Best of our wild blogs: 3 Dec 09


Butterfly of the Month - December 2009
The Yamfly from Butterflies of Singapore

Cyrene Reef with Teamseagrass
from wonderful creation and teamseagrass and wild shores of singapore

Dollarbird – Jungle Myna confrontation for nest cavity
from Bird Ecology Study Group

A tame Scaly-breasted Munia?
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Does a captive whale shark bring bad luck to a city?
from wild shores of singapore

Google Street View Singapore is here!
from Otterman speaks

Organising the Sungei Buloh Anniversary Walk with Google Forms
from Otterman speaks

Algae 'sex tapes' and other micro marvels
from wild shores of singapore


Read more!

Singapore to pledge 16% cut in gas emissions

Government throws its weight behind global summit on climate
Jessica Cheam, Straits Times 3 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE'S leaders yesterday put on the table the country's first target to curb greenhouse gas emissions, throwing their political weight behind next week's climate change meetings in Copenhagen.

Senior Minister S. Jayakumar said that even though it is not obliged to make cuts, the city-state will undertake voluntary and domestically funded action to reduce its emissions growth to 16 per cent below 'business as usual' levels by 2020.

This level refers to how much Singapore would emit if the economy continued to grow, but nothing was done to curb emissions.

There is a caveat, however.

Singapore will only commit to this if there is a legally binding global deal that obliges all countries to cut emissions, and if other countries offer significant pledges, said Professor Jayakumar.

'Without a global agreement by all to address climate change, our efforts alone will be meaningless,' he said.

As a low-lying country vulnerable to any rise in sea-levels, Singapore has an interest in acting with others to tackle climate change, he added.

Like other leaders, he thinks Copenhagen is likely to result in an agreed political framework, with key elements for a legally binding deal further negotiated next year.

This means Singaporeans will not feel the effects of any cuts until next year or later, and this is also dependent on the outcome of the talks, he said.

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who was also at the media interview, said the Government will use a combination of regulatory and fiscal measures to achieve the targeted cut.

Businesses, households and the Government will all have to play a part, he said, explaining: 'It will require us to make conscious decisions, to change behaviour, to have different choices, to cut down on wastage at home and at the workplace.'

But he gave an assurance that whatever the eventual measures, the Government will do what it can to buffer the impact for businesses and households.

Prof Jayakumar said details of the measures are being worked out carefully and will be announced after the outcome of the negotiations.

Singapore's move follows closely behind recent pledges by countries such as the United States, China, Brazil and Indonesia to curb their carbon emissions in the run up to the Copenhagen negotiations.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who will be attending the conference in Copenhagen, said recently that Singapore was looking at what else it could do to tackle climate change.

Given the country's dense population and small size, Mr Mah stressed that 16 per cent was a 'stretch target', but achievable.

The target is derived from numbers in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint.

Launched in April, this is a national plan including domestic targets such as reducing energy intensity by 35 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

The new pledge to the global community now goes beyond these figures.

Mr Mah said Singapore had already done a lot to support sustainable development. And because it was starting from a high base, additional cuts require tremendous effort, he said.

Past efforts include increasing Singapore's green cover, transport policies to limit vehicle growth, and switching energy sources from oil to natural gas.

Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim also underlined Singapore's limitations in converting to alternative forms of energy, because of its small size and geographical location.

For example, wind speeds in Singapore are too low to be harnessed as a source of power. And while solar energy has potential, it would not be sufficient for the country's energy needs at the current technology levels, he said.

Singapore's target means it will cut roughly 12 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020, said Dr Yaacob.

This is based on a projection that the country's emissions would reach 75 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020 if no measures were taken.

This is calculated by taking into account several factors such as economic and population growth and rate of investments.

Industry and grassroots leaders yesterday endorsed Singapore's latest move.

'This step is commendable, it's time we set a target. It sends a signal that Singapore is serious about acting on climate change,' said Singapore Environment Council executive director Howard Shaw.

Former NMP Edwin Khew agreed, adding: 'When the Government makes a commitment, we know they will do it.'

However, Singapore's absolute emissions will still rise with this target, noted Mr Khew, who is also chief executive of waste recycling firm IUT Global.

'Perhaps we could do better in the future,' he added.

North East District Mayor Teo Ser Luck said the move was encouraging, but that Singaporeans would be concerned about how it would affect their daily lives.

'I think it will take a while before everyone understands why we are acting on this important issue, that's why continued effort in education is key,' he said.

Adjusting to a low-carbon environment
Straits Times 3 Dec 09;

BELOW is an edited excerpt from a media interview yesterday when Senior Minister S. Jayakumar, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan and Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim announced Singapore's commitment to cut carbon emissions.

# With the 16 per cent reduction, how will the economy be affected?

Dr Yaacob: As we define sustainable development, we cannot compromise economic growth. If we do this at the expense of our economic competitiveness, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We must do it in conjunction with economic growth.

We have to look at the total package: which are the sectors we have to ban, do we have to restructure some sectors in the economy? These are being studied intensely because obviously there will be some changes. It will require adjustments, but we think over a long-term period, it is possible.

# Why is Singapore's offer contingent on others?

Professor Jayakumar: It does not make sense for us to take these drastic measures if other countries do not do it or if there's no global commitment. Some of the measures obviously may be in our own interest to do as we have been doing, for our own national interest. But doing more makes sense only if there's a global agreement and other countries do so. Otherwise if other countries are not doing it, it will be meaningless, it doesn't have an impact.

# What do you say to climate change sceptics who argue that the science is not definitive and question why the Government would want to commit to costly emission cuts?

Dr Yaacob: I think we must recognise that IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been working very hard. There's a wealth of knowledge out there, about the various changes, the weather pattern, the temperature over the next century. I think we cannot ignore this. These are credible scientists. They've worked very very hard. They've taken all the weather patterns into account.

I'm aware of some of the sceptics. Frankly speaking if we were asked to wait until the sceptics are proven right or wrong before we act...I don't think we can do that, right?

If this thing happens, we should be ready and therefore let's put those measures in place, and we should do it in a manner that does not compromise our competitiveness.

So there will be some cost, some trade-offs but overall we aim for what's sustainable over the long run.

If climate change is really happening, we're ready. If climate change is not happening, what we do is also good for Singapore in terms of the way we use resources which are very limited.

Prof Jayakumar: We've to take note of the different schools of thought. But as a low-lying island state I don't think we've the luxury of waiting for the day - I don't know when it will be - when it is put beyond doubt which school of thought is right.

So for the time being, we've to accept the consensus of opinion which has over the last decade become quite overwhelming although not unanimous.

# The measures to achieve the 16 per cent will have a cost. Who will bear the brunt of the cuts?

Mr Mah: To achieve that target requires the input, the efforts, the contribution of all sectors. Businesses obviously are one of the major players. Households, another major player. And it's actually every individual - you discourage people from using more energy than they should.

So one practical and efficient way to do that would be to use market price signals to reflect the cost of these externalities due to the target that we have set. So if we were to do that, then obviously we will have to look at some of the measures - marketplace measures, fiscal measures, regulations, a combination of these - to achieve this particular target.

We will study various options, and announce measures only after we have studied all the options.

Prof Jayakumar: The Government will do what is necessary to buffer the impact, and to help them adjust to the new low-carbon environment.

Singapore wants to help bring about a deal
Jessica Cheam, Straits Times 3 Dec 09

MINISTER for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim said yesterday that Singapore's move to pledge a cut in emissions growth was to help contribute to a successful deal at Copenhagen.

'If I may say, I think the Danes want every country to put something on the table,' said Dr Yaacob. 'My sense is that it's going very well, so by the time we get to Copenhagen we want to have at least a target. And they can tell the other countries, hey, Singapore can do it, can you put something at this table?'

Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet for two weeks in the Danish capital starting on Monday to work out a global deal on climate change.

Dr Yaacob also acknowledged that there has been a degree of pressure recently on Singapore to take on cuts due to its relatively advanced stage of development compared to other developing nations.

'But I think other nations appreciate what we've done in the past. They know the efforts we've put in place... But they also recognise that we can do more,' said Dr Yaacob. '(The) pressure is not high, it's subtle...and (our target) shows that we're responsible.'

Dr Yaacob said he hopes committing to a target despite Singapore being a small country without natural resources, and contributing only 0.2 per cent to global carbon emissions, will help the negotiations and inspire other nations to follow suit.

'When we attend the meetings, we're not going to block (the talks), we're not a spoiler, and we want to contribute to the process,' he said.

Dr Yaacob also said that besides steps to mitigate carbon emissions, Singapore is also looking at adaptation means.

The findings of a study on the effects of sea level rise on Singapore will be released next year, along with some measures to ensure Singapore is protected from climate change.





Singapore to reduce emissions growth by 16% below projected 2020 level
May Wong, Channel NewsAsia 2 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE: It will no longer be "business as usual" for Singapore, as the country commits to reduce carbon emissions growth by 16 per cent below the projected 2020 level - if a global agreement is reached and other countries implement significant targets of their own.

Senior Minister S Jayakumar, who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, announced this at a news conference on Wednesday.

Singapore needs to come up with measures for reducing emissions growth, in order to prevent low-lying parts of the country from submerging due to adverse effects of climate change.

Professor Jayakumar said: "We are not starting off with a low base because despite all of our constraints, all our difficulties, we have done a lot.

"In fact, long before climate change became a global issue, Singapore has taken considerable efforts - increasing of green cover, transport policies, fuel switch to natural gas, enhancing of energy efficiency, recycling our waste. And the significant efforts have led to considerable reductions of our emissions."

The government said that 16 per cent is a stretch target, but it can be reached.

Mah Bow Tan, Singapore National Development Minister and Co-Chair, Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development said: "When we mention the figure of 16 per cent, this is not like opening a gambit in a chess game or part of a negotiation.

"No, this is derived at, based on fundamental evaluation of what we have done and what we can realistically do. Eventually, government will have to come up with a set of measures in order to incentivise as well as to encourage behaviour to achieve this target.

"Our commitment is done in good faith; it is something we believe is achievable. It is not something that we just throw up on the table for negotiation."

Measures on how the government intends to reduce emissions growth will be announced after the Copenhagen climate talks next week. It will mean additional costs, but the government will buffer the impact.

Professor Jayakumar said: "The measures which we will take to reduce our emissions growth will entail both economic and social costs and will require considerable domestic adjustments.

"There will be impact on industries and households. The government will do what is necessary to buffer this impact and to help them adjust to the new low carbon environment.

"We will do our best to keep the cost to the minimum and to achieve the emissions growth reduction in the best possible efficient way."

Besides looking at costs, the government will also ensure that economic growth is not compromised.

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Singapore Environment and Water Resources Minister and Co-Chair, Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development said: "It must grow. The question is at what rate? How fast and how big it will be - that is what is being studied at this point in time.

"If we do this at the expense of our economic competitiveness, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We must do it in conjunction with economic growth.

"But how that growth will be, as mentioned by Minister Mah, we have to look at the total package. Which are the sectors we have to bear? Is there a need to restructure some sectors of the economy? These are being studied intensely."

Professor Jayakumar said Singapore has no historical responsibility for climate change and it contributes less than 0.2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In spite of this, he said that Singapore is making a major effort to tackle climate change.

He added that this is because Singapore is a responsible member of the international community, and wants to play its part in reducing emissions.

- CNA/sc


Singapore's carbon reduction dependent on legally binding deal
Channel NewsAsia 2 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE: Singapore is committed to reducing carbon emissions growth by 16 per cent below the 2020 "business as usual" level.

This will refer to the level of emissions reached if nothing is done to mitigate emissions.

But Singapore's actions are contingent on a legally binding global deal being reached.

Senior Minister S Jayakumar announced this ahead of next week's UN climate change talks in Copenhagen.

He said that other countries must adopt significant targets and implement their commitments in good faith.

Professor Jayakumar added that Singapore's efforts alone will be meaningless especially since its contribution to global emissions is negligible.

Professor Jayakumar said the exact details of the measures are being worked out and will be announced after the Copenhagen talks.

- CNA/yb

Cutting emissions growth, if the world does the same
Government will do its best to buffer Singaporeans from the costs
Lin Yan Qin, Today Online 3 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE - Households will have to change lifestyle habits, while businesses have to become more efficient in how they use energy, if Singapore is to fulfil a pledge on reduced carbon emissions growth.

The newly-revealed target to reduce the Republic's emissions growth by 16 per cent below "business as usual" (BAU) levels by 2020 will rest on whether a global and legally-binding pact on climate change is reached at the Copenhagen negotiations beginning next week.

BAU refers to projected emission levels without any mitigating measures, including those already announced this year. The new target would mean a drop in 2020's carbon dioxide emissions by 12 tonnes.

It would be meaningless to implement measures to achieve this without a global agreement, Senior Minister S Jayakumar said when he made the announcement yesterday, as it would impose cost and sacrifices on Singaporeans without any real effect on global climate change.

"None of this is going to be cost-free. The measures we'll take to reduce our emissions will entail both economic and social costs and will require considerable domestic adjustments," said Professor Jayakumar, the Inter-Ministerial Committee of Climate Change chairman. "The Goverment will do what's necessary to buffer this impact and to help them adjust to this new carbon environment."

Steps will come in the form of regulatory and fiscal measures, he said without elaborating, as the possible measures were still under study.

Whether reducing emissions growth would change Singapore's economic strategies was also being worked out, he said.

The reduced level took into account the impact on the country's growth and competitiveness. "This is derived based on a fundamental evaluation of what we have done and what we realistically can do," said National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who described 16 per cent as a "stretched target".

Some measures could build on existing policies, added Mr Mah, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) co-chair.

For example, while the current aim is for 80 per cent of Singapore's buildings to achieve a Green Mark Certified rating, the bar may need to be raised to the more stringent Gold Plus or Platinum rating, he said.

A substantial commitment, all things considered

Singapore International Chamber of Commerce chief executive Phillip Overmyer said companies will look at whether the limits implemented here would be in line with worldwide standards, so that those based here do not bear more cost than competitors elsewhere.

Prof Jayakumar stressed that Singapore will not agree to "unreasonable pressures" to reduce emissions solely because of its high Gross Domestic Product per capita, or graduate to Annex One status, which will mean mandatory economy-wide emission cuts.

Still, the commitment on the table is "substantial", given that Singapore faces "severe constraints" in employing renewable energy sources due to its physical size, and that its absolute greenhouse gas emissions are less than 0.2 per cent of the global total.

Singapore's pledge will be appreciated by the international community, he added. "In order to get the major emitters from the developing countries on board, they would like to see other developing countries, also in good faith, putting something on the table."

CAN SINGAPORE DO MORE?

The range of reduced emissions recommended for Non-Annex One countries such as Singapore is between 15 to 30 per cent, and there are those in the international community who question if Singapore is doing enough, said Singapore Institute of International Affairs chairman Simon Tay.

"There's not that much that Singapore has done fiscally (to encourage mitigation efforts)," he said. "Singapore's rationale will need to be internationally acceptable."

World Wildlife Fund Singapore managing director Amy Ho said that while Singapore's pledge was encouraging, the Republic was in a position to be a "leader". "We're asking countries to go for a 15- to 30-per-cent reduction and 16 per cent is on the lower band of that, so we urge Singapore to do better," she said.

But she admitted that Singapore may be disadvantaged in its ability to implement substantial renewable energy. She suggested that the Republic make up for this by tapping the region for these sources, or support the development of a regional grid.

Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaccob Ibrahim, the other IMCSD co-chair, acknowledged there was international pressure on Singapore to do more.

"What we've done is recognise that the world expects us to do something ... and if we have the means, I think we should tell the world we're able to do so, and I think that shows we're responsible."

Singapore on fast train to cutting carbon emissions
16% reduction by 2020 if pact is reached; key role for public transport, no compromise on growth
Lee U-Wen, Business Times 3 Dec 09

(SINGAPORE) With just days before a major climate change summit kicks off in Denmark, Singapore has announced that it is ready to voluntarily slash its carbon emissions growth by 16 per cent below 'business as usual' levels by 2020.

This refers to the projected level of 74 million tonnes of emissions that would be reached if there are no proactive measures taken to mitigate such emissions. This latest target - which will reduce that amount by 12 million tonnes - is what the Singapore delegation will put on the table when world leaders and officials meet in Copenhagen next week.

Singapore will be represented at the negotiations by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security S Jayakumar and Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.

Professor Jayakumar, however, stressed that Singapore's commitment is dependent on a legally-binding deal being reached after the Copenhagen talks. Other countries, too, must put forth significant targets to cut carbon emissions and actually carry out their commitments in good faith.

'Ours is a substantial commitment that will require a major effort, bearing in mind our severe constraints and that these will be on top of the significant measures we have already taken in the past, and much more than what we have planned to achieve under the Sustainable Singapore blueprint,' Prof Jayakumar told reporters at a press conference yesterday.

The blueprint, a national plan on how Singapore could further reduce carbon emissions, was released in April. Among the aims are to reduce energy intensity by 35 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and to lower energy consumption in new and mature housing estates by 20 per cent and 30 per cent respectively by 2030.

Transport is one of the sectors in which the government is looking to introduce new measures and beef up existing ones. For instance, it wants to see 70 per cent of the population take public transport by 2020, up from the 59 per cent recorded in 2006.

This will be done by improving the public transport system and imposing further restraints on vehicle population and usage. Other measures include an enhanced off-peak car scheme, improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles, using bio-fuels and promoting electric vehicles.

'We have no historical responsibility for climate change. Our absolute greenhouse gas emissions are very low, less than 0.2 per cent of the global total,' said Prof Jayakumar, who also chairs the government's inter-ministerial committee on climate change. The committee, formed in 2007, comprises the ministers for foreign affairs, trade and industry, environment and water resources, national development, finance and transport.

He added that all of Singapore's measures will be 'domestically funded and unilaterally implemented'.

As a low-lying island with hardly any alternative energy sources, any rise in sea levels can have 'serious consequences' for Singapore, he said. The exact details of the measures are still being studied by the committee and will be announced at a later stage.

While businesses will be one of the key players in this national effort, it also means that Singaporeans might need to adopt a change in lifestyle, said National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who was also present at the press conference.

'(It) will require us to change behaviour, to have different choices, cut down on wastage at home and the workplace,' he said. 'The question now is: how do you effect that change? How do you incentivise people and discourage them from using more energy than they should? One practical and efficient way is to use market price signals to reflect the cost of these externalities due to the target that we have set.'

Dr Yaacob, however, assured Singaporeans that the country's efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change would not compromise economic growth.

'If we do this at the expense of our economic competitiveness, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot,' he said. 'We have to look at the total package. Do we have to restructure some sectors in the economy? Obviously, there will be changes . . . we are looking at making adjustments over a long-term period.'

Meanwhile, all eyes are now firmly set on the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, which will take place from Dec 7-18. With nearly 100 world leaders - including US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao - confirming their attendance, hopes have been raised that a new United Nations deal could be reached.

Prof Jayakumar, however, chose to play down expectations slightly. 'Most countries are resigned to the reality that there may not be a binding agreement. Of course, nobody wants the conference to be a failure. There is a strong push by governments to achieve at least a political framework or agreement.'

Singapore can't bank on the wind or sun
It is disadvantaged when it comes to alternative energy sources: Jayakumar
Teh Shi Ning, Business Times 3 Dec 09;

(SINGAPORE) The extent to which Singapore can further reduce carbon emissions will be limited by an inherent inability to tap alternative energy sources and past actions, which have already gone a long way to conserve energy, said Senior Minister S Jayakumar.

Singapore is an 'alternative-energy disadvantaged country', Prof Jayakumar said as he announced yesterday that Singapore is prepared to cut emissions growth by 16 per cent by 2020. Being a small island-state imposes constraints on its ability to switch to alternative renewable energies such as geothermal, wind or hydropower to curb dependence on fossil fuels.

Ambassador-at-large Chew Tai Soo, Singapore's chief negotiator at the climate change talks, has had discussions with other 'alternative-energy disadvantaged' countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Trinidad & Tobago, as well as the US, some of whose states face similar constraints.

Elaborating on these challenges, Prof Jayakumar said solar technology is at present 'uneconomic and intermittent' for Singapore, though it holds potential and investments have been made in solar R&D. High urban density here makes deploying solar panels difficult, and the current technology cannot generate a significant proportion of Singapore's electricity needs even if all easily accessible roof top and reservoir space was covered, he said.

Wind is an unlikely source too, as the wind speed here of two metres per second falls below the lowest commercially viable speed of four metres per second. Wind farms require land Singapore can scarce spare too. Nuclear energy has not been ruled out yet, Prof Jayakumar said. But, Singapore's size again makes this a 'complex undertaking' as issues of safety, waste disposal and economic viability need addressing before it can be a valid alternative.

At yesterday's briefing, Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said the Copenhagen talks would allow Singapore to highlight what it has already done and that 'we're not starting from zero when we speak of further targets'. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan added that Singapore has taken the initiative to reduce emissions growth, such as with the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint unveiled in April, and prior to that, reaped results from other past steps too.

These include a 30 per cent reduction in carbon intensity by 2006 from 1990s levels thanks to energy efficiency measures, and a 5 per cent reduction in emissions from stringent policies limiting the number and usage of vehicles. Switching from fuel oil to natural gas, which now generates 80 per cent of Singapore's electricity, also cut the power sector's emissions by 25 per cent.

'This means that there is less potential for us to do more in terms of reducing emissions. But it doesn't mean we'll rest on our laurels and not do anything,' said Mr Mah. The newly announced target of a 16 per cent reduction in emissions growth, contingent on a global deal at Copenhagen, will further stretch targets announced in April's blueprint, he said.

Agreeing that Singapore lacks the option to use renewable energies due to both physical constraints and expensive existing technologies, Nanyang Technological University's head of economics and environmental economics professor Euston Quah thinks the key lies in investing in green technologies and implementing a carbon tax on both consumers and industry.

Singapore to pledge 16 percent cut in emissions
Reuters 2 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore, a Southeast Asian city-state with high per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases, will pledge to slash those emissions by 16 percent by 2020 versus current levels, local media reported on Thursday.

This is the target Singapore will put on the table at talks in Copenhagen starting next week aimed at agreeing a broader climate pact to combat global warming, Singapore's Business Times newspaper quoted a government minister as saying.

"Ours is a substantial commitment that will require a major effort, bearing in mind our severe constraints," the newspaper quoted the government's Coordinating Minister for National Security, S Jayakumar, as telling local media on Wednesday.

China and other big developing nations rejected core targets for a climate deal such as halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 just days before the Copenhagen talks start, diplomats said on Wednesday.

The dispute underscores a rich-poor rift which has haunted the two-year talks to agree a new global climate deal to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2013 and dampens hopes of rescuing the December 7-18 Copenhagen summit.

A legally binding target is already out of reach for the U.N. talks, with only a political deal possible.

Jayakumar said that Singapore's commitment was dependent on a legally-binding deal being reached after the Copenhagen talks, and that other countries needed to put forward significant targets to cut carbon emissions.

He said Singapore's emissions accounted for less than 0.2 percent of the world's total. As an oil refining and manufacturing hub, its per capita emissions are high.

The country, a low-lying group of islands at risk of rising sea levels, seeks to cut emissions through increased use of public transport, improved fuel efficiency, biofuels and electric vehicles.

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said that given the country's small size and dense population, 16 percent was a "stretch target" but achievable, the Straits Times newspaper said.

(Writing by Neil Chatterjee; Editing by Ron Popeski)


Read more!

Marsiling's mature trees may be spared

Esther Ng Today Online 3 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE - All may not be lost for the fruit trees at Marsiling Rise.

Sembawang Town Council (SBTC) will propose some ideas to residents and the Residents' Committee, to see how it can meet residents' love for nature and yet keep the estate clean.

"For existing appropriate mature trees, we could consider allowing the trees to be adopted and cared for by the residents. We're also considering planting more fruits trees in the vicinity for adoption by residents," said its public relations manager, Dorothy Cheung.

SBTC was responding to queries from MediaCorp about any plans to cut trees planted by residents from Blocks 109, 116 and 117 of Marsiling Rise.

"The Town Council does not act only in the light of complaints. Haphazard in-ground planting is not allowed in the common areas, as it may also lead to mosquito breeding and pose other maintenance problems," explained Ms Cheung.

"We believe this is a more balanced approach in catering to residents' interests in gardening, maintaining a pleasant and safe environment, and at the same time, helping enhance community bonding."

It clarified that most of the haphazard in-ground planting include shrubs, bushes, trees and other plants and "none of these plantings have been removed yet".

Member of Parliament (Sembawang) Hawazi Daipi also clarified that he was aware of the matter when he was overseas last month, but had not seen the petition from residents appealing to the authorities to save the trees when MediaCorp contacted him on Tuesday.

"We encourage residents to work with the RC in collaboration with the town council," he said.

Mr Hawazi, chairman of SBTC, said it will look into "improving the environment and beautifying the area".

"It's better to do this the communal way than individuals planting trees in the ground in an uncoordinated manner," he said, and added that there were avenues to meet residents' interests.

Unauthorised planting is not unique to Marsiling, though. When Hougang Town Council found "unsightly" illegal plantings, for example, it improved the landscapes of 12 blocks, it said in its annual report.

When MediaCorp visited Blocks 116 and 117, most of its residents were in favour of preserving the trees.

"The trees aren't dangerous to people - the neem tree has many medicinal values - so why cut them down," said Mr Lau Peng Kong, 56. "If you have to cut a tree, cut those which are sick and dying like the banana tree."

However, Madam Hamisah Saaid, 46, who lives on the third floor, wants all the trees cut.

"They're all over the place - it's not a pretty sight," said the resident of six years. "It makes my flat dark. It's creepy at night, and my son is scared of the banana tree."

Mdm Hamisah is not against greenery - she yearns instead for a more aesthetic surrounding.

"Why can't we have pretty plants with colourful flowers?" she said.

Related article
Town council to remove trees at Marsiling But some Marsiling Rise residents say the garden is source of community pride Esther Ng, Today Online 2 Dec 09;


Read more!

Singapore is 9th most expensive Asian city

Living costs for expats hit by a stronger Sing$ and rise in inflation
Fiona Chan Straits Times 3 Dec 09;

A STRONGER currency and a rise in inflation have made Singapore a more expensive place for expatriates to live in, a survey has found.

Singapore jumped three spots from a year ago to become the ninth priciest Asian city in the latest cost of living ranking by human resource company ECA International.

It beat Taiwan's Taipei and China's Shenzhen and Guangzhou, but remained cheaper than Japan's Tokyo and Yokohama, and China's Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Worldwide, Singapore's rising cost of living catapulted it into the 78th spot on this year's global survey, up almost 20 places from 97th last year.

The main reason for the movement - and, in fact, for most of the changes in this year's survey - was exchange rate fluctuations, said ECA International.

The Singapore dollar has gained about 10 per cent against the US dollar since March. This has helped push up the cost of living in Singapore, compared with some neighbouring cities whose currencies are pegged to the US dollar such as Hong Kong.

According to ECA International, living costs in Singapore are now just 7 per cent lower than in Hong Kong, compared with a 15 per cent gap last year.

'While such increases are unlikely to deter companies from relocating staff to Singapore, the cost of doing so is now higher than it was a year ago,' said Mr Lee Quane, regional director of Asia for ECA International.

He said the stronger Singdollar, coupled with the fact that inflation here has been slightly higher than in some other Asian cities, means that companies have to pay their expat workers higher cost-of-living allowances.

The same applies to Japanese cities, which maintained their top spots in the Asia ranking as the yen soared against the greenback. South Korean locations also surged up the ranks, with Seoul jumping four places to seventh this year, after the won regained some of its lost value.

Expats in Singapore said yesterday that they feel the cost of living has gone up.

'In terms of personal costs, day-to-day expenses have definitely increased,' said Mr Trevor Gawne, who is from Australia and based here as managing director of Fuchs Lubricants.

He said the prices of raw food in particular, such as eggs and fresh milk, have gone up quite considerably in the past 12 months, especially if they are imported from countries like New Zealand and Australia, which have seen their currencies strengthen against the Singdollar.

But while rising costs are a concern, a bigger worry is the volatility of costs, said Mr Phillip Overmyer, an American and the chief executive of the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce.

'What I think is a bigger concern at the corporate level is the high fluctuation we are seeing in Singapore costs in general,' he said.

'Housing rentals, office rentals and the prices of general goods and services have been swinging back and forth a lot over the last couple of years.'

This is worrying for companies because they cannot predict costs and plan accordingly, and it hurts Singapore's competitiveness, he said.

Ms Laura Deal, executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore, agreed that the extreme swings in costs 'can really destroy budgets and cause pain for small companies'.

'You can get caught in a really bad housing or office lease if you sign at the wrong time, and end up paying 30 per cent more than your neighbour,' she said. 'We think it is important for the Government to control the volatility of costs a little bit more.'

ECA International's survey calculated the cost of living around the world based on a basket of day-to-day goods and services. The survey is done twice a year, but comparisons are made year-on-year to strip out seasonal differences.

In March, Singapore was 10th in the Asia rankings.

In the global rankings, Angola's capital Luanda took top spot as the city with the highest cost of living in the world - many regularly used items are expensive to obtain in the city due to the country's war-damaged infrastructure.

Other cities placed in the global top 10 included Tokyo, Yokohama, Oslo and Copenhagen.

Expats find Singapore a tad more expensive

Singapore moves up 3 spots to 9th position in Asia: survey
Joyce Hooi, Business Times 3 Dec 09;

(SINGAPORE) IT is not all cheap hawker food and iPods for expatriates who are based in Singapore.

The latest Cost of Living survey from ECA International has given expatriates here a stronger case to make when lobbying company headquarters for a larger expense package.

This year, Singapore climbed three spots - from 12th - to be the ninth most expensive Asian city, having been on the receiving end of both rising inflation and a strengthening Singapore dollar.

This makes Singapore a more expensive city to live in than Taipei, Shenzhen or Guangzhou.

Japanese cities dominated this year's rankings in Asia, with Tokyo ranking first, followed by Yokohama, Nagoya and Kobe.

While Hong Kong remain more expensive than Singapore at fifth place, the gap in the cost of living has narrowed, from 15 per cent last year to 7 per cent this year.

'While such increases are unlikely to deter companies from relocating staff to Singapore, the cost of doing do is now higher than it was a year ago,' said Lee Quane, regional director of ECA International for Asia.

'Companies employing international assignees are likely to be paying higher cost of living allowances to ensure that their employees continue to maintain their purchasing power while on assignment.'

Singapore's cost of living is put into better context from a global perspective, with the island ranking only 78th this year. Even so, this represents a quantum leap in rankings, from its 97th position last year.

Globally, Luanda in Angola remained the most expensive city, with Tokyo and Oslo in second and third place respectively.

ECA International's Cost of Living survey is carried out twice a year, comparing a basket of consumer goods and services commonly purchased by assignees in over 390 places globally.

While the survey includes items like food, clothing and motoring expenses, it does not take into account other living costs like accommodation, utilities, car purchases and school fees.

These expenses tend to make the expatriate bill significantly larger but are often compensated for in separate expatriate packages, according to ECA International.

Singapore now among 10 most expensive Asian cities
Yasmine Yahya, 938 LIVE Channel NewsAsia 2 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE: Singapore is now one of the top 10 most expensive Asian cities for expatriates to live in due to the strengthening of the Singdollar.

A survey by human resource consultancy ECA International showed that Singapore now has the ninth highest cost of living in the region.

Last year, the city-state was in the twelfth place.

ECA International said the cost of living for visitors to Singapore is also catching up with that of its neighbours.

A year ago, living costs in Singapore were about 15 per cent lower than in Hong Kong. Now, the difference is just seven per cent.

ECA International's Regional Director for Asia, Lee Quane, said the increase in living cost is unlikely to deter firms from relocating their staff here.

Tokyo maintained its position as the most expensive location for expatriates to live in, as the stronger yen outweighed the impact of deflation in Japan.

- 938LIVE/yb


Read more!

Bringing in plant? Get a health cert first

Spike in number of people caught this year with untreated flora or soil: AVA
Straits Times 3 Dec 09;

EVERY day, an average of six people enter Singapore with plants and soil that have not been treated for pests and diseases, a potential threat to local flora and fauna.

In a media release yesterday, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) said that in the first 10 months of this year, more than 1,800 people were caught with untreated plants. This is close to six times the 311 nabbed last year.

The spike in numbers, as well as the fact that most Singaporeans who were caught said they were unaware of the regulations, has prompted the reminder, said an AVA spokesman.

The authority is unsure why there has been an increase in the number of untreated plants being brought in.

While there have been no major problems yet caused by the rising number of imported plants here, the AVA cautioned that plants and potting products - such as soil and fertiliser - which do not have a health certification could affect plant species here.

The AVA requires that all imported plants or potting medium should come with a health certificate to indicate that they have been chemically treated or fumigated, to ensure they are free from pests and diseases. An import permit from the AVA is also required.

Said Mr Wong Sek Man, a professor specialising in plant diseases at the department of biological sciences at the National University of Singapore: 'Untreated plants can bring in many insects such as white flies and thrips, which can transmit viruses that are devastating to agricultural crops.'

Fortunately, he added, such viruses do not affect human health.

For the first 10 months of this year, more than 1,800 plants and six tonnes of potting medium and fertilisers arrived here without certification. About 250 plants were claimed by their owners after inspection and treatment by the AVA.

The more popular species which had been brought in were the bougainvillea, rose, ixora and kamquat.

Owners have to pay an inspection fee, ranging from $12 to $50, as well as the permit fee which costs $11.

Plants not claimed after 10 days from the date of interception are destroyed. The potting medium in sealed packages is also destroyed as treatment is not feasible.

Recognising that travellers might want to bring in small quantities of plants for personal use, the AVA reminded Singaporeans of the exemption for those returning from West Malaysia. Singaporeans can bring in three plants without potting medium and an import permit and a health certificate are not required.

Any person who does not comply with the regulations can be fined up to $1,000.

LEOW SI WAN


Read more!

Singapore, Johor environment agencies conduct chemical spill exercise

Dylan Loh, Channel NewsAsia 2 Dec 09;

SINGAPORE : The environment agencies of Singapore and Johor conducted an emergency response to chemical spill exercise at the Tuas Second Link on Wednesday.

For the first time, a sea rescue component was part of the annual joint exercise.

The scenario involved collisions between lorries containing hazardous chemicals resulting in the spilling of acid across the Second Link and into the sea.

Response teams from both sides were activated to clean up the spillage and tend to the injured.

Over 100,000 tonnes of hazardous chemicals are transported between Singapore and Malaysia yearly.

Andrew Tan, chief executive officer, National Environment Agency, Singapore, said: "The key purpose of having such an exercise is to make sure that if there are any incidents that happen, both sides will have personnel who are familiar with one another, who know exactly what to do.

"... (During the exercise), they worked together to evacuate the persons, at the same time, to do the terrain decontamination." - CNA/ms

Chemical drill in Tuas
Straits Times 3 Dec 09;

Men in Light Decon Suits performing wet decontamination yesterday, during the last stage of a chemical release exercise at the Second Link in Tuas.

It is the seventh annual exercise conducted by the National Environment Agency and Johor's Department of Environment.

The drill was to test the operational effectiveness of an emergency response plan to deal with accidents involving the transport of hazardous chemicals at the Second Link.

For the first time, a sea rescue component was also included in the exercise.


Read more!

Green Future Affordable With Deep CO2 Cuts: Study

PlanetArk 3 Dec 09;

OSLO - Prices of everyday goods such as clothing and food will barely rise if rich nations slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to a study on Wednesday that concludes green lifestyles are affordable.

The study, in New Scientist magazine based on data for Britain from consultancy Cambridge Econometrics, said prices of only a few consumer goods dependent on fossil fuels would rocket, such as fuel-guzzling air travel.

"These results show that the global project to fight climate change is doable," the report quoted Alex Bowen, a climate policy expert at the London School of Economics, as saying. "It's not such a big ask as people are making out."

The model, assuming cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 80 percent by 2050 in line with goals by major developing states, projected that prices of food, clothing and cars would rise 1 percent by 2050 and tobacco, alcohol and electronics 2 percent. Phone bills would be unaffected.

But energy prices would jump, with a shift to renewable energies such as solar and wind power. Electricity prices would be up 15 percent and a return flight from London to New York would soar 140 percent.

"We can afford to go green," New Scientist said of the findings. "Electricity and other forms of energy make up only a fraction of the price of most goods," it said. "Other factors -- raw materials, labor and taxes -- are far more important."

"The energy that goes into producing food, alcoholic drinks and tobacco, for instance, makes up just 2 percent of the consumer price," it said, noting there were many uncertainties about the projection.

Low-carbon future: We can afford to go green
Jim Giles, New Scientist 2 Dec 09;

TACKLING climate change will cost consumers the earth. Those who campaign for a green revolution are out to destroy our western lifestyles. Such are the cries of opponents of emissions cuts, and their message has political clout: a number of surveys, including one by New Scientist in 2007, have found that the enthusiasm of voters for policies to alleviate climate change falls off as the price tag increases.

However, a new modelling exercise conducted exclusively for this magazine suggests that these fears are largely unfounded. It projects that radical cuts to the UK's emissions will cause barely noticeable increases in the price of food, drink and most other goods by 2050 (see the figures). Electricity and petrol costs will rise significantly, but with the right policies in place, say the modellers, this need not lead to big changes in our lifestyle.

"These results show that the global project to fight climate change is doable," says Alex Bowen, a climate policy expert at the London School of Economics. "It's not such a big ask as people are making out."

Although it is impossible to precisely predict prices four decades from now, the exercise is one of the most detailed examinations yet of the impact of climate change policies on UK consumers. It provides a useful rough guide to our economic future.

Though its results speak directly to the UK consumer, previous research has come to similar conclusions for the US. In June, one study found that if the US were to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, prices of most consumer goods would increase by less than 5 per cent (Energy Economics, DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.016). The findings are also consistent with analyses by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Washington DC. "Even cutting emissions by 80 per cent over four decades has a very small effect on consumers in most areas," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center. "The challenge is now to convince consumers and policy-makers that this is the case."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that wealthy nations cut their emissions to between 80 and 95 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The UK government aims to reduce its contribution by 80 per cent and leaders of the other G8 nations have discussed following suit. To meet this goal, industries will have to slash fossil fuel consumption, and low-carbon power sources will have to massively expand. Companies will have to pay increasingly higher prices for the right to emit greenhouse gases.

How will this affect the average citizen's wallet? To gauge the impact of the 80 per cent target on the UK population, New Scientist approached Cambridge Econometrics, a consultancy known for its modelling of the European economy. The firm used historic economic data to predict the impact of emissions reductions on prices in over 40 categories of goods and services (see "How the model works"). It compared the impact of the 80 per cent cut with a baseline scenario in which the government takes no action other than the limited emissions restrictions already in place as a result of the Kyoto protocol.

See the figures

Most of the price hikes are a consequence of rising energy costs, in part because coal and gas are replaced by more expensive low-carbon sources. The price of electricity is projected to be 15 per cent higher in 2050 compared with the baseline. In today's prices, that would add around £5 onto typical monthly household electricity bills. It will also result in higher prices elsewhere, as every industrial sector uses electricity.

But electricity and other forms of energy make up only a fraction of the price of most goods. Other factors - raw materials, labour and taxes - are far more important. The energy that goes into producing food, alcoholic drinks and tobacco, for example, makes up just 2 per cent of the consumer price. For motor vehicle purchases and hotel stays, the figure is 1 per cent. Only for energy-intensive industries does the contribution climb above 3 per cent: for example, energy's share of land and air travel costs is 6 and 7 per cent respectively.

As a result, most products cost just a few per cent more by 2050. At current prices, going low-carbon is forecast to add around 5 pence to the price of a loaf of bread or a pint of beer. The price of household appliances such as washing machines rises by a few pounds.

There is one major exception to the pattern. Airlines do not currently have a low-carbon alternative to jet fuel. Unless one is found, they will bear the full burden of carbon pricing, and average fares will rise by at least 140 per cent - raising the cost of a typical London to New York return trip from around £350 to £840.

Achieving the overall picture of low prices does require government action. The model forecasts that by 2050 natural gas and petrol will cost 160 per cent and 32 per cent more respectively. To avoid large price hikes in home heating and road transport while still hitting the 80 per cent target, the Cambridge researchers had to build two major policies into their analysis. They assumed that future governments will provide grants and other incentives to help switch all domestic heating and cooking to electricity, and invest in the infrastructure needed for electric cars to almost completely replace petroleum-fuelled vehicles.

Both policies have been discussed in recent UK government strategy documents, though the detail of how they would be implemented is still pending. Firm policies must follow if ambitious emissions cuts are going to be made, says Chris Thoung of Cambridge Econometrics.

So is tackling climate change going to be easier than expected, in terms of consumer costs? While the Cambridge Econometrics model is widely respected and regularly used by the UK government's climate change advisers, any attempt to forecast four decades ahead can be derailed by unforeseen events. That leads some economists to question the model's results.

For example, companies could relocate to countries with less stringent carbon regulations, points out Richard Tol of the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland. Incomes in the UK would fall, making goods relatively more expensive. Tol also questions whether it is reasonable to use historical prices as a basis for projecting beyond 2020.

Mike Hulme, a climate policy expert at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, says that social effects are also unpredictable. A repeat of the 2000 fuel price protests, when action by truckers forced the UK government to cut road fuel taxes, could scupper plans to persuade consumers to switch to electric vehicles. Conversely, social effects could make cuts easier - for example, if the high emissions associated with flying stigmatise air travel among some groups, adds Hulme.

Despite this, the Cambridge Econometrics results, together with other recent studies, do provide a useful guide for governments, says Michael Grubb of the University of Cambridge. They suggest that the overall challenge is surmountable, even if many of the details will only become clear in years to come. "No one is asking policy-makers to have everything in place for the next 40 years," says Grubb. "But these results should reinforce the sense that this is a manageable problem."
The figures

* 1% on clothing: A £500 men's suit will become £5 more expensive
* 2% on electronics: A £1000 laptop would cost £20 more
* 1% on food: The average UK household spends £50 a week on food. This increases by less than £1
* 15% on electricity: A typical UK household spends £400 a year on electricity. This will jump by roughly £60
* 0% on communications: UK phone bills will be essentially unaffected
* 140% on air travel: A return flight from London to New York would jump from £350 to around £840
* 2% on tobacco: Barring new taxes, the cost of a pack of 20 cigarettes will rise by roughly 10 pence
* 2% on alcohol: The cost of a pint of beer will rise by about 6 pence by 2050
* 1% on cars: A new Toyota Prius, currently about £20,000, will cost £240 more in a low-carbon 2050
* 2% on household goods: The price of a washing machine will rise by a few pounds

See the full results (PDF, 43KB)


Read more!

Hong Kong shark fin traders criticise US report

Yahoo News 2 Dec 09;

HONG KONG (AFP) – Hong Kong shark fin merchants on Wednesday reacted angrily to a US study that said meat from endangered species was being sold in the city's markets to make a popular soup.

In the new study for the journal Endangered Species Research, US scientists said they had used DNA testing to trace the geographic origin of shark fins on sale in Hong Kong. They found 21 percent of the fins came from endangered scalloped hammerhead shark stocks in the western Atlantic.

But the Hong Kong Shark Fin Trade Merchant's Association said its members had not done anything illegal.

"The study is exaggerated," a spokesman for the association told AFP.

"We are not doing anything against the law. The sale of endangered scalloped hammerhead shark fins has not been made illegal here."

The scientists are calling for the March 2010 meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to draw up trade regulations to protect hammerhead and other shark populations not covered by the pact.

One kilogramme (2.2 pounds) of scalloped hammerhead shark fin can sell for 120 US dollars or more in the city, according to the researchers.

Shark fins are used to make a soup that is considered a rare delicacy and a must-have at many Hong Kong wedding banquets.

Mak Ching-po, chairman of the Hong Kong Dried Seafood and Grocery Merchants Association, also criticised the study.

"Shark populations will grow exponentially if we don't keep fishing them," Mak told Hong Kong daily The Standard.

"As a result, humans will be in short supply of smaller fish such as garoupa, as sharks will eat them."

Hong Kong's Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department said it would abide by any new regulations adopted after the CITES meeting next year.

"Hong Kong is committed to the protection of endangered species, and will closely follow the international control as required by CITES on the trade in endangered species," it said in a statement.

Related article
Hong Kong markets selling endangered shark fins: US study Yahoo News 1 Dec 09;


Read more!

Two Bali villages cited as examples of community-based forest management

Two villages cited as forest stewardship beacons
Desy Nurhayati, The Jakarta Post 2 Dec 09;

Indonesian delegates at a forest management meeting that began Tuesday are promoting Tenganan and Sibetan villages in Bali as prime examples of community-based forest management.

In the four-day meeting attended by delegates from 10 countries grouped under the Forest Governance Learning Group (FGLG), residents of the two villages in Karangasem regency related their success in conserving their forests by adhering to traditional environmental stewardship.

"For many years now, from one generation to the next, the people of Tenganan and Sibetan have always complied with traditional laws in preserving the forests and the entire environment," Karangasem Regent Wayan Gredeg said in his presentation.

"The local wisdom of the indigenous people and collaboration between desa adat *traditional villages*, NGOs and the local administration is the key to sustainable forest management in the area."

He cited a traditional law prohibiting villagers from picking ripe fruits before they fall off the tree, as well as taking wood from forests without the of village elders.

"Only married couples who need wood to build their homes are allowed to get it from the forest, but they need approval from the village council," Gredeg said.

The villagers, he went on, upheld the principle of Tri Hita Karana to conserve nature, which emphasizes the links between humans, deities and the environment.

Tucked away in hilly and rocky areas of Karangasem, Tenganan and Sibetan villages are popular agritourism destinations. Sibetan is renowned for its salak (snake fruit) plantations, which dominate the landscape around the village.

Karangasem spans 83,954 hectares, most of which is arid land. Protected forests constitute 17 percent of the area, or 14,260 hectares - far less than the 30 percent stipulated in zoning laws.

Gredeg said his administration had developed 11,715 hectares, and counting, of community forests.

Karangasem's efforts to preserve its forests have won many accolades, including being named by the Forestry Ministry as Bali's best regency for forest stewardship in 2008.

The FGLG meeting also touched on forest countries' strong bargaining position ahead of the upcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen, as forests will be one of the central negotiation topics, particularly with regard to the concept of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).

Countries represented at the FGLG meeting are Indonesia, Cameroon, Ghana, India, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam.

Also in attendance are researchers from the UK-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the coordinator of the FGLG.

"All these countries have the potentials to reap benefits from the negotiations," said IIED natural resources head James Mayers.

"They should put values on their forests through adaptation and mitigation efforts, set up appropriate descriptions and mechanisms for carbon trading."

The FGLG brings together diverse stakeholders concerned about forest conservation.

The group holds regular meetings to share ideas and draw up plans to increase their impact on decision making in the forestry sector.


Read more!

Logging moratorium in production, industrial forest impossible

Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post 2 Dec 09;

Indonesia will not be able to impose a logging moratorium on production and industrial forests, a study by the Greenomics Indonesia said.

A study showed Indonesia needed at least Rp75.2 trillion (US$7.5 billion) to compensate potential costs from stopping logging activities in 110 forest production companies (HPH) and 77 industrial forest firms (HTI).

“Potential losses of logging moratorium are too high. It is impossible to implement it,” Greenomics executive director Elfian Effendi said Wednesday.

Greenomics calculated the potential losses based on the price of wood to be logged from the HPH and HTI companies, which had secured licenses from government to cut the trees until 2018.

Elfian said that the forest moratorium would also cause multiplier effects because the HPH and HTI employed thousands of workers.

The 187 companies (HPH and HTI), which operated in 7.58 million hectares of forest, planned to log trees in the areas of 1.48 million hectares until 2018 with the expected output of 79.69 million cubic meters of woods.


Read more!

Indonesia allocates 18 million hectares of land for palm oil

The Jakarta Post 2 Dec 09;

Indonesia's position as the world's number one palm oil producer would likely not be shaken in years to come as the country has 18 million hectares of land that could be used for palm oil plantations, almost doubling from the current 9.7 million hectares that have been licensed for palm oil estates.

Agriculture Minister Suswono said after the opening of the 5th Indonesian Palm Oil Conference in Nusa Dua, Bali, that of the total 9.7 million hectares, 7.9 million hectares are already planted with palm oil, while the remaining 1.8 million hectares still stand empty.

"Based on the land characteristics and the climate, we have a total of 18 million hectares of land, including the existing 9.7 million hectares, that potentially could be used for palm oil plantations, without disturbing our forest preservation efforts," Suswono said.

In addition to providing more areas for palm oil plantation, the government would also help improve the productivity of the existing plantations.

In comparison, Malaysia has only 4 million hectares of palm oil estates, but it produces 16 million tons of palm oil per annum. Indonesia has almost double the size, 7.9 million hectares, but produces only 19 million tons of palm oil.

Suswono said most of the lost productivity lies with plantations owned and managed by smallholders, which account for 41.4 percent of total plantation areas.

He said plantations belonging to smallholders produce 1.5 to 2 tons per hectare, while plantations managed by private companies produce 7 tons per hectare, while those managed by state-owned companies produce 4 to 5 tons per hectare.

"So, we are considering giving incentives to improve the productivity of estates belonging to smallholders," Suswono said.

Indonesia to expand oil palm estates amid environmental concerns
Riyadi Suparno and Nani Afrida, The Jakarta Post 3 Nov 09;

Despite environmental concerns, Indonesia plans to continue the expansion of its much-contested oil palm plantations to cover a total area of 18 million hectares, from the current 9.7 million, to generate more employment and improve people's welfare.

Coordinating Minister for the Economy Hatta Radjasa said on Wednesday that Indonesia would adopt "sustainable palm oil development" to ensure the expansion would not create more environmental problems.

"Sustainability is not an option, it's a must. Sustainability in the palm oil sector must cover all three aspects, social, economic and environmental," Hatta said after opening the 5th Indonesian Palm Oil Conference.

Hatta noted the government was committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by 2020, and that such a target could only be achieved by establishing new oil palm plantations.

Therefore, he said, the government would implement stricter regulations on clearing land for oil palm estates, and would work to reduce forest fires and illegal logging.

Indonesia, currently the world's largest palm oil producer, is considered one of the biggest emitters of CO2 from land use. Environmental activists have singled out the development of massive oil palm plantations as one of the biggest contributors to the emissions.

Indonesia has a total 9.7 million hectares of land that have been licensed for oil palm plantations, 9.7 million hectares of which are already planted, while 1.8 million remain empty. Indonesia produ-ces 19.2 million tons of palm oil per annum.

In comparison, Malaysia has 4 million hectares of oil palm plantations, and produces 16 million tons. Unlike Malaysia, Indonesia has more land to use for plantations.

"Based on the land characteristics and the climate, we have a total 18 million hectares of land, including the existing 9.7 million hectares, which could potentially be used for palm oil plantations, without disturbing our forest preservation efforts," said Agriculture Minister Suswono.

Suswono also said that environmental concerns should not discourage the government, businesses and farmers from continuing to invest in the palm oil sector, noting that environmental concerns were exaggerated, while economic benefits were largely ignored.

"The emissions from opening new oil palm plantations are more in the form of CO2, and the oil palms to some extent absorb CO2. Compare that to methane emissions in the West, which are 23 times more dangerous than CO2," Suswono said.

In addition, the sector contributed US$12.4 billion in export revenue, the biggest outside the oil and gas sector, and employed 3.4 million households.

"But it doesn't mean that we ignore the environment. Ignoring the environment means we are committing suicide," he said.

Deputy agriculture minister, Bayu Khisnamurthi, said that Indonesia's palm oil sector was one of the booming sectors, and with the government's support and support from the banking sector, he predicted the country's output would double in the next decade to 40 million tons per year.


Read more!

Thai Court Halts Many New Plants In Big Industrial Zone

Kochakorn Boonlai and Pisit Changplayngam, Yahoo News 3 Dec 09;

BANGKOK - A Thai court halted the bulk of new projects at the world's eighth-biggest petrochemicals hub on Wednesday over environmental concerns, rattling investors in Thailand and posing a new challenge for the government.

Thailand's Supreme Administrative Court gave the green light to just 11 of 76 new plants at Map Ta Phut, the country's largest industrial estate in eastern Rayong province.

The remaining 65 projects worth an estimated $8 billion will be halted during an investigation by a government-appointed commission, a surprise decision that triggered a 2.3 percent drop in Thai stock prices .SETI.

The ruling stoked concerns about legal certainty and government effectiveness in a country once seen as a safe haven for big business. Analysts say the credibility of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's pro-business government is at stake if it fails to resolve the dispute.

"While we respect the court's decision, it is definitely going to erode investors' confidence in Thailand," Nandor von der Luehe, chairman of the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce, which represents 10,000 foreign companies in Thailand, told reporters.

The ruling "also puts the financing of these projects at risk. The cost of doing business in Thailand is definitely going up after this ruling. We definitely hope that the government will find a quick solution," he added.

A local environment group, which started lobbying governments 13 years ago to clean up Map Ta Phut, says 2,000 local people have since died of cancer as a result of pollution from the plants, although doctors have not said industry is to blame.

Some of dominant Thai energy firm PTT's (PTT.BK) projects were allowed to go ahead because they were not expected to cause serious harm to the environment, Judge Kasem Comsatyadham said, reading the verdict.

Later PTT said its sixth gas separation plant would start operations in early 2010 as planned. [ID:nBKK433280] It said the plant had been started before the constitutional changes in 2007 that altered health and environment rules.

The central bank has said the dispute could cut economic growth by 0.5 percentage point in 2010 if it dragged on. (For an analysis click: [ID:nBKK500927]).

Thailand's benchmark stock index .SETI ended down 2.3 percent after the verdict, led by a 5 percent slide in both PTT and top Thai industrial conglomerate Siam Cement SCC.BK. Although some of their projects were cleared, analysts said the verdict failed to dispel uncertainty hanging over the estate.

"It remains a sensitive issue and a key challenge for the government, which will have to carefully manage this problem, given the negative investor sentiment," said Usara Wilaipich, an economist at Standard Chartered Bank.

HEALTH CONCERNS

There are another 119 projects in Map Ta Phut and the surrounding region of Rayong unaffected by the environmental review, whose operations have not been interrupted, said Sorayud Petchtrakul, an adviser to Thailand's industry minister.

Projects deemed on Wednesday safe for the environment and allowed to operate include those of India's Aditya Birla Chemicals (ADYA.BO), PTT Aromatics and Refining PTTAR.BK, PTT Chemical PTTCH.BK and a Siam Cement project.

Another is unlisted refiner Star Petroleum Refining, a joint venture of Chevron (CVX.N) and PTT, along with Thai firm Indorama Petrochem.

The ruling had not been expected until next February or later, and the stock market jumped 3 percent on Tuesday on hopes of a business-friendly verdict.

The government recently set up a four-party commission, chaired by former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, to help resolve the conflict.

The court's injunction followed complaints from locals and environmental groups led by the Stop Global Warming Association that state agencies and several ministers had failed to issue proper operating licences at the estate.

Foreign companies have also been caught up in the case, including a Thai unit of Germany's Bayer (BAYGn.DE) and Australia's BlueScope Steel Ltd (BSL.AX).

Under the 2007 constitution, companies need approval for projects that might be harmful to people and the community. That entails an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and a health impact assessment (HIA) which includes public hearings.

Before 2007, industrial plants needed only EIA approval at Map Ta Phut. Most companies complied with EIA rules but failed to abide by HIA requirements because the government had not yet set up an independent organisation to oversee the health impact.

(Editing by Jason Szep)


Read more!

Protected Habitat Proposed For Rare Alaska Whale

Yereth Rosen, PlanetArk 3 Dec 09;

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Over 3,000 square miles (7,770 sq kms) in Alaska would be protected as critical habitat for the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale, under a proposal issued on Tuesday by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The area would encompass more than a third of Cook Inlet, mostly the northern portion off Anchorage, including shallow areas where the whales spend summer days feasting on salmon and smelt and nursing their infants.

It also overlays areas heavily used for commerce, including oil and gas production, commercial shipping, fishing and municipal wastewater discharge.

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell said he would fight the designation. "Listing more than 3,000 square miles of Cook Inlet as critical habitat would do little to help grow the beluga population, but it would devastate economic opportunities in the region," Parnell, a Republican, said in a statement.

A final ruling establishing critical habitat is expected in the spring after a public review period, NOAA said. Under the designation, which is mandated by the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies may not allow activities that harm habitat considered critical to the listed species.

Cook Inlet belugas, known for their unique genetic make-up and behavior and their proximity to Alaska's urban core, have dwindled to a population of about 300 from as much 1,300 in the early 1980s.

A period of overharvesting by Native subsistence hunters in the early 1990s triggered a population tailspin, according to federal scientists, while pollution and other environmental factors have prevented a rebound.

(Editing by Bill Rigby)


Read more!

Sweden allows first wolf hunt in 45 years

Yahoo News 2 Dec 09;

STOCKHOLM (AFP) – Sweden will this winter allow its first wolf hunt in 45 years following a decision by the Scandinavian country's parliament to limit their number, authorities said on Wednesday.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is to announce by mid-December its quota for the wolf cull, expected to be between 20 and 40 animals, Susanna Loefgren of the agency told AFP.

"That (number is) what (experts) have offered us, we're working on it and a decision will be taken mid-December," Loefgren said.

The regions where the hunt will be allowed are the province of Dalarna, Gaevleborg county and Oerebro county in the country's centre as well as the provinces of Vaestergoetland in the southwest and Vaermland in the west.

The Swedish parliament decided in October to limit the wolf population to 210 animals, spread out in 20 packs, for the next five years by issuing hunting permits in regions where wolves have reproduced in the past three years.

"The main reason for the decision is to raise the (public's) acceptance of wolves" in Sweden by limiting their number, Loefgren said.

The animal's presence is controversial in the Nordic country as domestic and wild animals are increasingly attacked by wolves, which have been sighted recently near residential areas, including near the capital Stockholm.

The environmental protection agency estimated Sweden's wolf population to be between 182 and 217 animals last winter.

It said the hunt would start in January and end before mating season begins in mid-February.

Wolves almost became extinct in Sweden in the 1970s but their number has increased steadily since efforts were made to reintroduce the animal to the country.

Like some other European countries, Sweden allows the hunt of protected species, such as the brown bear and the lynx, in order to cull stocks.


Read more!

Pollution a more immediate threat

Concern over global warming should not overshadow other crises
Nirmal Ghosh, Straits Times 3 Dec 09;

PERHAPS the most powerful message will come not in the form of an apocalypse, or a bang, but something far smaller and simpler, a whimper - but one has to notice it.

In this case, the message could be the little Passer domesticus - the cheeky, chirpy house sparrow.

The bird the the vast majority of people on this planet have grown up seeing and taking for granted in our fields and villages and cities, is now vanishing. Across the world there has been a precipitous drop in the population of the little birds.

In August 2002, the house sparrow was added to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of bird species of conservation concern because its numbers were estimated to have fallen by 50 per cent in just 25 years.

In India's Punjab state - ironically the 'granary' of northern India - the bird is thought to be sliding towards local extinction. In England, research has shown that the house sparrow population has declined by around 65 per cent since the 1970s.

The causes of this decline could be various, from predation by domestic and feral cats in England to pesticides in Punjab. Or the cause could be a change in the food mix of the sparrow in both places. Whatever it is, the cause or causes would certainly be driven by human actions on the fragile biosphere.

Whatever is decided - or not - at the climate change talks in Copenhagen next week, it will make little immediate difference to an array of environmental problems that we face now: the unseen toxic mix that is killing house sparrows, the chainsaws and bulldozers that are destroying rainforests and peat swamps to convert them to oil palm plantations, the rivers that are loaded with chemicals and heavy metals.

'While climate change is natural, the hype over it is totally political,' maintains Dr Arun D. Ahluwalia, director of the Centre of Advanced Studies in Geology at Panjab University, Chandigarh.

'This din over climate change diverts our attention from pollution, the biggest man-made disaster,' he argues.

'Pollution is a bigger issue than global warming - which is largely natural and has been going on since 20,000 years ago but not steadily and with two mini ice ages in between.'

In fact, the intense focus on greenhouse gases and global warming risks diverting much needed resources and attention from local, perennial - and dangerous - environmental problems, most of which are driven not by climate change, but by people.

Millions of people for instance, unknowingly support the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests to make way for palm oil.

Friends of the Earth, in its 2005 report titled The Oil For Ape Scandal, said one in 10 leading supermarket products in Britain contained palm oil. They include the popular Kit Kat chocolate.

The British daily The Independent in a more recent report concluded that palm oil was 'confirmed or suspected in 43 of Britain's 100 best-selling grocery brands.'

'If you strip out drinks, pet food and household goods, the picture is starker still: 32 out of 62 of Britain's top foods contain this tree-felling, wildlife-wrecking ingredient,' The Independent declared.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scenarios for global warming may be accurate - or they may not. Some scientists even think the point is moot.

Many academics like Dr Ahluwalia from evolutionary disciplines like geology or evolutionary biology take the long view and believe that even if global warming is occurring, it is natural and there is little people can do about it.

What really matters is not computer projections but the hard facts - and there the evidence is grim. Long before the IPCC appeared on the scene, for instance, the scientific consensus was that human activity is driving many species to extinction well before their time.

Human health is suffering from the pollution we dump into the environment. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gases, a continent-sized island of plastic waste has been discovered in the Pacific Ocean.

And the Asian 'brown cloud' of particulate pollution from heavy industry, households and automobiles, has been detected over the Indian Ocean.

In his studies in Taiwan's oldest national park, Kenting, in southern Taiwan, Professor G. Agoramoorthy, who lectures on environmental sciences at Taiwan's Tajen University, found that the park's apparently pristine ecosystem was loaded with heavy metals.

In his 2005 book No Turning Back, Richard Ellis wrote: 'We began modestly - and recently - killing off many large animals for food or self-defence.'

'But in recent years we have ratcheted up the rate; we are now mowing down entire species with terrible and reckless abandon. In many instances, we do not directly target the particular species, but if we poison or destroy the habitat in which it lives, the result is the same.'

Whatever happens at Copenhagen, severe and immediate environmental problems will still be with us. Orang utans, tigers, whales - and rare life forms we have not even discovered yet - will still be disappearing. The region will still periodically choke on the smoke from the burning Indonesian forests. Grains and fruits will still be loaded with pesticides.

Reducing carbon emissions is not a silver bullet. It is imperative, say many scientists, that greenhouse gases and global warming are not allowed to bury the other, more immediate, everyday environmental crises that we have to deal with.


Read more!

World Bank to help clean India's Ganges

Yahoo News 2 Dec 09;

NEW DELHI (AFP) – The World Bank said Wednesday it will give India at least one billion dollars to help clean up the heavily polluted holy river Ganges as part of moves to sharply hike lending to the country.

The Ganges clean-up involves building modern sewage treatment, revamping drains and other measures to improve the quality of the sacred river which has been badly dirtied by industrial chemicals, farm pesticides and other sewage.

"The World Bank is helping the government of India in its recently launched program to clean and conserve the Ganga (Ganges) River with an initial assistance of one billion dollars to be provided over the next four-to-five years," the multilateral lender said in a statement.

India's environment minister hailed the World Bank's support for cleaning up the river, known to Hindus as "the Mother Ganges."

"This is a project of enormous national importance and I am pleased that the World Bank has come forward to assist us," Ramesh said at a joint news conference in New Delhi with visiting World Bank chief Robert Zoellick.

The announcement came after the finance ministry earlier Wednesday said the World Bank was expected to triple lending this year to India to seven billion this year for development, infrastructure and other projects.

The sum is three times the average 2.3 billion dollars the Bank has loaned India annually over the past four years.

Zoellick is on a four-day visit to the country.

India already has 19.57 billion dollars in World Bank loans that are supporting 68 development, infrastructure and other projects and is the Washington-based financial institution's biggest borrower.

As part of the seven billion dollars in lending this year, the World Bank in September announced 4.3 billion dollars in loans to help strengthen India's economy amid the global economic crisis.

Zoellick wrote in the Hindustan Times newspaper Wednesday that India faces enormous challenges.

But "if it can remove (infrastructure) bottlenecks that slow its economy, then India is well positioned to become one of the new poles of global growth."

The world financial system "needs to accommodate India and other powers whose growth rates far exceed those of developed countries," Zoellick said.

As India's economy returns to growth rates of eight-to-nine per cent, "we can expect it to grow not only as a market but as a supplier of a range of services and increasingly knowledge-intensive goods," Zoellick said.

Earlier this week, India reported quarterly growth rose 7.9 percent from a year earlier, underscoring what analysts said has been the country's faster-than-expected recovery from the global slump.

The finance ministry said Mukherjee pressed Zoellick for swift completion of reforms to give a greater voice to developing nations at the World Bank.

In September, leaders at a Group of 20 summit in the US city of Pittsburgh backed plans to give developing countries greater voting rights at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

World Bank To Loan India $1 bln To Clean up Ganges
Author: C.J. Kuncheria, PlanetArk 3 Dec 09;

NEW DELHI - The World Bank will loan India $1 billion over the next five to seven years to clean up the Ganges, the holy river that is one of the world's most polluted, the country's environment minister said on Wednesday.

The lender will also help India access $4 billion in funds for stopping dumping of untreated waste into the Ganges, according to a joint statement issued by Minister Jairam Ramesh and World Bank President Rober Zoellick in the Indian capital.

The 2,510-kilometre-long river that runs from a glacier in the western Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal in Bangladesh, supports over 400 million of India's 1.1 billion population.

Sewage and industrial effluents pour into much of its course through India's most populated states, reducing its capacity to support life and making it unfit for human or animal use. Floating corpses are a common sight as Hindus believe cremation on the river banks leads to salvation.

The government has planned to end discharge of untreated waste into the Ganges by 2020.

Earlier attempts to clean the river have failed, including a plan to make its water drinkable by 1989.

(Editing by Chris Pizzey)


Read more!

Extreme oil: Scraping the bottom of Earth's barrel

David Strahan, New Scientist 2 Dec 09;

Editorial: Plenty more oil, but use it wisely

EIGHTY-FIVE million barrels. That's how much oil we consume every day. It's a staggering amount - enough to fill over 5400 Olympic swimming pools - and demand is expected to keep on rising, despite the impending supply crunch.

The International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2030 it will rise to about 105 million barrels per day with a commensurate increase in production (see graph), although whistle-blowers recently told The Guardian newspaper in London that insiders at the IEA believe the agency vastly over-estimates our chances of plugging that gap. The agency officially denies this.

Wherever the truth lies, it is widely expected that by 2030 we will have passed the peak of conventional oil production - the moment that output from conventional oil reserves goes into terminal decline. A report from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) published in August said there was a "significant risk" it would happen before 2020. And that means we will soon be staring down the barrel of the ultimate oil crisis.

Some governments and corporations are waking up to the idea and beginning to develop alternatives to keep the world's transport systems moving when cheap oil runs out. These include biofuels, more energy-efficient - or electric - carsMovie Camera, and hydrogen. But none of these is likely to make up the global shortfall in time. The pressure is on to keep the black stuff flowing and so the next two decades will see an unprecedented effort to exploit increasingly exotic and unconventional sources of oil. They include tar sands (a mixture of sand or clay and a viscous, black, sticky petroleum deposit called bitumen), oil shale (a sedimentary rock containing kerogen, a precursor to petroleum) and synthetic liquid fuels made from coal or gas.

Purely in terms of geological abundance, these sources look more than sufficient to meet global demand. According to the IEA, taken together, they raise the remaining global oil resource to about 9 trillion barrels (see map) - almost nine times the amount of oil humanity has consumed to date. The trouble is that the name "non-conventional oil" hides several dirty little secrets and a whole host of huge challenges.

Conventional oil refers to liquid hydrocarbons trapped in deep, highly pressurised reservoirs, which means that when the wells are drilled, the oil usually gushes to the surface of its own accord. Non-conventional oils are not so forthcoming, and need large amounts of energy, water and money to coax them from the ground and turn them into anything useful, like diesel or jet fuel.

As a result, non-conventional oil production to date has been slow to expand - with current output of just 1.5 million barrels per day. Not only that, because they take so much energy to produce, they are responsible for higher carbon emissions per barrel than conventional oil.

But, slowly, things are beginning to change. Growing awareness of the impending oil shortage and its ramifications - Deutsche Bank predicts a barrel price of $175 by 2016, for example - has driven a surge of investment in new technologies to recover non-conventional oil more effectively. "Canada could eclipse Saudi Arabia," says Julie Chan, vice-president of finance at E-T Energy, a Canadian company developing a new technique to extract oil from tar sands. So are non-conventionals poised to swoop in and confound the peak-oil doomsayers? Can we expect a new era of expensive, technologically demanding and environmentally damaging oil?

The most famous of the non-conventional resources are the Canadian tar sands, where proven reserves are second only in size to Saudi Arabia's conventional crude. Today, production stands at 1.2 million barrels per day. Tar sands containing bitumen are extracted from huge opencast mines and processed to produce oil. But mining and processing the raw bitumen is expensive and requires huge volumes of water (see diagram). In Canada, the industry is already reaching the legal limits of what can be drawn from the Athabasca river in winter. Worse, mining is only possible for deposits less than about 75 metres deep, and that's just 20 per cent of the total resource. So a whole range of new technologies is now being explored to extract the deeper bitumen.
Steamy business

Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is one of the most established processes, accounting for almost half of tar sands production. Steam is injected into a well to melt the bitumen, which drains into a secondary shaft from where it is pumped out (see diagram). This is cheaper and uses much less water than mining, but more energy - usually from natural gas - to produce the required steam. An industry-sponsored report published by Alberta Chamber of Resources in 2005 found that if tar sands oil production rose to 5 million barrels per day by 2030, it would need 60 per cent of the gas consumed by western Canada, which it said would be "unthinkable".

But this brand of SAGD is not the only game in town. Nexen, a Canadian oil company, has developed a new twist on SAGD by dispensing with natural gas as fuel and using some of the bitumen to generate the energy needed to produce the steam. At its site in Long Lake, Alberta, the company gasifies asphaltenes - the heaviest fraction of bitumen. This synthetic gas is burned to generate steam for SAGD, and is also used to produce hydrogen which in turn is used to upgrade the bitumen on-site into high quality synthetic crude oil. This makes the process cheaper and energy self-sufficient - it even generates surplus power to export to the grid. The downside is that carbon dioxide emissions are higher than for mining or standard SAGD. The company aims to expand production from its current 14,000 barrels per day to 60,000 by 2013.

A method called "toe to heel air injection" takes a similar approach to SAGD, but does its burning underground. THAI involves a pair of wells. A vertical air-injecting well is drilled close to the "toe" of a horizontal production well (see THAI). Steam is pumped into both wells to heat the bitumen until it is hot enough to combust spontaneously when exposed to air. Then the steam is turned off, and air is pumped down the injector well to feed a horizontal fire front that moves slowly through the reservoir from the toe of the production well towards the heel, generating temperatures of up to 500 °C. The intense heat separates the bitumen into heavier and lighter fractions, with the heavier one (asphaltines) fuelling the fire while the lighter ones melt, flow to the production well and get pumped to the surface. That's a neat trick, because it means part of the refinery's job is done underground. This process uses between 10 and 30 per cent of the natural gas consumed by SAGD processes. It is even self-sufficient for its water needs, because groundwater is pumped up the production well along with the bitumen and recycled.

A third approach sounds a little more "out there", but in theory has the potential to be the least polluting of all the new bitumen-extraction techniques. Instead of heating the bitumen in a conventional fashion, the idea is to zap it with electricity, using a technique called electro-thermal dynamic stripping process (ET-DSP). A grid of vertical wells is drilled into the tar sands, each containing three large electrodes (see ET-DSP). Current is conducted between the wells via groundwater. The electrical resistance of the earth generates heat which liquefies the bitumen and allows it to flow into a central production well. Changing the voltage gradient between the electrodes allows the operators to direct the electric field to heat the richest parts of the bitumen deposit. Any water that comes up with the liquefied bitumen is re-injected to maintain conductivity. Since the process runs on grid electricity, there's no need for natural gas.

However, on the basis of Alberta's largely coal-fired power supply, the electricity used in ET-DSP means the production process is responsible for more carbon emissions than either mining or conventional crude production. E-T Energy, the company developing the technology, insists that emissions could be slashed if it were powered using hydro, wind or even gas-fired power. In a separate development, Bruce Power, an Alberta-based nuclear power generation company, has drawn up plans for new reactors sited near Canadian tar sands deposits to provide CO2-free electricity to the oil-extraction industry.

Although THAI and ET-DSP seem to have solved some of the practical problems of tar sands oil production, and the costs may fall in the future, they are still in their infancy. IHS CERA, an oil consultancy that recently produced a report on the growth prospects for tar sands production, estimates it will take between 5 and 15 years to commercialise the new technology. "It could be a decade before it is used in enough [tar sands] reservoirs to contribute meaningfully to production," says Jackie Forrest, one of the report's authors.
Tar sands

In a scenario most favourable to tar sands - high oil prices, growth in demand and a supportive regulatory framework - IHS CERA predicts output from the Canadian tar sands could reach 6.3 million barrels per day by 2035. That's a small fraction of forecast global demand, but to achieve even this, production would have to grow twice as fast as it ever has. That, says Forrest, "is really pushing it". So what of the other alternatives?

Oil shale is the next large unconventional resource under consideration, with around 2.5 trillion barrels of "oil equivalent" identified. It was used to produce oil before the oil industry took off in the late 19th century. To produce oil from it, you essentially need to speed up a geological process that takes millions of years.

This is done by heating the rock to 500 °C until the kerogen decomposes into a synthetic crude oil and a solid residue. Traditionally that has meant digging up the shale and baking it in a huge oven. An expensive, energy-intensive process. It also leaves a greater volume of waste than the original shale, as testified by the hills of shale slag called "bings" that dot the West Lothian region of Scotland, where a century of shale oil production ended in the 1960s. What's needed is an in-situ production method similar to those developed for tar sands. Three-quarters of the global shale resource (see map) lies in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and Barack Obama's administration has recently restarted the process of leasing federal land for shale oil R&D. A number of technologies are being developed to heat the shale underground. These utilise microwaves, high-temperature gas injection, and radio waves combined with supercritical CO2. Such heating creates an oil reservoir that can then be extracted using conventional drilling.

Oil multinational Shell has experimented with in-situ shale oil extraction at its development site in Cathedral Bluffs, Colorado. The company drilled bore holes 650 metres deep and inserted electrodes to heat the shale to between 340 °C and 370 °C over a period of months. However, the process is extremely power hungry, requiring energy to both heat the shale and to freeze the perimeter of the reservoir to block the flow of groundwater.

The company says it is unlikely to commercialise the process for at least another five years. The IEA estimates shale oil would cost between $50 and $100 per barrel to produce, without taking into account any carbon-emissions pricing that may come into force. It expects no significant shale oil production this side of 2030.

There's yet another old-school production method that may experience something of a renaissance in the coming decades. Just as shale oil is nothing new, neither is making liquid fuels from coal. Two German researchers developed the eponymous Fischer-Tropsch process in the 1920s, heating coal to produce a gas of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is then catalysed to produce diesel and kerosene. The technology was exploited by oil-strapped, coal-rich Germany during the second world war, and by South Africa in the 1980s and early 1990s to beat sanctions imposed during apartheid. South Africa has the world's only major coal-to-liquids (CTL) plant operating today and China has recently built a demonstration plant in Inner Mongolia.

So, could coal be the answer? Few doubt there is enough of the stuff to support a major expansion of CTL (New Scientist, 19 Jan 2008, p 38), and the fuels produced are of a high quality. The drawbacks are formidable: it takes about two tonnes of coal and up to 15 barrels of water to produce a single barrel of synthetic fuels. That makes it expensive. The IEA says that when it comes to US coal, to supply just 10 per cent of US transport fuel consumption would mean investing $70 billion, and raising coal production by 25 per cent - an additional 250 million tonnes per year.

Worse, because of the feedstock and energy demands of the production process, CTL fuels have roughly double the carbon emissions of conventional crude on a well-to-tank - or "mine-to-tank" - basis. Carbon capture and storage could be applied to the production plant, but the process is likely to be 90 per cent efficient at best. Then there are still the same emissions as petrol derived from oil when burning it in your car engine. So even with CCS, CTL is always likely to emit more carbon than conventional crude.

The Fischer-Tropsch process can also be used to make liquid fuels from natural gas. As with coal, there is no immediate shortage of feedstock. In fact, prices have slumped as rising gas production in the US and falling global demand combine to produce a worldwide glut which should last for at least the next few years. But, as with coal, there are major drawbacks.

The gas-to-liquids process (GTL) emits much less carbon than CTL, because the feedstock is cleaner, but still more than conventional crude. That's because almost half of the 280 cubic metres of gas it takes to produce a barrel of GTL fuel is burnt during the conversion process. Three small plants account for global production of 50,000 barrels of synthetic fuels per day. That should quadruple in the next few years with the opening of two larger plants in Qatar and Nigeria.

So with huge reserves and up-and-coming technologies, what are the prospects for unconventional sources? Will the non-conventionals be able to fill the gap left by diminishing crude oil, are we doomed to soaring emissions from ever dirtier oil?

Most analysts agree on one thing: despite the enormous size of the non-conventional resource, it will be decades before the new technologies can have a significant impact. In the meantime, any attempt to grow output quickly will have major regulatory and financial hurdles to overcome. In the US, federal bodies are effectively banned from buying non-conventional fuels because of their high CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, Obama has pledged to introduce a nationwide Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), requiring American fuel suppliers to cut carbon emissions from burning their fuels by 10 per cent between 2010 and 2020. Globally, non-conventionals would be penalised by any carbon-pricing regime that may result from the UN's climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, next week. The IEA is pushing for a carbon-emissions price of $50 per tonne, which it says would add $5 to a barrel of fuel derived from tar sands, $12.50 to a barrel of GTL fuels and $30 to CTL ones.

Oil-price volatility is perhaps of even greater significance. Since the price slumped from its peak of $147 last year, tar sands projects aiming to deliver a total of 1.7 million barrels per day have been cancelled or delayed indefinitely, says the IEA. If price volatility persists - with oil shortages leading to a price spike, leading in turn to recession and a resumption of low oil prices - the halting investment in non-conventional oil development could become chronic.

The IEA's chief economist Fatih Birol says non-conventionals can defer global peak oil to "around 2030". Others are not convinced. "If everything goes well," says Steven Sorrel, the lead author of the UKERC report, "oil sands might produce 6 million barrels per day in 20 years' time, but by then we'll need to add at least 10 times that much capacity - without allowing for any growth in demand. It's very hard to see non-conventionals riding to the rescue."

David Strahan is the author of The Last Oil Shock: A survival guide to the imminent extinction of petroleum man (John Murray, 2007)


Read more!