand to be minus 4 to 5 per cent compared to March 2008', an industry source told BT.
The weak first-quarter electricity demand here - which includes that from industries and businesses - clearly reflects the economic slowdown as a result of the global financial crisis. The Ministry of Trade and Industry earlier forecast a gross domestic product (GDP) contraction of 2 to 5 per cent here this year, although it could be worse.
'No one knows if electricity demand is going to stay negative for the rest of the year,' the industry source said, adding, however, that things will hopefully improve with the start of the new financial year in April, which could see greater activity by companies.
The Energy Market Authority's chief executive Lawrence Wong also said at a regional energy workshop last week that 'no one can tell when the market will bottom out'.
'Energy demand for both industrial and domestic use has tapered off. Coupled with the tightening of credit worldwide, several power producers are now reconsidering their options for new projects, or deferring their commissioning dates. In Singapore, we saw electricity demand at the start of the year drop sharply to levels below that in 2007,' he added.
BT had earlier reported that Tuas Power is holding off by six to 12 months its plans for a $2 billion clean coal/biomass cogeneration plant, with Sembcorp Industries similarly delaying building a second cogeneration plant on Jurong Island.
Zeinab Yusuf, Business Times 31 Mar 09;
THE current economic crisis, a problem that is on most governments' agenda, is not the only crisis that should be addressed.
Two other long-term crises - food-fuel price volatility and climate change - are converging with the present economic crisis to create a triple threat that demands urgent attention, according to Noeleen Heyzer, undersecretary-general and executive secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).
Speaking at the launch of UNESCAP's flagship publication, Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2009, Dr Heyzer emphasised the need for the region to reorient economic growth towards a long-term development path that is more inclusive and sustainable.
While huge pressures exist to address short-term financial threats, the report's findings suggest that a balanced approach to addressing all three crises will better serve the global community - and the region - in the long run.
Referring to the fiscal stimulus packages announced by most countries in South-east Asia, the report highlights the importance of these packages as an opportunity to fight the recession and not only reinvigorate the economy in the short term but address long-term issues by investing in food and energy security, social safety nets, disaster risk reduction and green technology.
However, moving towards such a paradigm requires a concerted effort, and the report emphasises the need for regional coordination to implement fiscal measures and agree on substantive policies that will benefit the region.
Additionally, the survey emphasised the need for more intra-regional trade and investment by accelerating implementation of regional economic cooperation agreements as Asia Pacific is more economically integrated with the rest of the world than within itself. 'By strengthening our domestic markets, the region can provide a buffer to global market fluctuations and move from being crisis-resilient to crisis-resistant,' explained Dr Heyzer.
Tempo Interactive 30 Mar 09;
Jakarta: The government is considered to have not maximally developed the coral reef triangle initiative region.
Head of the Research Agency at the Maritime and Fisheries Department, Gellwynn Jusuf, said that government only develops the potential of fisheries in this region.
“While actually there is also potential for marine tourism,” said Gellwynn yesterday (29/3).
The coral triangle initiative region includes Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea and Salomon islands, and amounts to 75,000 square kilometers in total.
In Indonesia alone, it amounts to 51,000 square kilometers, or 65 percent of the total triangle area.
“With this size, there is potential for marine tourism. Wakatobi, Raja Ampat, and Bunaken could be developed,” said Gellwynn.
He mentioned that the triangle at the present can create a profit of US$2.3 billion per year.
Mostly, this comes from fish sales to China and Japan (US$800 million).
Gellwynn also suggested the government to build greater awareness about coral reef preservation.
“Through the Coral Triangle Initiative Summit in Maluku in May this year, we plan to discuss about having national activities to save the coral,” he said.
Meanwhile, director of the Indonesian environment forum (Walhi), Berry Nahdian Forqan, said that fishermen should be involved in any activities to save coral reefs.
Berry believes that traditional fishermen --when they are given opportunities-- are capable to protect certain region. “Sea is a place for them to survive,” he said. Fishermen can detect and report the damage earlier.
Regarding marine tourism, Berry emphasized integration.
“When one region turns into a tourism area but other areas are still waste dumps, the coral will still be destructed,” he said.
REH ATEMALEM SUSANTI
Antara 30 Mar 09;
Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Various fishery management regions were considered over crowded, and overfishing could threaten fish resource preservation in Indonesia, an official of the marine and fisheries ministry, said.
"Clearly, it`s a big challenge for Indonesia to meet the commitment to a responsible fishery management," Soen`an Hadi Poernomo, head of the ministry`s statical data and information center, said here on Sunday.
Java Sea, Arafura Sea, Karimata Strait and Sulawesi Sea were over crowded, he said.
by-catch fishery must be controlled in an effort to preserve fish, he said. The number of fishing boats must be in status quo, and even it should be decreased, he said.
He said fishing schedule and equipment must be regulated tightly.
"All should be supported by researches which study fish stocks or condition," he said.
The Indonesian government had made some efforts to preserve fish through various instruments such as Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), Port State Measure, Global Record of Vessels, and fish trade regulation, he explained.
Regional cooperation in ocean fish management was also needed to preserve fish stocks, Hadi Poernomo said.
The 28th session of FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)`s Committee on Fisheries, COFI was held in Rome, Italy, on March 2-6, 2009, to discuss among other things the importance of small-scale fisheries, the role that women play within these fisheries, illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries (IUU), climate change and management of deep sea fisheries in the high seas.
He said Indonesia was represented by Aji Sularso, the marine and fishery ministry`s director general of marine resource supervision and control, in the Rome meeting.
In the FAO COFI meeting, many participants spoke in favor of a new COFI process to develop guidelines on by-catch management and discard reduction, he said. (*)
Ika Krismantari, The Jakarta Post 30 Mar 09;
Indonesia proposes to expand its tuna fishing fleet by 500 vessels at the 13th meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) in Bali this week.
The Fishery Ministry's director general for ocean fisheries Ali Supardan told The Jakarta Post on Sunday that in a bid to increase the country's tuna production, Indonesia would propose that 500 more vessels be added to its existing fleet of 874 vessels during the 13th Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) being held in Bali this week, starting on Monday.
With more vessels registered with the IOTC, Indonesia would get the chance to significantly expand its tuna fishing areas. Vessels registered with the IOTC are permitted to fish outside of their national territorial fishing waters, so long as they remain within the Indian Ocean region covered by the IOTC regulatory framework.
Director of fisheries sources Nilanto Prabowo told The Jakarta Post that Indonesia was expected to increase its tuna production by 20 percent this year, should the proposal to amend the quota under the IOTC regulations be approved.
According to data from the Central Statistic Agency (BPS), Indonesia produced 125,933 tons of tuna in 2008, a slight increase from 121, 316 tons in 2007. However the proposed substantial expansion in the size of the tuna fishing fleet would have a major impact on the tonnage of tuna landed, although it might take some time to optimize the resulting catch based on the requested quota.
Nilanto said that the proposed increase in the number of tuna fishing vessels to be deployed under the requested amended IOTC quota would have to be phased in step by step as this would require time and substantial investment.
"We will propose the plan during the meeting. About the time frame for the implementation, we will add the number of registered ships gradually," he said, without elaborating.
The proposal is part of an Indonesian strategic plan to have a greater say among tuna producers in the commission and to play a greater role in the tuna fishing industry.
Nilanto said that Indonesia was not alone in proposing an additional quota. The commission was still in the process of determining the number of boats that could be allowed to fish for tuna in the Indian Ocean region in order to maintain a balance between the development of the tuna industry and sustaining the size of tuna reserves.
"Other countries only propose between 25 and 50 additional vessels," Nilanto said, adding that Indonesia's hefty request was reasonable because the country was considered to be among the biggest maritime countries in the world, with its fishing industry expected to show major growth in the coming years.
Data from the Fishery Ministry shows the country's fishery output reached 8.71 million tons last year, up from 8.24 million tons in 2007.
It exported 895,000 tons of fish in 2008, a 4 percent increase from the 854,329 tons it exported in 2007.
Indonesia joined the IOTC as a full member in 2007, after previously serving as a cooperating noncontributing party.
The IOTC is an inter-governmental organization that manages tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas with the main objective of promoting both cooperation among its members and sustainability of tuna resources.
Indonesia is the 27th member of the IOTC.
According to the commission, the region produces more than 1 million tons of tuna annually worth between US$3 billion and $5 billion.
Bernama 31 Mar 09;
SIBU, March 31 (Bernama) -- An integrated river management basin study for major rivers in Sarawak will be conducted to identify and solve the problems of flooding and environmental damage posed by the river system in the state.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Douglas Uggah Embas said Tuesday the study was expected to be implemented under the Tenth Malaysia Plan (10MP).
"Non-structure measures to mitigate flooding may be formulated after this study," he told reporters after chairing a meeting and briefing on Sibu flood mitigation projects undertaken by the ministry at the Public Works Department (PWD) office here.
Under the present Ninth Malaysian Plan (9MP), Uggah said, RM346 million would be spent on four flood mitigation projects in Sarawak.
The RM29 million flood mitigation project in Miri and the RM32 million project in Bau would be completed this year while phase one of the RM148 million project in Kuching would be completed next year, he said.
For phase one of the RM137 million Sibu flood mitigation project, he said, the contract was given on Feb 9 and the work involving raising 2.4km of the Lanang Road and 0.4km of the Alam Road, upgrading 4.7km of roadside drain and building three tidal control gates and two pump stations would begin soon and be completed by 2011.
"The implementation of phase two will start in 2011 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 10MP," he said.
He said RM5 million had been allocated to improve the telemetry stations in Sibu as an early warning system to warn Sibu folk of impending floods when there is heavy rainfall in the upper Batang Rajang.
He, however, stressed that the flood problems in Sibu would not be totally solved with the implementation of several flood mitigation projects by the federal government as there were certain factors beyond human control, like the weather patterns.-- BERNAMA
New Scientist 30 Mar 09;
FANS of wildlife documentaries could soon catch up with the latest rare animal sightings from their computers.
Cameras equipped with infrared triggers, known as camera traps, are used to identify, count and observe larger mammals in isolated areas. Now researchers from Earthwatch are adding the latest images from their camera traps in Ecuador's cloud forests to Google Earth.
They hope to raise awareness of endangered species, encouraging donations and attracting tourists to the region to support conservation efforts. "It's a form of fishing or hunting that doesn't kill anything," says Earthwatch scientist Mika Peck of the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK, who is leading the project.
Mammals currently on camera in the cloud forest include the spectacled bear - or "Paddington Bear" of South America - puma and deer.
The project should also enable researchers to pool sightings and information on animals from different areas, says Peck. "The idea is to expand this into other reserves and eventually inspire the local government to use this to monitor all their forests." Peck hopes to have the system up and running by July.
Yahoo News 30 Mar 09;
WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama signed legislation on Monday expanding and protecting US public parks and wilderness areas from oil and gas development, billed as the largest US conservation measure in more than 15 years.
"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parts, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said while signing the Public Land Management Act.
The legislation - backed by members of both parties -- is "among the most important in decades to protect, preserve and pass down our nation's most treasured landscapes to future generations," Obama added.
The omnibus bill, comprising more than 150 individual measures passed by Congress, creates 10 new National Heritage Areas, designates two million acres (81,000 hectares) of federal lands in nine states as wilderness areas and sets out water conservation measures.
"It protects treasured places from the Appalachians of Virginia and West Virginia to Michigan's Upper Peninsula, from the canyons of Idaho to the sandstone cliffs of Utah, from the Sierra Nevada in California to the Badlands of Oregon," Obama said.
"It wisely faces our future challenges with regard to water ... assesses how growth and climate change will affect our access to water resources ... it includes solutions to complex and long-simmering water disputes, he added.
Obama said water conservation measures would allow the 80,000-strong indigenous Navajo nation "access to clean, running water for the very first time."
The bill also includes the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act -- named after the late Hollywood actor who was paralyzed from a riding accident, providing for paralysis research, rehabilitation and care.
Obama said the bill was "specifically aimed at addressing the challenges faced by Americans living with paralysis" and would work to improve their quality of life "no matter what the costs."
Reeve's son, Matthew, attended the signing ceremony and was summoned by Obama to also sign the bill.
Obama signed the bill before 150 people including lawmakers, representatives from conservation groups, sports organizations and disability advocates.
The United States has currently set aside 107.3 million acres (43.4 million hectares) as wilderness areas, including national parkland.
Obama Signs Landmark US Conservation Bill
PlanetArk 31 Mar 09;
WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama signed sweeping land and water conservation rules into law on Monday, setting aside millions of acres as protected areas and delighting environmentalists.
The measure, a package of more than 160 bills, would designate about 2 million acres (809,400 hectares) -- parks, rivers, streams, desert, forest and trails -- in nine states as new wilderness and render them off limits to oil and gas drilling and other development.
The House of Representatives approved the measure on a vote of 285-140 a week after it cleared the Senate, capping years of wrangling and procedural roadblocks.
Opponents, most of them Republicans, complained the legislation would deny access for oil and gas drilling and said House Democrats refused to consider changes.
"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a signing ceremony.
The areas that would be designated as new wilderness are mostly in California, followed by Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, New Mexico and Michigan.
Environmentalists welcomed the move.
"As global warming changes wildlife habitat and food sources, it's more important than ever that we take care of our last remaining wild forests and rivers," the environmental group Sierra Club said in a statement.
"This is the most important lands protection legislation in decades."
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Thomas Ferraro, editing by Vicki Allen)
Timothy Gardner, PlanetArk 31 Mar 09;
NEWARK - The United States has asked the United Nation's International Maritime Organization to create a buffer zone around America's coastline to cut pollution from ocean-going ships that harms human health, the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.
"This is an important and long overdue step in our efforts to protect the air and the water along our shores and the health of the people in our coastal communities," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
Under the proposal, which was also submitted to the IMO by Canada, big vessels like oil tankers and cargo ships that operate in a 230-mile "emissions control area" extending from two countries' coastlines, would face stricter smog and particulate pollution standards to reduce the threats the emissions pose to humans and the environment.
The United States asked the IMO to create the boundaries because some 90 percent of the ship calls on US ports are made by foreign-flagged vessels.
The EPA estimates the plan would save up to 8,300 lives annually in the United States and Canada by 2020. Urban neighbourhoods that surround ports, like the hubs of Newark, New Jersey and Los Angeles, have typically suffered the worst health problems, such as asthma and cancer, from the pollutants, according to EPA studies. Some 40 US ports currently fail to meet federal air pollution standards.
Environmentalists applauded the action. "Ships are floating smokestacks that deliver soot and smog straight to the heart of our most crowded cities, home to 87 million Americans," said Andy Darrell, a vice president for the Living Cities program at the Environmental Defence Fund. He said emissions control areas would cut ship pollution as much as 96 percent by 2015.
COSTS
The plan would cost some $3.2 billion annually by 2020 in ship retooling, cleaner fuels and other expenses, but save up to $28 billion per year in health care costs, according to the EPA.
Byron Bunker, an EPA emissions expert, told Reuters the plan would add about $18 per 20-foot (6-meter) container unit on a typical shipment from China to the US West Coast, which boils down to "about a penny per pair of tennis shoes."
The plan, which the IMO is scheduled to review starting in July, would cut sulphur in fuel by 98 percent, particulate matters emissions by 85 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent from current global limits.
Ships can control sulphur and particulate pollution by burning cleaner, more expensive, diesel fuels than the bunker fuel they traditionally burn. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be controlled with engines that burn fuels more efficiently.
Beginning in 2015, fuel used by ships in the buffer zone would not be allowed to exceed 0.1 percent sulphur. Beginning in 2016, new engines on vessels operating in the zones must use emission controls to control the nitrogen oxide pollution.
The US Coast Guard, which also helped form the proposal, would enforce the rules in the US buffer zones.
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)
Henry Fountain, The New York Times 30 Mar 09;
Soaring above the Mississippi River just east of downtown Minneapolis is one remarkable concrete job.
There on Interstate 35W, the St. Anthony Falls Bridge carries 10 lanes of traffic on box girders borne by massive arching piers, which are supported, in turn, by footings and deep pilings.
The bridge, built to replace one that collapsed in 2007, killing 13 people, is constructed almost entirely of concrete embedded with steel reinforcing bars, or rebar. But it is hardly a monolithic structure: the components are made from different concrete mixes, the recipes tweaked, as a chef would, for specific strength and durability requirements and to reduce the impact on the environment. One mix, incorporated in wavy sculptures at both ends of the bridge, is designed to stay gleaming white by scrubbing stain-causing pollutants from the air.
The project, built for more than $230 million and finished in September, three months ahead of schedule, “might have been the most demanding concrete job in the United States in 2008,” said Richard D. Stehly, principal of American Engineering Testing, a Minneapolis firm that was involved in the project. It is a prime example of major changes in concrete production and use — changes that make use of basic research and are grounded, in part, in the need to reduce concrete’s carbon footprint.
Concrete may seem an unlikely material for scientific advances. At its most basic, a block of concrete is something like a fruitcake, but even more leaden and often just as unloved. The fruit in the mix is coarse aggregate, usually crushed rock. Fine aggregate, usually sand, is a major component as well. Add water and something to help bind it all together — eggs in a fruitcake, Portland cement in concrete — mix well, pour into a form and let sit for decades.
Let a lot of it sit. Every year, about a cubic yard of concrete is produced for each of the six-billion-plus people on the planet.
Think of it this way. The stretch of sidewalk in front of your house? That is you and your spouse’s share. That concrete truck rumbling down the street? It holds a yard for each member of the New York Yankees’ starting lineup. Add the Mets and the Red Sox, and you have enough for the typical house foundation and basement floor.
But those are small projects. The St. Anthony Falls Bridge used about 50,000 yards of concrete. Hoover Dam used more than three million. And the Three Gorges project in China contains more than a yard for every man, woman and child in Canada, population 33 million.
All that concrete may seem the same. And the basic product did remain relatively unchanged since the invention of Portland cement in the early 1800s. (The ancient Romans made concrete, too, but from volcanic ash.) Producers have always tinkered with the mix to find the right proportions of concrete’s basic ingredients, but the recipe never varied much.
Now the experimentation is more elaborate, designed to tailor the concrete to the need. Increasingly, that need includes the environment. Aesthetic considerations aside, concrete is environmentally ugly. The manufacturing of Portland cement is responsible for about 5 percent of human-caused emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
“The new twist over the last 10 years has been to try to avoid materials that generate CO2,” said Kevin A. MacDonald, vice president for engineering services of the Cemstone Products Company, the concrete supplier for the I-35W bridge.
In his mixes, Dr. MacDonald replaced much of the Portland cement with two industrial waste products — fly ash, left over from burning coal in power plants, and blast-furnace slag. Both are what are called pozzolans, reactive materials that help make the concrete stronger. Because the CO2 emissions associated with them are accounted for in electricity generation and steel making, they also help reduce the concrete’s carbon footprint. Some engineers and scientists are going further, with the goal of developing concrete that can capture and permanently sequester CO2 from power plants or other sources, so it cannot contribute to the warming of the planet.
Given the numbers, the possibilities for carbon sequestration are enormous. The United States concrete industry’s big annual trade show, held in Las Vegas each winter, is called World of Concrete, and for good reason. Concrete is made and used just about everywhere, with China responsible for half the world’s production.
In the making of concrete, the Portland cement and water form a paste in which a series of reactions occur, hardening the paste and locking the aggregates within it. Those reactions use up the water — concrete doesn’t “dry out” through evaporation — and produce heat. They also make the product caustic. While most of the strengthening occurs in the first few days and weeks, the process can continue for years, as long as there is a little moisture around.
Michelle L. Wilson, director of concrete knowledge for the Portland Cement Association, a trade group, described a hydrating cement particle this way: “It’s not a piece of popcorn, it’s not popping from the inside out. It’s more like a jawbreaker — as the water hits it, the hydration is in layers from the outside in. You can continue to hydrate that jawbreaker down.”
Just as a dose of brandy or other extra ingredient can improve a fruitcake, concrete can be modified by adding other materials and chemicals. The recipes have become much more sophisticated, said Jay Shilstone, a concrete consultant in Plano, Tex.
“It used to be that the chemicals added to concrete were soaps or sugars — very simple,” Mr. Shilstone said. “Now we’re doing designer chemicals to work on specific components.”
Some chemicals make wet concrete flow better into a form’s nooks and crannies without separating. Others prevent the cement particles from flocking together, so the amount of water can be reduced — which means that less cement is needed as well. Chemicals can be added to slow the reactions to give contractors more time to work with the wet concrete. Isocyanates and other catalysts can speed the reactions up, if the concrete needs to reach a certain strength in a short time.
Increasingly engineers are also paying attention to the internal structure of the concrete to improve strength and reduce permeability. “There’s been a major push to look at the particle size distribution,” Mr. Shilstone said.
Although powdery, on a microscopic scale cement actually consists of relatively large grains. So researchers are looking at even smaller particles, “microproducts that can go in and do magical things with the cement matrix,” Mr. Shilstone said.
Dr. MacDonald added a small percentage of silica fume, another industrial waste material, to the mix for the bridge’s box girders, to make the concrete more impermeable to road salt, which corrodes rebar, eventually destroying concrete from within.
One large cement producer, the Italcementi Group, adds titanium dioxide particles to one of its products. The cement makes the concrete white by acting as a catalyst under sunlight to break down organic pollutants in the air. “It speeds up the natural oxidation process,” said Dan Schaffer, a product manager for an Italcementi subsidiary, Essroc, which supplied the cement for the I-35W bridge sculptures.
Some researchers want to eventually eliminate Portland cement entirely and replace it with other cements to produce zero-carbon, or even carbon-negative, concrete.
Portland cement is at the heart of concrete’s environmental problems. About a ton of CO2 is emitted for every ton of cement produced. The basic manufacturing process involves burning limestone and other minerals at about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit to create an intermediate product called clinker.
“Essentially, we’re trying to make the same minerals that they did in 1825,” said Mr. Stehly, who is head of a committee addressing sustainability issues at the American Concrete Institute.
The cement industry, particularly in the United States and Europe, has reduced CO2 emissions through the use of more efficient kilns and processes, and is now allowed to add some ground unburned limestone to the clinker, reducing the actual cement in the mix. But about half of the CO2 from cement cannot be eliminated — it is produced in the reaction, called calcination, that occurs as the limestone (which consists of calcium carbonate) is being burned.
So to reduce concrete’s carbon footprint to near zero or less, different approaches are needed. Novacem, a British startup, is developing a cement that does not use carbonates and can make concrete that absorbs carbon dioxide. Carbon Sense Solutions, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, wants to bubble CO2 through wet cement, sequestering the gas through carbonation (a process that occurs naturally, though very slowly, under normal conditions).
At a site adjacent to a gas-fired electricity generation plant in Moss Landing, Calif., the Calera Corporation is developing a process to bubble power plant flue gases through seawater or other brackish water, using the CO2 in the gases to precipitate carbonate minerals for use as cement or aggregates in concrete. The process mimics, to some extent, what corals and other calcifying marine organisms do.
Calera calculates that producing a ton of these minerals consumes half a ton of CO2, so the resulting concrete could potentially be carbon negative — sequestering carbon dioxide permanently.
Brent R. Constantz, the company’s founder, has a background in cements, having made specialty products for use in orthopedic surgery. But he does not describe Calera as a cement company. “We’re primarily driven by the need to capture large amounts of CO2 and sequester it,” he said.
The company probably will begin by making aggregate, because the barriers to making a commercially acceptable product are lower than with cement. Even with aggregate, any new product must meet standards and must be accepted by the concrete industry, which can be conservative. “Any time you introduce anything new,” Dr. Constantz said, “it’s a challenge.”
UNEP 30 Mar 09;
Nairobi, 30 March 2009 - The Billion Tree Campaign has passed the three billion planted tree mark following a confirmation from the Government of Turkey that it planted over 300 million trees in 2008.
According to the Turkish Ambassador to Kenya, H.E. Mr. S. Levent Sahinkaya, "A total of 305,362,000 trees were planted by the Turkish Government and the Turkish civil society in the year 2008. We believe that investing in our environment is investing in our future, and we consider the planting of over 300 million trees as a marvelous gift to our children and to the generations to come. The Turkish government will continue investing in the environment and is committed to the creation of an environment-friendly economy."
Turkey has had an impressive tree planting record since the launch of the campaign, planting over 400 million trees in 2007. With slightly over 700 million trees planted to date, Turkey now attains second position in the list of top ten countries in the campaign's roll of honour. The leading country remains Ethiopia with 725 million trees planted.
Meanwhile the PRAIS Foundation, an organization in Romania, in partnership with the Romanian Ministry of Environment and the National Environmental Guard and other partners, have confirmed that they have planted over eleven million trees through the national tree planting movement 'Millions of People, Millions of Trees'.
"The PRAIS Foundation is very proud that the movement is formally recognized by UNEP, and has become part of the Plant for Planet global initiative", said Silvia Bucur, the President of the PRAIS Foundation.
Roll of Honour: Top countries
1. Ethiopia - 725,945,094
2. Turkey - 707,540,533
3. Mexico - 472,404,266
4. Kenya - 139,893,668
5. Cuba - 137,476,771
6. Indonesia - 100,335,946
7. India - 84,027,466
8. People's Republic of China - 53,950,418
9. Rwanda - 50,051,007
10. Republic of Korea - 46,723,157
11. Peru - 46,555,894
In total, 3,071,704,993 trees have been planted around the world. So far, another 1,578,796,459 trees have been pledged and have yet to be planted.
The Billion Tree Campaign, spearheaded by UNEP, was unveiled in 2006 as one response to the threat but also the opportunities of global warming, as well as to the wider sustainability challenges from water supplies to biodiversity loss.
The campaign, which is under the patronage of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Kenyan Green Belt Movement founder Professor Wangari Maathai and His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco, has set a new ambitious target of seven billion trees to be planted by the climate change conference that will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009.
In a call to action, UNEP is making an appeal to UN Peacekeeping missions and the armed forces of the world to also join in the campaign by planting trees in areas where they operate. UNEP is further inviting all people, communities, business and industry, civil society organizations and governments to join this global tree planting initiative by registering tree planting commitments on the campaign's website www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign
Aleksandras Budrys, PlanetArk 31 Mar 09;
MOSCOW - Russia will consume 20 percent less pork and beef this year and cut imports substantially as the global economic crisis drives consumers to buy cheaper poultry meat, the head of the National Meat Association said.
Meat processors are also adding more offal to their sausages as consumers cut spending on food products to weather Russia's first recession in a decade, Sergei Yushin told Reuters in an interview.
"We expect the decline to support poultry producers, as normally demand shifts to poultry meat from red meat," Yushin said. "However, if poultry prices rise, some may switch to non-meat products."
Russia produced about 6 million tonnes of meat in 2008 and consumed almost 9 million tonnes, or 3.1 percent of the world's entire meat consumption, data from the association shows.
Yushin, whose powerful industry lobby unites major meat importers, processors and animal breeders, said Russia should retain current import quotas on poultry and pork.
But beef import quotas could be raised by 20-25 percent from 2010 as Russian cattle numbers continue to decline, he said.
"We are unable to compete with many meat producers and therefore we will have to keep import quotas for at least the next three years," Yushin said.
Cattle breeding in Russia, however, had no prospects for growth in the next 10 years due to the huge investment required and the lack of available cheap loans.
"Cattle numbers are falling and will keep falling," he said.
The National Meat Association favours the abolition of country-specific quotas, Yushin said, but he added that such a move would encounter strong resistance from influential US meat lobbies and some Russian importers.
"Quotas only imply the right of importers to ship in a certain amount, but it is by no means an obligation," he said.
BEEF IMPORTS FALL, OFFAL UP
Russian beef imports in the first two months of 2009 fell by more than 40 percent year-on-year to 39,000 tonnes, data from the association showed.
Pork imports fell by 31 percent to 53,000 tonnes and poultry imports by 18 percent to 92,000 tonnes in the same comparison.
But imports of beef offal rose by 20 percent in January-February 2009. Pork offal imports were up 23 percent.
"This means that processors are adding more cheap offal to sausage, as nobody is going to buy expensive sausage," Yushin said.
Last year, Russia produced 2.2 million tonnes of poultry meat and imported 1.2 million tonnes. Pork output was 2.0 million tonnes and imports 770,000 tonnes, while beef output was 1.65 million tonnes and imports around 800,000 tonnes.
The import figures do not include offal and live animals.
Russia regulates imports by tariff quotas. The poultry quota for this year has been reduced by 300,000 tonnes and a tariff on pork imported above the quota has been raised.
"The situation favours poultry meat producers. In the first two months of this year, production rose by another 60,000 tonnes year-on-year," Yushin said.
"This is a big figure, taking into account that they plan to raise output by 300,000 tonnes this year."
Despite falling pork consumption this year, Yushin said the pig-breeding sector in Russia had good prospects. Feed is cheap after a good grain crop, modern breeding complexes have been built and producers have become more market-oriented, he said.
"The pig-breeding sector is becoming very profitable and people working in it want to increase output," he said. "Grain prices are not expected to rise, fuel is becoming cheaper and pork producers will have another good year."
This year, pig breeders may provide an additional 100,000-200,000 tonnes of domestic pork -- despite the financial crisis -- as a result of investments made in 2007-08, he said.
But new investments would be difficult, he added, and the owners unfinished complexes might have problems with new loans.
(Editing by Robin Paxton)
Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com 30 Mar 09;
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) is increasingly seen as a compelling way to conserve tropical forests while simultaneously helping mitigate climate change, preserving biodiversity, and providing sustainable livelihoods for rural people.
But to become a reality REDD still faces a number of challenges, not least of which is economic competition from other forms of land use. In Indonesia and Malaysia, the biggest competitor is likely oil palm, which is presently one of the most profitable forms of land use. Oil palm is also spreading to other tropical forest areas including the Brazilian Amazon [PDF].
To compare how REDD stacks up with oil palm, ETH Zürich ecologists Lian Pin Koh and Jaboury Ghazoul and I devised economic models to evaluate returns from each land use under different price scenarios. We found that as long as carbon credits from avoided deforestation is limited to voluntary markets where it fetches 10-20 percent of the price in compliance markets like the European Union's Emission Trading System, REDD will fail to be competitive with palm oil.
Our analysis reveals that the development of the concession for oil palm agriculture will generate a net present value ranging from $3,835 to $9,630 per hectare over a 30-year period. Under the second scenario of REDD, we determined that voluntary markets will limit REDD operating profit to $614-$994 per hectare in NPV over the 30-year period--substantially less than profits from oil palm conversion. However, giving REDD credits price parity with carbon credits in compliance markets would boost the profitability of avoided deforestation to $1,571-$6,605 per hectare, and possibly as high as $11,784 per hectare if carbon payments are front-weighted, that is, if credits are allocated and sold during the first 8 years when deforestation actually occurs instead of distributing the credits over the full 30 years.
We of course recognize that economics isn't the sole determinant of land-use decisions, but it is nevertheless an important one. Furthermore, other ecosystem services — including biodiversity conservation and watershed protection — that may be derived from avoiding deforestation would also augment the environmental and socioeconomic benefits of REDD schemes.
We strongly believe that REDD will be more widely adopted under a climate framework that values forest carbon at levels considerably higher than present. This could happen if REDD becomes recognized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a legitimate emissions reduction activity during its upcoming Conference of Parties in Copenhagen in December this year.
NOTE: Our models are freely available in Excel (XLS) format.
Butler, R.A., Koh, L.P., and Ghazoul, J. 2009. REDD in the red: palm oil could undermine carbon payment schemes. Conservation Letters DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00047.x
Yahoo News 30 Mar 09;
BONN (AFP) – Including forest protection measures in carbon markets would cause carbon prices to crash, and could undo efforts to rein in global warming, according to a Greenpeace report released Monday.
Prices in a future carbon market would plummet by 75 percent, making it cheaper for industries in rich nations to buy deforestation offsets than reduce their carbon output at home, a study commissioned by the green group found.
It would also starve developing countries of investments for clean and renewable technologies, said the report, released on the margins of climate talks under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change.
"Cheap forest credits sound attractive, but a closer examination shows they are a dangerous option that won't save the forests or stop runaway climate change," said Roman Czebiniak, a forest expert at Greenpeace International.
Negotiators from 175 nations have gathered here to hammer out a climate treaty -- slated for completion by year's end -- to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012.
Finding a way to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries -- an effort known as REDD -- has emerged as a key element in the negotiations.
The continuing destruction of tropical forests accounts for 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and it will be virtually impossible to curb global warming unless forests are protected, scientists say.
Brazil and Indonesia each account for about one third of forest-related emissions, making them the world's top carbon polluters after China and the United States.
"There is broad consensus now that the post-2012 agreement will include some sort of incentives for tropical countries to reduce their deforestation," said Steve Schwartzman, a forests expert at Environmental Defense, an advocacy group based in Washington D.C.
But sharp differences remain on whether these aims are best achieved primarily through market mechanisms, including a future global carbon market, or various forms of public funding and grants.
"Forests are the wild card in these negotiations -- it could be used to bring us closer to our goals, or to water them down," said Czebiniak.
Currently, the largest functioning carbon market operates within the European Union. The market has proven fragile, and has been hit hard by the economic crisis and the drop in oil prices.
The Greenpeace report argues that flooding carbon markets with offsets would devalue carbon even further, and make it too easy for the industrialised world to avoid making necessary energy reductions.
"Of the many options for forest financing currently on the table, this one ranks as the worst," said Czebiniak.
Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market - Greenpeace
Alister Doyle, PlanetArk 31 Mar 09;
BONN - Carbon market prices could tumble by 75 percent if credits for safeguarding forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.
A report issued on the sidelines of UN talks in Bonn working on a climate treaty said that a flood of forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology.
"Cheap forest credits sound attractive but a closer examination shows they are a dangerous option," Roman Czebiniak, Greenpeace International political adviser on forests, said of estimates by Kea 3 economic modelling group in New Zealand.
About 175 nations are meeting in Bonn from March 29-April 8 to discuss measures for fighting global warming. Among them are ways to slow tropical deforestation, which accounts for a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
Trees soak up carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow and release it when they are burnt or rot. Placing a price on intact trees could help save forests from the Amazon to the Congo basin from logging and land clearance by farmers.
"Including forest protection measures in carbon markets would crash the price of carbon by up to 75 percent and derail global efforts to tackle global warming," Greenpeace said.
The report projected the 75 percent fall in prices, to 3.9 euros (US$5.16) per tonne by 2020 from a baseline of 16.05 used in the report, under current national policies for limiting emissions.
CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS
"Countries like China, India and Brazil could lose tens of billions of dollars for clean energy investments if forest protection measures are included in an unrestricted carbon market," it added.
There is so far no agreement on how to put a price on forest carbon under a new treaty. Suggestions range from carbon trading to new taxes in developed nations to raise cash. Governments aim to agree a new UN climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.
A European Commission report last year also said the European Union should not let industry meet its climate goals by funding forest conservation in tropical nations before 2020.
"Allowing companies to buy avoided deforestation credits would result in serious imbalances between supply and demand," it said. It said deforestation emissions were three times bigger than emissions regulated by the EU emissions trading scheme.
And New Carbon Finance analyst Aimie Parpia estimated in a report earlier this month that unlimited use of forestry could cut carbon offset prices by 40 percent by 2020.
Greenpeace's own forest proposal is to allow industrialised countries to meet a part of their emissions reduction goals by buying cheaper "tropical deforestation units" as an addition to deep cuts in domestic emissions.
These units, however, would not be tradeable on markets for industrial emissions.
(Additional reporting by Gerard Wynn and Michael Szabo in London)
(Editing by James Jukwey)
Claudia Parsons, PlanetArk 30 Mar 09;
NEW YORK - Australia has submitted a proposal to UN climate negotiators that outlines a scheme to use carbon credits to protect rain forests, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said on Friday.
The submission will be circulated to negotiators meeting next week in Bonn, Germany, to discuss a new UN climate treaty that world leaders hope to agree to in Copenhagen in December 2009.
"We think a post-2012 agreement will need to include forests in some way," Wong told Reuters in an interview in New York after addressing UN diplomats at the International Peace Institute, a think tank devoted to peace and security.
"Currently too many developing nations have an economic imperative to cut down forests. What we need to put in place is a mechanism that means instead of an economic imperative to cut down forests, we have an economic imperative to protect them."
The United Nations has backed a scheme called REDD, or reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation, in which developing nations such as Brazil and Indonesia could potentially earn billions of dollars from selling carbon credits in return for saving their forests.
But the scheme is in its infancy and regulations are needed to guide how REDD projects will work, to credibly monitor how much carbon they will save and sequester and set out how money from selling the credits will flow to local communities.
Wong said deforestation and forest degradation account for around 18 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
"What Australia is putting forward is a proposal for a forest carbon market mechanism that essentially will try to provide this economic incentive," she said.
She said there was much work to be done on negotiating the details before the Copenhagen summit, and there would have to be public sector financing, especially in the early stages.
Wong said the economic downturn must not derail strong action on climate change because when world economies emerge from the downturn, "climate change will still be there."
"We can't keep delaying, deferring and avoiding action on climate change," she said.
CAP-AND-TRADE
Wong has presented draft legislation for a cap-and-trade system targeting emissions cuts of between 5 and 15 percent of 2000 levels by 2020, with the higher amount dependent on a broader global UN climate pact being agreed in Copenhagen.
But the legislation faces a tough passage in Australia's Senate.
The center-left government controls the lower house but needs the support of the opposition conservatives, or the backing of five Green senators and two independents, to pass laws through the upper house.
Climate change action was a central part of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's election campaign and the gridlock in parliament has led to speculation of an early election.
The Greens have said they will not accept a reduction of less than 40 percent in emissions.
Wong said a 15 percent emissions cut would already be "challenging," though achievable, given Australia's huge reliance on cheap coal for power and other industries.
"We're not in the business of putting targets on the table that we don't think we can achieve," she said.
Asked whether the planned July 2010 start of the cap-and-trade system could slip if the legislation is not passed quickly, Wong said that was in the hands of the Senate.
"If they're prepared to block legislation which will ensure Australia commences to reduce its emissions, all they'll be doing is pushing the problem off into future years," she said.
Wong said it was vital for the United States and other developed countries to show leadership and a willingness to cut their emissions in order to build trust before Copenhagen.
"The United States at this point in history, under this administration, has a unique opportunity to provide leadership and to give momentum to the negotiations," said Wong.
(Additional reporting by Tim Gardner, editing by Michelle Nichols and Vicki Allen)
Alister Doyle, PlanetArk 31 Mar 09;
BONN - China and other nations hailed US pledges to do more to fight global warming on Monday but OPEC dampened celebrations by predicting that a planned UN climate treaty would damage the economies of oil exporters.
"We welcome this positive change in attitude and approach by President (Barack) Obama and his team," China's climate ambassador, Yu Qingtai, told reporters at UN climate talks in Bonn attended by 175 nations.
The Obama administration made its UN climate debut at the start of the 11-day meeting on Sunday, promising to cut US emissions of greenhouse gases by between 16 and 17 percent, or back to 1990 levels, by 2020 -- far more ambitious than goals set by former President George W. Bush.
Yu said China, which many experts say has overtaken the United States as top greenhouse gas emitter, would slow the growth of its emissions by 2020 as part of a new UN pact to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.
"The US is glad to be back in the negotiations. For my part I can assure the delight is mutual," Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said in a statement.
The US special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, won praise for saying Washington was strongly committed to a new climate treaty and that Washington had a "unique responsibility" as the top emitter since the Industrial Revolution.
But delegates from OPEC states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, said a new treaty threatened oil-exporting economies by promoting a shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy such as wind or solar power.
HIT EXPORTS
"The shift to a low carbon economy has a clear and deliberate outcome that will adversely impact all developing country fossil fuel exporters," said Ramiro Ramirez of the OPEC Secretariat.
He said that rich nations were urging OPEC to step up exploration and production to stimulate the world economy even as they were planning to turn their backs on oil.
OPEC nations get little sympathy from many delegations at UN talks since they are not viewed as among the most vulnerable -- compared to the poorest African or Asian states at risk from more droughts, floods or rising sea levels.
But a climate deal has to be agreed by unanimity, making OPEC's demands as vital as any. OPEC wants measures, for instance, to promote the capture and storage of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries and factories.
Some other developing nations said they were worried that the fight against climate change could have damaging side-effects, for instance penalising their exports by raising the costs of air freight or shipping.
The UN Climate Panel says that developed nations would have to cut emissions by between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the worst of climate change.
But few are planning such deep cuts. The European Union aims to cut emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- much deeper than Obama's goal of returning emissions to 1990 levels.
"It's more clear than ever that the developing countries are impatient and disappointed" that there are no targets to make deep cuts, said Harald Dovland, a Norwegian official who chairs a group looking at future commitments to fight warming.
China's Yu said that the poor had to put economic growth first and defended Beijing from criticism that it is adding to pollution by opening a coal-fired power plant every few days.
"We have the option of leaving our people in the darkness without electricity, leaving the factories idle and people unemployed, or building up the necessary infrastructure to allow our economy to grow," Yu said.
(Editing by Dominic Evans)
PlanetArk 30 Mar 09;
JOHANNESBURG - South Africa, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide on the continent, expects to build its first pilot plant for the capture and storage of emissions by 2020, a government official said on Friday.
The country, often commended for being most active among developing countries in fighting climate change, set a target to cap emissions by 2020-25, and to reduce them by mid-century.
Carbon capture storage has been identified as one of the ways to mitigate the country's greenhouse gas emissions.
Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said the government would ensure that funds were available to make this happen, along with industry and international support.
"If there is a need we will respond accordingly ... we want to meet the target and by 2020 see the plant established," Sonjica said at the launch of the carbon capture storage centre that will drive the research and progress in CCS.
The government-led agency in charge of the process, the South African National Energy Research Institute (SANERI), said it had already secured 25 million rand ($2.65 million) for the centre for the next five years.
"It's not sufficient to build the plant or do the test injection, but enough to get us up and running and complete the capacity building component," said SANERI's Acting Chief Executive Tony Surridge.
South Africa, Africa's largest emitter and 12th in the world, depends on coal for 90 percent of its power.
Sonjica commended the industry's involvement in the project.
The signatories include petrochemicals group Sasol, state-owned utility Eskom, together responsible for more than half of the country's emissions, which altogether amount to more than 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
Other partners include the British and Norwegian government, miner Anglo American's coal unit, diversified miner Exxaro, and Xstrata Coal.
SANERI said 60 percent of South Africa's emissions are potentially capturable.
A study to identify the possible storage capacity is expected to be completed by April 2010, with a commercial decision for the demonstration plant to be made by 2016.
(Reporting by Agnieszka Flak; Editing by Giles Elgood)
Scott DiSavino and Eileen O'Grady, PlanetArk 31 Mar 09;
NEW YORK/HOUSTON - US electricity demand will continue to shrink in 2009 as the economic meltdown hits industrial power consumption, but a rebound could come in 2010.
Bigger houses, a myriad of electric devices and an expanding economy have kept US power use on a nearly uninterrupted climb for 25 years - until the recession put the brakes on industrial demand in 2008.
Electricity sales to industrial customers are expected to shrink 6.4 percent this year, leading to an expected 1.7 percent drop in overall power consumption in 2009, the US Energy Information Administration said in its most recent outlook.
EIA, which provides data and analysis for the US Department of Energy, said in another report industrial consumers bought 11.4 percent less power in January 2009 compared with the same time last year.
"Industrial demand will cycle deeper than residential (use) because industrial demand is even more sensitive to the business cycle," said Lawrence Makovich, vice president of the global power group at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
EIA expects the downturn to reverse course in 2010, with 1.2 percent growth in electric output as the economy slowly returns to life.
PJM, the biggest power grid in North America, forecast a 1.4 percent drop in peak demand this summer compared with 2008, based on normal weather conditions.
Demand in the 13 mid-Atlantic and Midwest states that PJM serves should rebound in 2010 but not surpass levels seen in 2008 until 2011.
INDUSTRIAL DOWNTURN
Weather is the dominant factor affecting power demand but has the biggest impact on residential and commercial use, sectors expected to remain relatively flat this year.
Examples of declining industrial demand, which makes up about a quarter of US electric consumption, are easy to find.
Minnesota Power, a unit of Allete Inc of Duluth, Minnesota, expects power demand from taconite miners, its biggest customers, to fall by 40 percent this year.
Taconite miners use electricity to process iron-bearing rock into pellets used to make steel. The demand for steel has plunged in the current economy.
In the petrochemical-dominant Houston area, non-residential power sales fell 5.5 percent in February, according to CenterPoint Energy Inc, a power delivery company.
February marked the third month that CenterPoint showed non-residential sales lagging the year-earlier month.
To conserve cash, power companies have deferred spending by about 10 percent, or US$7 billion to $8 billion, according to an informal survey by Edison Electric Institute (EEI), an association of shareholder-owned power companies.
American Electric Power Co Inc, with customers in 11 states, cut its 2009 capital budget by more than 20 percent or $750 million, the company said.
The financial crisis is delaying investment in energy infrastructure at the same time new environmental mandates are requiring substantial increases in generation and transmission needed to limit air emissions and boost renewable supplies.
CERA's Makovich expects utilities to pare overall capital spending by as much as 20 percent by the end of the year due to lower revenue and increased bad debt.
"When we get to 20 percent or more, I start to worry about the consequences," said Makovich. "That doesn't hurt you now but can down the road when projects were supposed to be done and demand rebounds."
PJM projected peak demand growth would return to a more normal 1.7 percent per year over the next decade.
"The economic downturn has delayed the need for new infrastructure, but has not eliminated it," PJM spokesman Ray Dotter said.
(Editing by Marguerita Choy)
The G2 interview: 'We're the first generation that has had the power to destroy the planet. Ignoring that risk can only be described as reckless'
Decca Aitkenhead, The Guardian 30 Mar 09;
If you were casting for a film about a policy academic in Whitehall, and Nicholas Stern auditioned, you would reject him on the grounds that he looked so much like a cliche that he would be a caricature.
If you were casting for the rock star of the modern climate change movement, on the other hand, he would be the last man in the world you would choose. Middle-aged, soberly suited, grey and compact, he speaks softly in the fastidious register of academia, comprised of paragraphs constructed almost entirely out of words such as "policy framework", "costs and benefits", "transparency of governance" and so on.
Yet, when he speaks, the whole world now listens.
Since publishing the Stern Review in 2006, the professor has become the global authority on climate change. Commissioned by Gordon Brown, his study of the economics of climate change shifted the debate away from polar bears and unseasonal summers, and reframed it in the cold hard language of the balance sheet. Unless we invested 1% of global GDP per annum in measures to prevent climate change, the review warned, it would cost us 20% of global GDP. Suddenly, the CBI and the Institute of Directors were paying attention. It was a defining moment for the credibility of a movement once belittled as too counter-culture to be taken seriously. Stern became the grey hero of the greens - powerful precisely because he seemed such an improbable eco warrior.
Since then Stern has returned from the Treasury to the London School of Economics, been made a life peer, and is now about to publish a book - A Blueprint For a Safer Planet. Guided by three principles of effectiveness, efficiency and fairness, it calls for an investment of closer to 2% of GDP, with rich countries leading the way in emissions reductions. Proposing green technologies, international emissions trading, and financing to halt deforestation, it lays out the terms by which he believes we can avert catastrophe - and as such is fundamentally hopeful.
But Stern navigates a delicate path between optimism and Armageddon, and at a recent climate change conference he was still exhorting world leaders to grasp the magnitude of the crisis. "Do the politicians understand just how difficult it could be?" he appealed. "Just how devastating [a rise of] four, five, six degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet." With hindsight, he says he fears that even his own review underestimated the risks we face.
"When it came out, people thought I'd over- egged the omelette. But all the things people were looking at turned out to be worse than they thought. Doing nothing looks even more reckless than it did even a few years ago." He pauses, as if uneasy with such an intemperate word, but keeps going. "Recklessness is the only word. I mean, we have to recognise the scale of the risk. If we go on at anything like business as usual, we'll be at concentration levels by the end of this century which will give us around a 50-50 chance of being above five degrees centigrade relative to, say, the 19th century. We humans are only 100,000 years old. We haven't seen that for 30 to 50 million years. We haven't seen three degrees centigrade for three million years. The idea that humans can easily adapt to conditions like these ..." He lets the proposition tail away, too foolish even for words.
"What will we do? We'll move. People will move. Why? Because much of southern Europe will be desert. Other places will become underwater. Others will be hit by such severe storms with such frequency that they become almost uninhabitable. So hundreds of millions of people will move. You're already seeing people moving in Darfur, where droughts devastated the grazing land of pastoralist people, and they moved, and come into conflict with people in the places they're moving to. We're seeing that already on just a 0.8 degree rise. We're the first generation that has the power to destroy the planet. You're re-writing the planet. So you can only describe as reckless ignoring risks like that."
At the heart of Stern's work is a simple calculation. If the science on climate change is right, the transition costs incurred by switching to a low-carbon economy will - however daunting - be a fraction of what we will save by averting disaster. If the science is wrong, and we incur those costs unnecessarily, they would be "very far from disastrous", and we would still benefit, "because we will have a world that is more energy efficient, with new and cleaner technologies, and is more biodiverse as a result of protecting the forests". The logic of the argument is compelling, but is there any part of Stern that believes the science could be wrong?
"It's very, very remote," he says slowly. Less than one in 100? He looks surprised. "Oh, much, much less." The puzzle must therefore be why anyone would still doubt it. Nigel Lawson, for example, dismissed his review as "fraudulent", and published a book last year disputing the entire scientific premise of climate change.
"As an undergraduate, I did maths and physics. That doesn't make me a scientist," Stern responds, with exaggerated patience. "So I try to read and understand and talk to scientists. I'm staggered by how many people who are lawyers, or politicians ..." Or former chancellors? "For example," he agrees drily. "Taxi drivers. People behind bars. People cutting hair. They all seem to be knowledgeable and expert on the science.
"In public policy we have to understand a little bit about nuclear physics, and biochemistry, and genetics. So what do you do if you want to understand about genetics? You talk to a geneticist. You don't turn to taxi drivers or politicians. Both respectable professions, but you don't go to them for the science of climate change, you go to scientists. And what do you hear? That this is basically simple physics. It's not as if it's something strange or mysterious that people can't explain to you. It's not something outside the experimental. The greenhouse effect is something you can observe experimentally - and most people have observed the greenhouse effect themselves, in greenhouses. Yes?"
Does Stern feel angry with sceptics - or, as he calls them, irrational optimists? "Well, they're marginal now," he says with rather withering indifference. When he finds himself sitting next to one at a dinner party, does he even bother to argue? "I still believe in rational argument and communication. It's our duty to try. But it is an area in which people can be deliberately destructive," he says disdainfully. "There's a kind of yah boo argument: 'Don't believe it, don't believe it, don't believe it.' Or using language that's slightly more colourful, like that Paul Whitehouse character who said bollocks to everything. That's the kind of thing. It's yah boo stuff."
Stern suspects their perversity is ultimately down to political prejudice. He has no patience with those on the right who assume climate change is just a Trojan horse - an excuse for the left to interfere in the market. "This is about trying to help markets work. This isn't anti-market, this is about making markets work well. My position is pro-markets and pro-growth - not anti-growth. Indeed, it's ignoring the problem that will kill off the growth. High carbon growth kills itself. First on very high hydrocarbon prices, but second and, of course, much more fundamentally, on the very hostile physical environment it would create."
But he has even less time for those on the left who think climate change is "an elitist hobby horse"; a distraction from poverty in the developing world. "We will not overcome world poverty unless we manage climate change successfully. I've spent my life as a development economist, and it's crystal clear that we succeed or fail on winning the battle against world poverty and managing climate change together. If we fail on one, we fail on the other."
When we meet in his book-lined office at the LSE, Stern has just returned from breakfast with his old friend Mervyn King at the Bank of England, and I get the impression that he suffers any less cerebrally rarefied company with weary forbearance. Oxbridge-educated, 62, he has worked at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank and the Treasury, but "I am a public policy analyst, that's who I am," he says more than once. He seems intellectually and temperamentally ill-suited to the rough and tumble of political knockabout, for to speak in a language the rest of us can understand seems a challenge - if not a chore - at times.
Sometimes, though, I suspect he deliberately obfuscates. It was Brown who commissioned Stern's work on climate change - yet the prime minister subsequently authorised the third runway at Heathrow. When I ask if Stern supported that decision, his reply is somewhat opaque: "I was uncomfortable with the way that decision was structured." I would have thought he'd have been furious about it. "Well, no. I was worried about the framework for the analysis." What does that mean? "I felt that the analysis should have been done in the context of an overall strategy." Surely, I press, given the urgency of the situation, and the authority his voice would carry, he had a responsibility to speak out? "I don't want to get into having to take a running position on each individual project and proposal. You have to keep it in that overall perspective and we shouldn't turn it into a symbolic argument over one particular thing." Politics is symbolic, though, isn't it? "Yes, but I'm not a politician giving a running commentary. I'm a public policy analyst."
At other times I wonder if he understands the way less rational or educated minds work. On policy analysis he is quite brilliant - but on the politics of the real world he can seem almost naively high-minded. For example, his book highlights the imperative of halting deforestation, but says relatively little about the problem of corruption in developing countries where the issue applies. Clearly, the west needs to divert some of its wealth to them, to deter deforestation. But taxpayers complain that Africa is corrupt, and that they've already spent decades sending aid that went straight into the pockets of officials. Why should they send more money if it won't stop the forests being destroyed but will fuel corruption - while they're being told they can't fly off on holiday whenever they like?
"Yes, but that's based on a misunderstanding," he says, looking irritated. "Progress in Africa over the last two decades has been much, much stronger than the preceding two decades. If you ask those people to tell you how many sub-Saharan Africa countries there are, and what their growth rates were over these last four decades, they wouldn't be able to tell you. They wouldn't have a clue." I'm sure they wouldn't - but that seems beside the point.
Similarly, although he talks hopefully of a World Environment Organisation, he puts surprisingly little emphasis on coercion. Won't we need some sort of equivalent to the International Criminal Court to enforce international agreements? "People have to ask themselves, if I transgress as a country what would be the implications for me and for the coalition that's dealing with this problem? You'll have to think about the consequences of your actions. If a big country pulls out of this they can't simply say, 'Well everyone else will do their bit.' They have to ask themselves what will happen. It will be the politics of particular countries. People will demand that their governments behave responsibly."
Ultimately, he points out, the choice is quite simple: however difficult the challenge of action may be, the alternative is unthinkable. "If you say I'm not going to do that, what's left? What's left is you just reach for the suntan lotion and the big hat, and you say it's all too difficult, I'm signing off on this, and let's all fry. Why would you want to go there?" It seems more or less unimaginable to Stern that people would be stupid enough to allow a catastrophe to unfold, and his ultimate message is one of optimism.
"There are so many ideas out there, the pace of technological progress is so fast. It's a very optimistic thing about human nature; when humans focus on a problem, they're quite ingenious. And we have to recognise that this subject is young. It's only been deep in our understanding for two or three years. The scientists, of course, have been thinking about this for a long time, but in terms of politics and policy it's been big only for two or three years. I think if you look at it in that context, let's recognise what the government has done. We're ahead of the world on climate change legislation. I think the climate change bill is broadly along the right lines. If you ask yourself the question, 'How far have we got?', we've got a long way. It has to be faster, but let's not fail to recognise how far we've come."
Not even the world recession has dampened his optimism. "This recession is seen as something that would prevent action on climate change only if we confuse ourselves. If we think clearly, this is an opportunity to bring forward some of those investments, because resources are a bit cheaper at the moment. I've been struck that this climate change story has stayed very much on the agenda, the way that the green stimulus has been seen as part of the expansion package. In the next two or three decades, I think low-carbon technologies are going to be like the railways or IT - big drivers of growth."
Stern won't live long enough to know if the world takes his advice. But if he had to go to the bookies now and place a £1,000 bet on whether we'll manage to do what's necessary in time, which way would he put it? "I would bet," he says cautiously, "we'll get there. But as in any bet, there's a risk of being wrong".
'There are many half-baked attempts to naysay the science, but they always unravel on inspection'.
Gaia theorist says Ed Miliband's moral stance on wind turbine opposition is erosion of freedom and close to fascism
James Randerson, guardian.co.uk 29 Mar 09;
The scientist and veteran environmental campaigner James Lovelock has launched a blistering riposte to the UK climate change minister's suggestion that opposing wind farms should become as socially unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt.
In a piece entitled fascism in the wind, Lovelock described Ed Miliband's pronouncement as "hectoring" and an attempt to use "the social rejection of political correctness" to remove democratic rights from those who oppose wind turbines.
Speaking at a screening in London of the climate change documentary The Age of Stupid last week, Miliband said that government needed to be more robust in its efforts to face down local opposition to windfarms.
He said: "The government needs to be saying, 'It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area - like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing'."
In an online comment piece for the Guardian, Lovelock - who best known for inventing the Gaia concept of the planet as a self-sustaining system - denounced Miliband's appeal to social conscience. "It seems that we are now subject to a campaign that uses social rejection as a force to make us accept industrial-scale wind energy stations across the UK, to call them wind farms is disingenuous," he wrote. "As part of this campaign, the great and the good are now hectoring on the moral need to embrace wind energy."
Lovelock said he was afraid that any move to smooth the passage of wind farms with the introduction of new planning laws would remove the right of local people to object. "The right to have public hearings over energy sources is threatened by legislation soon due. Although well-intentioned it is an erosion of our freedom and draws near to what I see as fascism," he said.
He added that his argument did not stem from "nimbyism".
"If wind energy were the one practical and affordable answer to global heating then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it."
Lovelock sees nuclear power as a solution to reducing carbon emissions criticises the whole concept of renewable power. "There is no such thing as renewable energy; it belongs as an idea with perpetual motion and other delusions but politicians and ideologues have become skilled at using enticing words to cover essentially rotten ideas."
Using the example of large-scale investment in wind power in Germany, Lovelock argued that because the wind does not blow continuously, turbines are only 17% efficient. He argues this means that national grids must have back-up power from fossil fuel powered stations.
A spokesperson for the British Wind Energy Association described Lovelock as a "scientific giant" but described the efficiency debate as "absolute nonsense". He said including wind energy in a national grid does displace fossil fuel power, but the grid must be flexible to cope with changing wind speeds.
"The key challenge is decarbonising the UK's power supplies - to burn less fossil fuels. This is where wind can do a good job," said the spokesperson. "No one is saying here that by any stretch of the imagination that wind energy will provide 100% of the UK's energy."
He cited the example of gales over Spain in early March which allowed the country to produce more than 40% of its energy needs from wind. He also challenged Lovelock's 17% figures saying that onshore wind turbines are on average 30% efficient in the UK, while offshore turbines are 42% efficient. "The fuel is free, its sustainable and it doesn't pollute - what's not to like?" he added.
Lovelock also returned to a familiar theme that the planet will survive the climate crisis, but not necessarily humans. "It is false pride and hubris to think that we can do anything to 'save the planet'...It is time we fully and deeply understood that our Earth can and always has saved itself although not necessarily for our benefit."
"Let us be proud to be nimbys, our backyard is the countryside and that is the face of Gaia," he added.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07