Singapore youths plan to start Asian Climate Network

May Wong, Channel NewsAsia 17 Dec 09;

COPENHAGEN: Having an Asian Climate Network and developing materials for teachers to better educate students about climate change are some of the projects that Singapore youths have come up with at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Fifteen Singaporeans – members of non-profit organisation ECO Singapore – are among the 2,000 young people participating in the conference for the first time, and they are expected to meet with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong when he arrives in Copenhagen this week.

24-year-old Amira Karim, who has addressed one official session, said: "I think we've come out strong as young people who not only offer solutions but are also innovative enough to come up with ideas, not just moral sentiments or emotions. So I think we have really made a difference.

"We look at the text and we try to suggest our own ideas as to what the leaders are actually discussing and debating about, so that the youths' ideas are also reflected. It's not just about the government, but the young people who'll inherit the world later on."

The Singaporeans have also been discussing various ideas with their regional counterparts on what can be done post-Copenhagen.

Zhang Yi Tao, a Singapore student, said: "We're starting this Asian Climate Network because we find that the Asians are generally under-represented in all these global youth meetings. So what we want is to consolidate all the youths from say Malaysia, East Asia, South Asia and even Central Asia... to achieve a kind of solidarity and also make our voices louder and better heard in this entire international youth movement as well.

"We plan to come up with a package on the environment, which we hope to distribute to the schools. I'm an A level student, so I know that climate change is one of the topics that we do for general paper. We think that by coming up with this educational package, we can help the students with essays about climate change and help them understand it deeper."

At this climate conference filled with professionals and policy-makers, the young Singaporeans said they have learned much about climate change. In fact, they said the conference has taught them how to look at the issue from a macro perspective.

On the possibility of meeting Mr Lee, Amira said: "I think our team is very excited, we're very excited about meeting our leaders and our delegation just to learn more about Singapore's climate change policies and also to begin what we hope to be a consultative process about climate change issues and our role in it.

"I think we're working to analyse some of Singapore's policies and we hope that we can learn more and also contribute our own solutions to Singapore's policies."


- CNA/so

Young Singaporeans making plans for Asian climate network
May Wong Today Online 18 Dec 09;

COPENHAGEN - For the past two weeks, 15 Singaporeans have been attending discussions in Copenhagen and making plans with their regional counterparts for after the landmark talks.

For instance, said student Zhang Yi Tao: "We're starting this Asian Climate Network because we find that the Asians are generally under-represented in global youth meetings."

The plan is to consolidate all the youth "from, say, Malaysia, East Asia, South Asia and even Central Asia" so that their voice is louder and "better heard in the international youth movement".

They also plan on producing a package on the environment to be distributed in Singapore schools, said the A-level student.

"Climate change is one of the topics for our General Paper. We think that by coming up with this package, we can help the students to both do essays on the issue and to understand it deeper. We are also thinking of having teaching materials for teachers," said Yi Tao.

The Singaporeans, members of non-profit organisation ECO Singapore, are among 2,000 young people participating in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen for the first time.

One of them, Ms Amira Karim said: "I think we've come out strong as young people who not only offer solutions, but are also innovative enough to come up with ideas - not just moral sentiments or emotions. I think we have really made a difference.

"As to how much it will influence the talks, is yet to be seen ... We look at the text and try and suggest our own language or ideas to what the leaders are discussing, so that the youth ideas are also reflected." After all, she added, it is the young who will inherit the world.

The Singapore group is excited at the prospect of meeting with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who arrived in Copenhagen yesterday.

Said Ms Karim: "(We hope) to learn more about Singapore's climate change policies, and to begin what we hope would be a consultative process about climate change issues and our role in it ... We hope to also contribute our own solutions to Singapore's policies."

Read more!

Malaysia Announces Conditional 40 Per Cent Cut In Emissions

Mokhtar Hussein, Bernama 17 Dec 09;

COPENHAGEN, Dec 17 (Bernama) -- Malaysia has agreed to reduce its carbon dioxide emission to 40 per cent by the year 2020 compared to the 2005 levels subject to assistance from developed countries.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the cut was conditional on receiving the transfer of technology and adequate financing from the developed world.

"I would like to announce here in Copenhagen that Malaysia is adopting an indicator of a voluntary reduction of up to 40 per cent in terms of emissions intensity of GDP (gross domestic product) by the year 2020 compared to 2005 levels," he said in his speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 here, on Thursday,

United Nations data shows Malaysia's carbon emissions in 2006 stood at 187 million tonnes or 7.2 tonnes from each Malaysian.

Najib also said that Malaysia was committed to ensure at least half of its land area remained as forests as pledged at the Rio Summit.

"Currently our national natural forests and agriculture crop plantations cover 75 per cent of the country's land area," he said during the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15).

Stressing the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, Najib said developed countries which were not party to it should take steps in reducing carbon emissions as agreed to in the Bali Action Plan.

"Malaysia calls on the developed countries to collectively commit in Copenhagen to an aggregate reduction of 49 per cent by 2017 compared to the 1990 levels," he said.

Describing the task to combat climate change as a "Herculean endeavour," the Prime Minister said the key element to future cooperation was to recognise, adopt and work out the realisation of the fair principles of equity to the atmospheric space and resource.

"At the same time, we must have ambitious environmental aspirations.

Combining these two factors will be essential for success.... in Copenhagen and thereafter," he said.

Najib also said there should be transparency and fairness and that any decision or outcome must arise from the negotiations in which all countries participated.

"Any document that is placed into the process in a unilateral manner would be counter productive and risks the failure of Copenhagen. This would be a catastrophe that our mother earth can ill afford," he said.

Najib also described the proposed US$10 billion fast track funding as "mere pittance" and inadequate saying that studies had revealed that developing countries required long-term financing of at least US$800 billion a year for purposes of adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

He then called on the developed nations to commit US$200 billion per year by 2012 on the way to the US$800 billion per year required thereafter.

He said if a more accurate temperature rise target of 1.5 degrees centigrade was to be adopted, the funding required by developing countries could be as high as US$1.5 trillion annually.

"Indeed, if we think about it, this is not too high when compared to the many trillions of dollars recently used in bailing out banks and companies," he said.

Najib also suggested that the developed nations should commit to cut their emissions by well over 100 per cent compared to the proposed 80 percent cut.

He said if developed countries cut their emissions by 80 per cent, it would imply a cut of 20 per cent by developing countries in absolute terms and a cut of 60 per cent per capita because of population growth.

"This was an almost impossible task given the imperative of high economic growth. Therefore the developed countries have to commit to cut their emissions by well over 100 per cent.

"In other words they need to have negative emissions so that the developing countries will still have some carbon space," he said.

Najib also expressed concern on the threat of trade protection under the guise of addressing climate change.

"For Copenhagen to succeed there must be a clear statement that developed countries shall not take trade related measures such as carbon tariffs and border adjustment measures against the product, services and investments of developing countries.

"Otherwise, we would have a totally unacceptable situation where developed countries give one dollar with one hand and remove 10 dollars with the other," he said.

More than 100 world leaders are attending the summit which saw demonstrations outside the Bella Centre, the venue of the conference which began Dec 7.

Najib had earlier said that he hoped world leaders would at least give their political commitment in the efforts to save the Planet if a legally-binding agreement could not be achieved during the Copenhagen talks which will end Friday.

-- BERNAMA

40 per cent reduction of carbon emission by 2020
Mimi Syed Yusof New Straits Times 18 Dec 09;

PM Najib says Malaysia is committed to do its best in combatting climate change.

MALAYSIA will voluntarily slash by up to 40 per cent her carbon emission by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who made this commitment yesterday, said the cut was part of Malaysia’s contribution to global efforts to combat climate change.

He said, however, the reduction was conditional upon the transfer of technology and adequate financing from developed and industrialised countries and economies.

Addressing the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) here, Najib said Malaysia was committed to doing its best to combat climate change.

“We realise this is nothing short of a herculean endeavour, but Malaysia is committed,” he said, adding COP15 offered the best hope for a global framework of cooperation.

He said COP15 presented fair principles of equity and historical responsibility due to the need of parties in the Annex 1 category (industrialised countries and economies in transition) to repay their climate debt.

“The key to our future cooperation is to recognise, adopt and work out the realisation of the principle of fair shares to the atmospheric space and resource.

“At the same time, we must have ambitious environmental aspirations,” he said, adding that these two factors would ensure COP15’s success.

Najib later described the proposed US$10 billion (RM34 billion) fast track funding for developing nations to control emissions as a “mere pittance
and woefully inadequate”.

He said developing countries required long-term financing of some US$800 billion a year for adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

The funding, he added, was linked to the target of limiting global warming to a 2°C temperature rise.

However, the figure could hit US$1.5 trillion annually based on scientific endeavours to cap the rise at 1.5°C.

“If we think about it, this is not too high when compared with the trillions of dollars recently used in bailing out banks and companies.”

Najib urged developed countries to commit US$200 billion annually by 2012 until US$800 billion annually thereafter. He also spoke on the looming
threat of trade protection under the guise of addressing climate change.

For COP15 to work, there must be a clear statement that developed countries would not take trade-related measures such as carbon tariffs and border
adjustment measures against the products, services and investments of developing
countries.

“Otherwise, we would have an unacceptable situation where developed countries
give one dollar with one hand and remove 10 dollars with the other.”

Read more!

Palm oil: Unilever's Indonesia exit may boost other companies' business

Asia a safer bet for palm oil firms
Reuters Business Times 18 Dec 09;

(KUALA LUMPUR) Palm oil firms may accelerate their shift to Asian markets after Unilever said it would no longer sign contracts with an Indonesian planter accused of felling forests.

Environmental campaigners such as Greenpeace may have turned up the heat on palm oil in Europe, but for Asian shoppers access to affordable food and consumer products often outweighs commitments to save forests and slow climate change.

Unilever's decision could even make it more difficult for buyers and planters to work together in the main industry body aimed at improving palm's green credentials, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), which is chaired by the consumer goods group.

'In the long term, palm oil companies have to strike a balance between sustainable agriculture and also ensuring food supplies for the world,' Thomas Mielke, head of industry newsletter Oilworld, said. 'But for the moment, the Asian markets are a better bet as there are not so many barriers.'

Fast-growing markets China, India and Pakistan, where the vegetable oil is mainly used in cooking oil, detergents and biscuits, are expected to take up nearly half of this year's projected palm oil sales of US$45 billion, traders and plantation officials said, up from 25 per cent a decade ago.

Europe, on the other hand, accounts for 14 per cent, down from a fifth in 1999 on concerns that extra world demand will push planters to fell carbon-rich forests and plant high-yielding oil palms.

Unilever last week cancelled a yearly US$33 million deal with Indonesia's top palm oil producer PT Smart, saying it could not ignore a Greenpeace report that the planter destroyed peatland forests in the world's third largest island of Borneo.

PT Smart has said the report was inaccurate and wants the consumer goods giant to inspect its palm oil operations for itself.

Whatever the merits of the case, planters fear other consumer goods firms such as Nestle and Procter & Gamble will find it difficult not to follow in the footsteps of Unilever, which uses palm oil for products such as Dove soap and Ben & Jerry ice cream.

'These companies have operations and influence around the world even though they are the strongest in Europe,' said a senior official with a listed Malaysian planter, who could not be named as he is not authorised to speak to the media. 'But there are the Asian versions of the Nestles and Unilevers who need to meet demand, so our hope lies there.'

Along with PT Smart, Malaysian firms such as Sime Darby and IOI Corp as well as Singapore-based Wilmar supply Unilever and much of the European market.

Unilever said it commissioned an independent audit this year on all these firms, following Greenpeace's report in 2008 that showed evidence of the planters illegally draining peatlands and harming endangered orang-utans. So far, only PT Smart's contract was cancelled after the audit findings showed that some of the firms had yet to establish environmentally sound practices to plant oil palms and extract the vegetable oil.

But the company was aggressively selling to India, the world's top vegetable oils buyer this year. Other planters have long established bases in China, India and Pakistan.

'They have been big on India for the past few months,' said a regional vegetable oil trader who deals with the subcontinent and Europe. 'You cannot always rely on Europe demand, because there is some barrier or green activist standing in the way.'

While Europe's share of palm oil purchases may be shrinking, it will continue to import what is the cheapest vegetable oil in the world. For example, Finnish refiner Neste Oil has set up plants in Asia and Europe that use palm oil as a biofuel feedstock.

'There may be issues about palm oil's environmental impact but it will not be so easy to replace palm oil, especially when its yields are much bigger than soyoil and rapeseed oil,' said M R Chandran, an independent industry analyst in Malaysia.

Unilever's proposal to scrap the contract may worsen the split in the industry-driven RSPO, which has a scheme to certify the vegetable oil with pledges to preserve the environment.

Unilever chairs the grouping of planters and consumer goods firms, which have been at loggerheads with one another after WWF published a buyers scorecard showing European firms shunned more expensive eco-friendly palm oil.

'This is just an explosion of sentiment. And it does undo the good work that the RSPO has done so far with trying to make palm oil companies accountable,' said a planter member of the RSPO board, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue.

'Unilever does have its rights as a buyer. But now green groups have more ammunition, especially since its our own chairman who halted ties with Sinar Mas, which is also a member of the RSPO.'

Green groups remain sceptical about RSPO's effectiveness, as commitments are voluntary and an internal tribunal to judge complaints of environment destruction by planters has little influence.

Unilever's move might break that impasse, analysts say, and embolden other companies to scrap contracts that may slow deforestation in Indonesia, now the world's top palm producer and third largest carbon emitter due to peatland destruction.

'Instead of planting 30,000 hectares of land with palm oil annually, plantations companies may now only develop 10,000 to 20,000 hectares,' AmResearch analyst Gan Huey Ling said in a note to clients. 'Whether they like it or not, palm oil producers which export their products would have to ensure that their oil palm estates comply with RSPO guidelines.' - Reuters

Read more!

Sweden sets wolf hunt quota at 27 for 2010

Yahoo News 17 Dec 09;

STOCKHOLM (AFP) – A total of 27 wolves can be killed next year in Sweden's first wolf hunt in 45 years following a decision by the country's parliament to limit their number, authorities said Thursday.

"The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has decided that 27 wolves can be hunted during the period January 2 to February 15. That represents about 10 percent of the wolf population," it said in a statement.

Parliament decided in October to limit the wolf population to 210 animals for the next five years.

This is to be done by issuing hunting permits in five regions where wolves have reproduced every year for the past three years.

Nine wolves can thus be hunted in the Dalarna and Vaermland counties each, and three in each of the Vaestra Goetaland, Oerebro and Gaevleborg counties.

Parliament's decision is aimed at increasing public acceptance of the predators.

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

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.

There were between 182 and 217 wolves in Sweden last winter, the Environmental Protection Agency said, noting that new litters had been born since then.

The Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management hailed the decision.

"Finally we have a decision that demonstrates an increased understanding for those who have to cope with wolves in their everyday lives. This is going to reduce frustration over the management of wolves in the countryside," it said.

More than 10,000 hunters have already applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a permit to hunt wolves, it added.

But the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) expressed disappointment and said the wolf hunt violated European Union legislation on species and habitats.

"This could severely worsen the situation for the small, inbred Swedish-Norwegian wolf population, and there is also a big risk that the quota will be exceeded since there is so much interest in the wolf hunt," it lamented.

"Instead of launching an illegal hunt that worsens the situation for a severely threatened species, the government should increase efforts to prevent the damage the wolves cause to domesticated and farm animals," SSNC chairman Mikael Nilsson said.

Read more!

Cyprus No Man's Land A Haven For Rare Wildlife

Sarah Ktisti, Reuters 18 Dec 09;

NICOSIA - A corridor of no man's land dividing Cyprus between rival Greek and Turkish Cypriot factions has become home to some of the island's more retiring inhabitants.

The unspoilt ribbon of land, which has been under the control of a United Nations peacekeeping force for the past 35 years, has become a haven for wildlife escaping from the threat of human intervention.

Finding out exactly which species are thriving in the buffer zone is the goal of a UN project which brings together researchers from both sides of the divide.

Since it began nearly three years ago, 358 plant species, 100 bird species, 20 reptile and amphibians and 18 mammal species have been observed in the 180-km (110-mile) strip.

"This is a live demonstration of what happens when nature takes over," said Nicolas Jarraud, co-ordinator of the project.

Within the buffer zone, created after the Turkish invasion of 1974 in response to a Greek-inspired coup, small villages once buzzing with life now lie empty.

Variseia in the northwest of the island is typical -- houses, the local school and the village coffee shop lie abandoned in the overgrown vegetation.

And, just as happened in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, when the humans move out, the animals move in.

One in particular has been the Mouflon, a type of wild sheep native to Cyprus.

A shy, retiring creature, the Mouflon has slowly regained its numbers, mainly thanks to a conservation drive by the government in the south and the serenity of the buffer zone, and it now numbers some 3,000 island-wide.

"In the village of Variseia there are about 300 Mouflon -- the project's most symbolic find," said Jarraud.

"The Mouflon is symbolic for both communities," he added.

Dotted around the rolling green hills of the valley around the village, rare flowers add splashes of color to the landscape.

Two exceptionally striking and unique flowers to the island -- the Cyprus Bee Orchid and the Cyprus Tulip -- now flourish in the buffer zone, safe from the prying hands of locals.

The project itself has been an exercise in co-operation.

"Science doesn't have any borders or boundaries -- we speak the same language whatever the politics," said its leader Salih Gucel of the Institute of Environmental Sciences.

"Differences between the two communities are not so big. The island's nature is a common heritage that belongs to all," said Gucel.

But what will eventually happen to this untouched pocket of nature has yet to be decided.

Ideas for a national park have been aired but do not take into account the views of those forced to abandon their homes when the strip was created.

"People want their land back," Jarraud warned.

(Editing by Steve Addison)

Read more!

Japan mines toxic e-waste for precious materials

Kyoko Hasegawa Yahoo News 17 Dec 09;

KATO, Japan (AFP) – Seeking to turn an environmental problem into an economic opportunity, high-tech companies in resource-poor Japan are mining mountains of toxic e-waste for precious materials.

One model project, the sprawling Panasonic Eco Technology Centre, sits in lush rice fields an hour's drive outside of Osaka city.

Inside, workers and humming machines disassemble flat-panel televisions, refrigerators and air conditioners, sorting their metal and plastic components into boxes for recycling.

About 90 percent of dismantled parts are reused in one way or another, says Yutaka Maehara, a manager at the plant.

Among the most precious parts are metals such as copper that are becoming more expensive on the world market, while the plant also isolates toxic components such as heavy metals and dangerous gases.

The plant aims to leave a minimal environmental footprint and to be a good neighbour in its quaint rural setting.

"In the beginning residents here had some concerns," said Panasonic spokeswoman Kyoko Ishii. "But as you see, we've been operating the plant without polluting the water and the rice is growing without problems."

Japan has come a long way since the 1950s, 60s and 70s when it emerged at breakneck speed as Asia's economic engine room, boosting living standards but often at a devastating environmental cost.

The skies over Tokyo, Yokohama and other industrial centres then were often choked with pollution, in the way those over parts of China are today, while waterways darkened with industrial effluent.

Since then Japan has tightened many emission standards and other safeguards and launched in 2001 a recycling system that separates paper, glass and aluminium cans from household rubbish that can be incinerated.

Today people who want to dispose of electronic appliances have to pay an average of 28 dollars for a washing machine, 32 dollars for a TV set and 54 dollars for a fridge, according to the industry ministry.

The volume of garbage dumped in landfills every year has shrunk to roughly one third of 1990 levels.

Used mobile phone handsets and digital cameras are now often called 'city mines' for the precious metals they contain, such as gold, silver and copper.

The government recently launched a campaign to encourage cellphone users to return their old handsets to mobile phone companies for recycling.

One pioneer in Japan has been camera maker Canon, which started recycling toner cartridges from its printers about 20 years ago and now reuses 90 percent of the components of its photocopiers.

"Our system is closed loop recycling, which means used parts from our products are used again in our products," said Tomonori Iwashita, the executive officer in charge of Canon's environmental policy.

"Because we are a corporate entity, we don't make recycling efforts unless it is useful for our business. If you can recycle cheaply and reduce the burden on the environment then that's good for your business too."

But despite manufacturers' efforts to go green, some disposal companies still dump dangerous materials, said Tetsuya Sekiguchi, an activist who has joined several residents' lawsuits against waste landfills.

"I've been working on the problems of garbage pollution for decades, but the situation of illegal dumping has not improved a bit as there are few conscientious recycling companies," he said.

Another challenge is "the impact of economic globalisation on the recycling industry," said Yuichi Moriguchi, head of the waste and recycling research centre at the National Institute for Environmental Studies.

"Asian countries, led by China, are absorbing Japanese waste materials and thereby causing a shortage of materials for the Japanese recycling industry" which has the most sophisticated technologies, Moriguchi said.

Because of very basic and dangerous extraction methods -- for example by burning the plastic off metal parts in the open -- waste from Japan often causes health and environmental problems in other Asian countries, he said.

"We need to build an international system of recycling" so that Japan's technologies can be fully utilised, Moriguchi said.

In the long term, he said, "it's important to seek materials made from sustainable resources, such as plants, with less energy and less pollution ... because relying on limited resources such as petroleum will bring trouble in the future".

Canon and synthetic fibre maker Toray Industries Inc. have jointly developed a high quality plastic made from corn, which has been used in keyboards and components of its office machines.

"Even though it is made from corn, its fire resistance is about the same as that of conventional plastic," Iwashita said.

To expand research into sustainable materials, he said, Canon needs other companies, including major materials manufacturers, to come on board.

"We can't do it alone," he said. "We have to work as a wider group."

Read more!

Biofuels - why we don’t need them

Mike Pope, Science Alert 18 Dec 09;

Biofuels come in two basic forms: ethanol produced from agricultural crops such as sugar or grains and mostly used as a partial replacement or additive to petrol; and biodiesel derived from animal fat or vegetable oils produced by plants such as safflower, rape or palm oil.

Biofuels seem unlikely to be widely used or play a major part in reducing net CO2 emissions or replace fossil fuels burned by internal combustion engines, for the following reasons:

* they are a half-way fuel of limited use by existing engines;
* alternative, more efficient and cheaper fuel is available for vehicle propulsion;
* most internal combustion engines are likely to be largely replaced within ten years;
* biofuels produced in large quantities create market distortions and food scarcity; and
* their production may damage the environment and habitat for flora and fauna.

Most vehicle engines presently in use can not use ethanol by itself or, in some cases, even as an additive to petrol. Even a petrol mix containing 10 per cent ethanol can cause corrosion of fuel pipes and pumps in some vehicles. True these can be replaced with materials impervious to the corrosive effects of ethanol and this might be done were it considered a cost-effective measure. But this is not the case.

The difference in price between petrol and a 10 per cent ethanol-petrol mix is commonly no more than 2¢ per litre. This is insufficient to justify the cost of changing to corrosion resistant materials. The growing number of vehicles in use, combined with a finite and decreasing supply of oil from underground, makes it certain that the price of diesel and petrol will continue to increase.

If not replaced in part and eventually entirely, the price of these fuels will become unaffordable, particularly for passenger travel by car, within the next three and five years. The widespread availability of an alternative fuel, electricity, makes it certain that electric cars will be produced and used in ever increasing numbers, particularly for commuting in and around major urban areas. Electricity is far more efficient and very much cheaper to use than petrol or diesel, even at present prices.

Spurred by the need to curb CO2 emissions and the rising cost of fossil fuels, it is predicted that the electric motor will replace the internal combustion engine within ten years. There are also compelling economic and political reasons for this to occur.

Battery technology has recently made important break-throughs enabling the production of smaller, lighter, more durable batteries able to hold a much larger charge, ten times greater than conventional vehicle batteries. Importantly, these batteries can be rapidly recharged, in the case of vehicle batteries within minutes rather than hours and manufactured more cheaply.

On-going research by CSIRO, MIT, and others increases the likelihood of further improvements being made in the next three to five years. These improvements will encourage the development and greater use of electric vehicles for commuter and long distance travel.

As a result of these developments, all major car manufacturers include in their range of products at least one model of an electric car. Commercial availability of better performing batteries by 2012 is expected to increase both market size and competition between makers of electric vehicles, resulting in falling prices for new vehicles and the production of conversion kits making it possible to convert many existing vehicles to run on electricity.

Australia currently uses in excess of 20 billion litres of petrol and 10 billion litres of diesel a year. To replace even 10 per cent of these volumes with biofuels produced in Australia would require diversion of land growing food crops for human consumption to fuel production to such an extent that it would distort domestic and export food markets. Availability of food crops would decline, forcing up the price.

As a result of those increases, farmers would quite sensibly use more of their land to increase production of crops which gave them the highest returns. This would entail taking out of production crops fetching a lower price. The latter would in turn become scarce and rise in price until a new price equilibrium for agricultural food crops was found.

In America, market distortion of this kind has resulted in scarcity and increase in cost of certain foods, particularly sugar and grains. This in turn has inflated the price of meat, bakery products, and other foodstuffs containing sugar and grain.

In Australia, this problem has so far been avoided by importing biofuels, particularly from Indonesia and Malaysia. This has resulted in destruction of rainforest in those countries and ever shrinking habitat for flora and fauna, including the endangered orang-utan. Cleared land is planted with crops such as oil palm, largely for production of biofuels. This results in rapid depletion of soil fertility and increased CO2 emissions due to destruction of rainforest - short term gain for a long term loss, which can be permanent.

There remains one possibility for production of biofuels which would avoid these problems. That is to have them produced by algae, if they can be genetically modified to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and use it to produce a biofuel. However, it seems very unlikely that production by this means would be as cost-effective as electricity.

Unless biofuels are able to compete with electricity, there is no economic reason for their production for propulsion, which would merely delay consigning the internal combustion engine to the waste-pile of history. However, production of bio-oil may be important as a source material for the manufacture of fertilisers, plastics and other petro-chemical products.

Some people argue that electricity is predominantly generated from burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas, or oil, the main sources of CO2 emissions. An increase in demand for electricity to fuel cars and other vehicles would therefore add to those emissions. Biofuels would not. This contention is only true if the electricity used to recharge vehicle batteries is in fact generated from fossil fuels. At present, biofuels are not used for this purpose.

A growing amount of Australia’s electricity needs are beginning to be generated from renewable sources such as hydro, wind, solar and, lurking on the doorstep, the massive potential of geothermal energy. Government has mandated that 20 per cent of our electricity needs must come from renewables by 2020. That target may be exceeded well before 2020, allowing battery recharging without increasing CO2 emissions. Further, most recharging can be undertaken at night when much electricity production would otherwise be wasted.

Many other countries are in a similar situation to Australia. Some have higher renewable energy targets and a few, like France, generate nearly all their electricity needs without using fossil fuels.

Even though biofuels only emit CO2 that has been taken from the atmosphere by the plants from which they are made, they still produce emissions. Electricity produced from other renewable sources does not and, importantly, it is cheaper.

The only reason for opting to produce or use biofuels for propulsion would be some strange desire to cling to use of the internal combustion engine and the pollution associated with it. That price is too high. We do not need biofuels. Electricity is a far better option for vehicle propulsion being cheaper, widely available and much more efficient.

Mike Pope trained as an economist (Cambridge and UPNG) worked as a business planner (1966-2006), prepared and maintained business plan for the Olympic Coordinating Authority 1997-2000. He is now semi-retired with an interest in ways of ameliorating and dealing with climate change.

Read more!

Shell's promise of a bright future turns out to be yet another false dawn

Oil company has been splashing out on ads about its shallow commitment to low-carbon technologies during Copenhagen
Fred Pearce, guardian.co.uk 17 Dec 09;

Editors must love Shell. Almost whatever I have read about climate change and the UN talks in Copenhagen in recent weeks, it has been flanked by the familiar Shell logo somewhere in the background.

From geeky titles like New Scientist to politico mags such as Prospect and New Statesman; and newspapers like the Guardian, the world's second largest corporation has been splashing out – filling screens and newsprint with adverts and underwriting special supplements. Shell also sponsored a major research project by the Economist Intelligence Unit, called Countdown to Copenhagen, launched early this year at a Shell-sponsored "sustainability summit".

Nobody is suggesting that Shell is writing the copy. And surely only the most craven editor would leave out criticism of oil companies like Shell. But the unmistakeable message is that Shell is going green.

It's not just a subliminal message, either. The ads are all about Shell developing new low-carbon technologies, like carbon-capture, biofuels and "helping our customers use energy more efficiently". They have pretty images, like a butterfly net catching CO2, and a pocket calculator with a button marked "less CO2".

It won't be easy, says the message: "We'll need to think the impossible is possible." Trouble is, in reality, Shell wants to think the possible is impossible. As its recently retired chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, said earlier this year of wind, solar and hydrogen power: "I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here."

Back then I wrote that "Shell is the new Exxon". But the latest evidence suggests it is worse than that. A new study of the environmental performance of the world's top 10 oil and gas companies by the Madrid-based environmental auditing company Management & Excellence puts Shell last of all the western majors. That's behind BP, Total, Chevron and even ExxonMobil.

Shell has fallen from fourth place to seventh in the past year, and is now propping up the bottom of the table with two Chinese oil giants, Sinopec and Petrochina, and the Russian monolith Gazprom. None are known for their environmental credentials.

The audit analyses the 10 companies according to 198 different criteria. Shell gets a rating of 51%, compared with top-ranking BP's 77% and Exxon's 62%.

Shell's new chief executive Peter Voser last week made one statistical claim for his company's progress to date. Its chemical plants were, he said, 8% more energy efficient that in 2001.

Good for them. But most other companies are doing better. The M&E study found Shell next to bottom on energy savings.

Shell failed to make the grade in other areas, too. It may spend millions promoting its expertise in alternative energy technologies, but Shell came in the bottom half here, too, with only half the scores of BP, Chevron and the Brazilian oil giant, Petrobras. Once, BP and Shell were bracketed together as companies taking the lead in expanding into renewables. But the report says that among the top 10 today "only BP seems to have a real business in alternative energies".

Shell spokesman Shaun Wiggins said: "While Shell is aware of Management & Excellence, we have made a conscious choice to not participate in its rankings survey process." The company says it prefers other environmental audits.

The findings will come as no surprise to those who read Friends of the Earth's June report on Shell's Big Dirty Secret, which charged the it with being "the world's most carbon intensive oil company".

Shell claims on its websites: "We were one of the first energy companies to acknowledge the threat of climate change." The tragedy is that this is true, but that so little has come of it.

I have lost count of the number of false dawns at Shell. At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, I reported Shell scientists promising that the company was going to plant tree across the tropics to soak up carbon dioxide. Whatever happened to that idea? Just before the Kyoto climate conference in 1997, Shell announced it was making a $500m investment in solar power. By the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 it claimed to be installing solar panels across the developing world. Today it is absent from that business too.

Wiggins said Shell has spent $1.7bn on renewable in the past five years, but now concentrates on biofuels because they are "closest to our core business". But he agreed that oil and gas still make up 95% of its business, and the truth is that the company has flattered to deceive for almost two decades now.

Readers of its current adverts are directed towards a zappy and visionary website devoted entirely to what might happen in the future. But the future has been a long time coming for Shell. And it seems ever further away.

Read more!

IEA: Energy Revolution Required to Combat Climate Change

The International Energy Agency has analyzed exactly what it would take to limit greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

David Biello, Scientific American 17 Dec 09;

COPENHAGEN—Revolutionizing the energy industry to achieve a target concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) would require building 17 nuclear power plants a year between now and 2030; 17,000 wind turbines a year; or two hydropower dams on the scale of Three Gorges Dam in China, according to the International Energy Agency. Such an effort would require an investment of $10.5 trillion during the next 20 years but would ultimately yield savings of $8.6 trillion, the IEA estimated.

At present, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached 387 ppm and are rising fast, with some two ppm added per annum. In order to slow and ultimately halt such increases—while also accommodating economic growth, particularly in the developing world—non–carbon-emitting power sources, such as wind and nuclear, will need to be added in ever-increasing numbers. Presently, announced commitments for CO2-emission cuts from the various nations of the globe, particularly those form the developed countries grouped in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are more likely to deliver greenhouse gas concentrations of 550 ppm, says IEA executive director, Nobuo Tanaka. "This is about a 3-degree [Celsius] average temperature rise by the end of the century."

"The majority of [greenhouse gas emission] reductions should happen in non-OECD countries; the opportunity is there, but it doesn't say who pays for that," Tanaka said here Monday at a press conference. To achieve 450 ppm "in 2030, we need 13.8 [billion metric tons] of reductions." Large reductions are needed in OECD nations, too, but more cost-effective reductions can be made in non-OECD countries.

But global energy use is set to fall in 2009 for the first time since 1981 as a result of the global economic crisis, reducing the need for emission reductions by a full two billion metric tons, according to the IEA. "This is a window of opportunity if [the Copenhagen conference] sets out ambitious targets and achieves it," Tanaka says.

Without new policies, the IEA predicts energy use will begin to grow again within a few years, increasing by 40 percent by 2030 (paired with a 40 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions). The bulk of that increase (77 percent) will still come from fossil fuels as well being driven primarily (93 percent) by growth in developing countries, such as China and India.

To achieve 450 ppm, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere associated with a 2-degree Celsius rise in global average temperatures (a target advocated by the European Union), the "aggregate of fossil-fuel demand will peak out in 2020," Tanaka says. "Coal should decline or peak out much earlier," including the shutting down of some coal-fired power plants before the end of their useful lifetimes.

Yet, even in that scenario, oil and natural gas use would continue to rise, with increased production largely coming from OPEC countries, in the IEA's opinion. "As a whole, still in 2030 [under the 450-ppm scenario] dependency on fossil fuels is about 67 percent," Tanaka says. "Currently it's about 82 percent."

This would still require a major investment in new electricity generation from renewable resources, particularly wind power because it is a well-established and relatively cheap technology. "For every $100 that goes into electricity, $72 must go into renewables, in which wind plays the most important role, " IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol says.

Of course, such an investment in wind also means a major investment in improving the grid in countries and regions such as the U.S. and E.U. in order to cope with electricity generation that fluctuates, such as with wind power. Turbine manufacturers, such as Vestas of Denmark, General Electric of the U.S., and Suzlon of India have had maintenance issues with gearboxes and other mechanical parts. And it would be challenging to produce the amount of wind turbines required. "The industry is not ready today," says Tanti Tulsi, Suzlon CEO, although he also notes that part of that is difficulties in securing permits as well as a lack of grid investment and available funds. "The industry can deliver but the whole system has to work together."

Already, however, wind is the largest share of new installed electricity generation capacity in the U.S. and E.U., according to the Global Wind Energy Council. "We are installing a wind turbine every three hours, 24/7," adds Michael Zarin, Vestas director of government relations. "There's nothing alternative about wind energy anymore."

"Ten to 15 years ago, if you said in 2008 that there'd be more new investment in renewables than in fossil fuels or nuclear, they'd laugh at you," says Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme. "But that is indeed what happened in that year."

A single nuclear power plant takes at least 10 years to build in the U.S., says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute. But there are currently 53 new nuclear reactors under construction or planned around the globe for 2020, capable of producing 42 gigawatts of electricity. "We need 96 gigawatts of new nuclear, or 69 plants, to meet [U.S. CO2-reduction legislation] commitments based on [Energy Information Administration] analysis," Genoa says. That goal would make of U.S. electricity generation 33 percent nuclear.

Energy efficiency could deliver a full half of the needed reductions but "even the best countries are not capturing more than 60 percent of our energy-efficiency recommendations," IEA's Tanaka says. "We are likely to miss one fifth of the mitigation potential."

With some signs of progress, such as the global boom in renewable energy, the real issue becomes speed. "A renewable energy revolution is underway," says Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, "the only question is whether we can make it happen in time."

Moving slowly will only add to the eventual cost. "If we don't start now, the delay adds about $500 billion per year. This is the cost of inaction," Tanaka says. "There are many co-benefits: cost savings, energy security, lower pollution. A technology revolution is necessary."

Read more!

Climate change: Get the ordinary people involved

Dex Torricke-Barton, For The Straits Times 18 Dec 09;

THE United Nations Climate Change Conference may technically succeed by the end of this week. Today - or more likely, after a theatrical all-night session lasting well into tomorrow - officials representing 192 countries will probably put pen to paper, inking a new agreement calling for reductions in global carbon emissions.

But even if the delegates achieve this outcome, it is likely that there will be little to cheer about. As of today, most observers are deeply pessimistic that a new agreement will prove substantive.

This week, a long-feared, seemingly intractable stand-off came to the fore between major industrialised economies and poorer developing nations. The sticking point was who will bear the financial burden for stopping CO2 emissions.

With increasingly fraught exchanges between the American and Chinese delegations, and African delegates briefly storming out of the summit, a new draft text released on Tuesday was stripped of any concrete or binding emissions targets, let alone a firm date by which emissions should peak.

Granted, delegates may still pull a rabbit out of the hat. If United States President Barack Obama arrives in Copenhagen armed with a more serious offer than his initial 17 per cent emissions reduction target, he may just be able to twist the arms of the Chinese and Indian leaders, particularly if his willingness to bargain also leads to another dramatic concession by his European Union partners.

The shape of a new financing mechanism could conceivably be bolted together, to be spelt out more fully after the summit. And if the thorny question of whether to ditch the Kyoto Treaty or start afresh with a new global platform could be answered, one of the main obstacles to an agreement would be removed.

But as time ebbs away, and the mood grows increasingly grim, some world leaders are changing their plans so as to avoid the summit, and the conference president Connie Hedegaard has resigned. The moment for the world to come together appears to be receding.

How did we come to this? And where do we go from here?

Whatever the criticism that is levelled against Copenhagen, one thing is clear - the science underpinning climate change is not on trial. Climate change sceptics have had a field day in recent weeks, first over the leaked e-mail messages from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia apparently showing environmental data being falsified, and then over Mr Al Gore's unlikely claim that the North Pole could be entirely ice-free within five years.

But the former US vice-president was right to state that the hysterical denunciations of conservatives are really just 'a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing'. While some will claim that the failure of Copenhagen reveals a fracturing of the scientific consensus and a rejection of the established data, such claims can be readily dismissed. This is not why the negotiations will have failed.

But another complaint that is often made by the sceptics - that the climate change lobby is arrogant and disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people - might just speak to the underlying reason for Copenhagen's failure.

Over the last decade, the supporters of international climate change legislation have increasingly taken the support of the public for granted. Far too little effort has been made to build mainstream coalitions in favour of reasonable and coherent climate change solutions that both address the legitimate concerns about the economic costs of transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and prevent the climate change agenda from becoming a front for a host of disconnected concerns, ranging from veganism to the rights of indigenous peoples.

The latter was supported in the context of Copenhagen by celebrity eco-warrior George Monbiot, who wrote in The Guardian, 'This is a battle to redefine humanity'.

No, it is not. It is a battle to get 192 governments to put some effort into specific scientific innovations and more robust development regimes.

Perhaps because that is what international climate change action ultimately comes down to, the green lobby did not really feel the need to get ordinary people interested in Copenhagen, or to frame the search for a global agreement as anything more than a bureaucratic exercise.

This week at Copenhagen, the eyes of the international media might have been watching, and many people might have been dimly aware that big things were afoot. But there was never any more than a fraction of the public pressure or incentive that could have been brought to bear on the diplomats to hammer out an agreement.

The prescription for success is simple. The green movement must begin its work anew. It must have not only good science, but also good communication. It is that which will make for a force for change. Anything else is just so much hot air.

The writer is a consultant for Global Expert Finder, a project of the UN Alliance of Civilisations.

Read more!

Making a Case for Climate Neutrality

UNEP 18 Dec 09;

Pioneering examples of moving towards a low-carbon economy shared through a new publication by the UNEP Climate Neutral Network

Nairobi/Copenhagen, 17 December 2009 - From entire countries pledging climate neutrality to companies that have proposed numerous solutions to decrease "digital carbon", the pioneering examples of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and promoting "green growth" at all levels are presented in a new publication "A Case for Climate Neutrality".

Launched today at the Copenhagen climate change conference, the publication draws upon the experiences of nearly 200 participants of the Climate Neutral Network (CN Net) led by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which includes countries, regions, cities, companies and organizations that are moving towards low-carbon economies and societies.

The 10 case studies examine the areas of transport, building and construction, food, banking and finance, media and advertising, event management, energy, and information and communication technologies. They also present some of the dilemmas facing the trailblazers on the path to climate neutrality, including carbon offsetting, uncertainty surrounding future policy and market regulations, and even 'greenwash' concerns.

"These case studies convey frank and personal testimony surrounding the challenges, rewards and occasional frustrations involved in pushing the boundaries on climate change. Overwhelmingly, though, the CN Net participants profiled in these case studies have positive experiences to report and share which should inspire many others to commit to climate neutrality," said UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

From corporate giants with carbon footprints commensurate with those of medium-size countries, to boutique hotels and advertising agencies, to large-scale music and sport events, the publication offers insights into how the climate neutrality process changes the way private and public entities approach their own operations as well as their relations with customers, suppliers, audiences and other key stakeholders.

For example, the Norwegian city of Arendal, which has pledged to go climate neutral, has set up a network bringing together local companies which share the same commitment. One of its members is the major Norwegian renewable energy supplier Fjordkraft, which made climate neutrality a requirement for all of its suppliers by 2010.

"Their main motivation is to develop goods and services for tomorrow's low emission markets," explains Svein Tveitdal, Arendal City Climate Advisor.

While most CN Net members featured in the publication have chosen to offset some of their emissions, they see it as a last-resort measure after reducing their carbon footprint to the extent possible.

For Steve Bonnici from New Zealand's Urgent Couriers, making deep reduction cuts is at the heart of the company's climate neutral strategy: "Once you make the commitment to pay for your unavoidable emissions, you become very focused on reduction."

For Deutsche Post DHL, with its annual carbon emissions about the same as Croatia's, and Dell, which emits roughly as much greenhouse gases as Spain every year, transition to climate neutrality presents some unique challenges.

The global logistics company's major undertaking is to reduce more than 25 million tonnes of carbon emissions from subcontracted transport companies, which account for the bulk of its emissions.

For Dell, reducing emissions used in running of its computers and servers worldwide—estimated at 5 million tonnes annually—is the greatest challenge, as the company's own emissions are just the tip of the iceberg as far as Dell's overall impact is concerned.

Rising to the climate change challenge can also bring other benefits for communities and conservation. Greenfest, a climate neutral festival in Queensland, Australia, has chose to offset its unavoidable emissions through a state government initiative which aims to regenerate wilderness areas bordering national parks and create biodiversity corridors.

"Winning the race against climate change will be a hollow victory if we arrive without rich biodiversity and real wilderness on Earth. Let's not lose sight of conservation priorities for biodiversity in pursuit of carbon neutrality—let's leverage the race against climate change to fund conservation," says Greenfest's founder Colman Ridge.

Investments in climate neutrality have often led to substantial savings for companies and public bodies alike. For example, climate-smart solutions in the construction sector translate to energy-smart—and cheaper—buildings, a win-win situation for both property developers and tenants. The publication features the case of retrofitting a small hotel in Shanghai and a major renovation project of the UN's own headquarters in New York.

For the Scandinavian IT company Atea, the quest for climate neutrality ushered in an opportunity to rethink its business model, making operations more efficient and becoming productive as a team. The company has significantly cut on business travel after calculating that it 'eats up' approximately 478,922 working hours a year.

The marketing and advertising industry has been capitalizing on the 'green' image that accompanies climate neutrality for quite some time now. The sector also sees its positive role in influencing others, particularly clients and consumers, to embrace more sustainable lifestyles.

"Until now, the resources of creative agencies have been at the service of an economy that generates social inequalities, wastes resources, encourages excessive consumption—and they have been very effective at it! This ingenuity can now be used to help change attitudes and perceptions of happiness, success and progress, by highlighting the limits on our resources and global warming," says Jean-Marc Gancille from the French advertising agency INOXIA.

However, choosing climate neutrality for PR purposes alone is not a viable option, according to CN Net participant Andrew Railton from New Zealand Wine Company: "It shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Understand it, believe in it—if you are looking for a quick fix marketing gimmick this isn't it. Becoming a carbon neutral company should force you to turn your company inside out and make you look at all the pieces differently."

The case studies were launched on 15 December at the iSeeT@theClimate Change Kiosk at the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

The publication "A Case for Climate Neutrality – Case studies on moving towards a low carbon economy" is available online at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/CN-Net_case_studies.pdf

Read more!

NASA, Google offer more precise emissions tracking

Seth Borenstein And Michael Casey, Associated Press Yahoo News 17 Dec 09;

COPENHAGEN – The question is a potential deal-killer: If nations ever agree to slash greenhouse gas emissions, how will the world know if they live up to their pledges?

The answer is in space, experts say — both outer space and cyberspace.

NASA, the wonder agency of the 1960s, and Google, the go-to company of the early 21st century, are trying to give the world the ability to monitor both the carbon dioxide pollution and the levels of forest destruction that contribute to global warming.

For NASA, this is both an opportunity and an embarrassment. NASA had a science satellite, Orbiting Carbon Observatory, that as a side benefit would be able to see where carbon dioxide was being spewed. But a February launch of the $280 million satellite failed, sending the satellite into the cold Antarctic waters.

If given some money, NASA could have a $330 million "carbon copy," of the downed-and-drowned satellite up flying around Earth in less than three years, NASA Earth sciences chief Michael Freilich said.

"Just having the thing flying around there imaging would just about make everybody act differently," said professor Steve Pacala, director of the Princeton Environmental Institute. "The idea that you could pull a fast one would be different."

Google, meanwhile, has rolled out a new program call Earth Engine which essentially is a massive storehouse for satellite and other data that forest countries will be able to access for free by the time of the next U.N. climate conference in Mexico next year.

Deforestation is the biggest climate change culprit in much of the developing world, and industrial countries plan to pay billions of dollars to poor countries to stop deforestation. The Google system could help everyone keep track of what forests are saved.

"The science is out there, but the ability to run it on large numbers of machines by countries in previous years who couldn't afford it is now possible," said Brian McClen, vice president of engineering for the Google Geo Group, who demonstrated the new program in Copenhagen.

But technology alone cannot solve the problem, because there must be cooperation between countries like China and the U.S. about how to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions cuts are enforced, said U.S. Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry told The Associated Press that talks with Chinese officials Wednesday made progress on the problem of monitoring emissions, which were a sticking point earlier. It's an especially big problem in the view of the U.S. Congress, which has demanded that China and India back up their commitments with verifiable action.

China, meanwhile, acknowledged "positive exchanges" with Kerry but brushed aside suggestions that China should be part of any international verification system.

"We have always followed a principle of openness and transparency regarding information of China's national measures taken to address climate change and greenhouse gases," said Su Wei, China's lead negotiator at the Copenhagen talks. "I don't see the necessity for others to worry about the sincerity of China's efforts in addressing climate change."

The monitoring problem "is a big one because we don't know what we're counting," said Melinda Kimball, senior vice president of the U.N. Foundation and a former top U.S. climate negotiator. "It reminds me of arms control."

Part of the problem is that so many new coal-fired plants are being built in China — many of them so small they are hard to keep track of — that it is difficult for international energy experts to have a good handle on precise carbon dioxide output.

That's where trying to launch the copy of the NASA satellite comes in. The decision is awaiting White House approval and is going through the budget process for next year.

"I'm optimistic," White House science adviser John Holdren told reporters at climate talks Wednesday.

Until another satellite actually gets into the air, the way the world knows about carbon dioxide involves a lot of guesswork, math and monitoring machines — and a good amount of trust.

Experts' estimates of carbon dioxide emissions are based on fuel going into power plants and complex formulas based on power plant efficiency. But those estimates are also dependent on reliable information about fuel and efficiency, so they could be skewed by inaccurate input. In the United States and some other places, there are monitors on many power plants, which mean better accuracy.

An individual coal-fired power plant produces "a dome of carbon dioxide" and a satellite like NASA's could measure the emissions, said Princeton's Pacala, who also chaired a study by the U.S. National Research Council on what NASA should do after the launch failure.

Another satellite is a must, Pacala said.

Being able to tell what individual power plants spew is crucial to the cap-and-trade programs to reduce carbon emissions, like the one being proposed in the United States. Under that, companies buy credits — essentially the right to pollute — from companies that cut pollution. To carry that out, you need good international figures, Kimball said.

Because NASA already designed the original satellite, a new one could be up in the air only 28 months after White House approval, NASA's Freilich said.

Measuring carbon is also crucial to a forest plan being negotiated at the U.N. talks. It calls for rich nations to pay poor ones for reducing their deforestation. That's a challenge because most of the deforestation is in countries with wide corruption and few systems to monitor the loss of forests.

Read more!