|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 3rd, 2008 MEPs’ crucial votes on ‘super Tuesday’ It’s the European Parliament’s ‘Super Tuesday’ on 7th October when MEPs on the Environment Committee will vote on three of the four major elements of the climate change Package – ETS (Emission Trading Scheme), CCS (carbon capture and storage) and burden sharing between Member States. Chris Davies MEP (UK, Lib Dem) is EP rapporteur on the controversial CCS proposals. He is working to put in place a €10 billion financial package to support the building before 2015 of the 12 commercial demonstration projects promised by Heads of Government in March last year. With costs for first movers expected to be double that of conventional power stations, he wants 500 million carbon allowances from the emissions trading scheme allowances to be set aside to support project developers. The income they generate will be paid only once CO2 is stored permanently underground rather than released into the atmosphere. And Chris Davies is calling for financial subsidies to be followed by new regulatory measures that would prevent the building from 2015 of conventional coal-fired power stations. Scientists estimate that use of CCS technology could reduce Europe’s power sector carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. Sceptics express concerns about safety and about the high financial costs involved, arguing that the ETS should not be used to promote one particular technology. Chris Davies is critical of the failure of EU Ministers to deliver on the promise made by the European Council to promote construction of the CCS demonstration projects. “Eighteen months after Prime Ministers made their pledge there is nothing to show for it. No projects have been approved, no funding support mechanism has been put in place, and there is nothing on the table. “If MEPs back this proposal on Tuesday they will seize the initiative. Weeks and months of hard negotiation with the Council will follow, but we will have the chance to make a real difference and turn CCS into commercial reality. In the fight against climate change it could be one of the most important votes ever taken.” A press conference is scheduled for 13.00 on Tuesday 7th October in the European Parliament (PHS 0A50). For more information, please contact: ———————- A changed climate: From The Economist print edition - October 2, 2008. The European Union is struggling to deliver on its promises to cut carbon emissions. Oct 2nd 2008 JUST 18 months ago the European Union promised to save the world from climate change. A final plan to deliver on those promises must be finished soon. But it is in deep trouble. The conclusions of the March 2007 summit proclaiming the EU’s “leading role” on climate change make for wistful reading today. They begin “Europe is currently enjoying an economic upswing,” and add that growth forecasts are “positive”. Back in that long-lost golden age, the EU’s leaders were in heroic mood. They offered binding promises known as the 20/20/20 pledges. By the year 2020, they would cut Europe’s carbon emissions by at least a fifth over 1990 levels; derive 20% of all energy from renewable sources; and make energy-efficiency savings of 20%. *** The heroic mood is gone now: In March 2007 Angela Merkel, the German chancellor and chairman of the summit, was a green champion. Today she sounds like a lobbyist for German business, listing the industries that must be shielded from the full costs of her package. In truth, almost every country has found reasons why the climate-change promises may be impossible to meet in their current form. Britain is gloomy about its renewable-energy targets. Ireland says its farmers must be protected (grass-fed Irish cows emit a lot of methane). *** Dig into most “impossible” problems on the table, and they come down to money. In the EU, rows about money are usually settled, albeit acrimoniously. But another problem is harder to fix.
Poland gets over 90% of its electricity from coal. The giant Siekierki power station in Warsaw provides electricity and heating to two-thirds of the Polish capital each winter. A mountain of coal next to its turbine hall holds 180,000 tonnes, enough for 18 days’ winter production. Ignore climate change, and it is an oddly comforting place. Almost all the coal is Polish, and more arrives on trains from Silesia every day. On an autumn afternoon, the only smells are of fallen leaves and the sweet tang of fresh coal. The only noise comes from a bulldozer smoothing the coal-mound and the cawing of rooks. Its three chimneys run clear: you cannot see the carbon dioxide pouring into the sky. The heart of the EU’s climate-change package is an emissions-trading scheme (ETS) that will make factories and power plants like Siekierki pay for emitting carbon. The higher the price of carbon in the ETS, the stronger the signal to switch away from coal. Polish ministers have been galvanised by recent reports that the carbon price will be much higher than European Commission estimates. A February 2008 paper from UBS, a Swiss bank, caused alarm by predicting that 43% of Europe’s coal-fired power generation will switch to gas because of EU emissions targets. In the long term, Poland is pinning its faith on clean-coal technologies, including carbon capture and storage. But that will take years. (Polish officials say nuclear power is another option, but that would take years too.) What worries them is the medium term, when they want to keep burning coal. “Coal is our energy security,” says Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland’s Europe minister. On September 26th ministers from Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia signed a joint declaration expressing concern that the climate-change plan would “significantly increase” the dependence of some countries on imported gas. With the package “in its current form”, there is no chance of an agreement among the 27 EU countries, concludes Mr Dowgielewicz. The irony is that energy security was key in persuading the east Europeans to sign up to the climate-change package in March 2007. Their leaders were assured that a shift to renewable energy would help them avoid excessive dependence on imports. The March 2007 conclusions pledged more EU “solidarity” in the event of a supply crisis (eg, Russia turning the taps off). There were pledges to diversify supplies, and support for named projects like the Nabucco pipeline that would bring Caspian gas to central Europe, bypassing Russia.
But most of these promises were hollow. EU countries continue to sign deals with Russia that undermine Nabucco. Germany still defends the Nord Stream gas pipeline, a joint project with Russia’s Gazprom. Earlier this year, Russia said it would build a nuclear complex in Kaliningrad, an exclave between Poland and Lithuania. Too large for Kaliningrad’s domestic needs, it has export potential, Russian nuclear chiefs said. That poses a dilemma for the neighbours. Once it is open, some time after 2015, it will offer zero-carbon electricity—but also more dependence on Russian energy. Poland wants fiddly changes that might make it easier to keep burning coal and not be bankrupted by the ETS. But nobody can blame the ETS for pushing generators away from coal. It is designed to make high-carbon fuels unattractive, after all.
Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 29th, 2008 From: cbsdpconsultant-climatechange at yahoo.c… James S. Pender
This 80-page issue of Forced Migration Review (FMR), published by the Refugee Studies Centre of Oxford University, includes a major focus on climate change and displacement and is now online at: http://www.fmreview.org/climatechange.ht… (We’ve just revamped our website - you may need to click ‘refresh’.) *** In response to growing pressures on landscapes and livelihoods, people are moving, communities are adapting. This issue of FMR debates the numbers, the definitions and the modalities – and the tension between the need for research and the need to act. Thirty-eight articles by UN, academic, international and local actors explore the extent of the potential displacement crisis, community adaptation and coping strategies, and the search for solutions. *** We would like to thank the following for their generous funding and support of this issue: UNEP, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, GTZ/the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development, UNOCHA and the International Centre for Migration, Health and Development. This issue will be published in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. The English print edition will be mailed out to you in early October. FMR would appreciate your help to maximise the impact of this issue. We would be grateful if you would forward this message to anyone you know who may be interested, add links on your website and/or list it in your updates and resources. Thank you. Two other resources just launched which may be of interest to you are: With best wishes Marion Couldrey & Maurice Herson – —- – Refugee Studies Centre, Department of International Development, Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 27th, 2008
The Columbia University World Leaders Forum, September 26, 2008, Became The Podium For Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark To Make Known A Roadmap To The December 2009 Climate Change Meeting in Copenhagen. The Prime Minister Is Keenly Interested That The Copenhagen Event Becomes The Turnaround Point From Our Present Descent Towards Global Environmental Disaster, and He Negotiated This Week A Roadmap With The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and The Two Candidates For The US Presidency. We Wished Him All The Luck He Needs; Nevertheless We Expressed Some Skepticism. The Columbia Forum brings to campus, during all months of the academic year, leaders involved with all sorts of ongoing problems, and at the time of the September High Level meetings of the UN General Assembly, it picks up special speed, and manages to pick up speakers that may have fallen in between the cracks when organizations like the Asia Society and the Americas Society, or the Foreign Policy Association, or the Council on Foreign Affairs, set up their schedules. This time it was really not the case. Prime Minister Rasmussen came to Columbia University because he has high esteem for the work done at the Earth Institute that is the home for a large number of scientists that were involved in the readying of the IPCC reports. Having said that, we must also note that rather then having the people from The Earth Institute involved in the Forum, the University chose to go all out with Columbia University President, Lee C. Bollinger, and University Professor of Economics and Law, Jagdish Bhagwati, a specialist on globalization and development, being the official hosts. The above august Columbia University reception caused Mr. Rasmussen to start by saying: “I congratulate you on your work. I am impressed by the contribution of The Earth Institute to both the development agenda and the Millennium Development Goal. Issues I had the opportunity to discuss yesterday with other world leaders. Today, I will be speaking about another major topic for The Earth Institute and for many leaders including myself: CLIMATE CHANGE. I will focus on three key elements: THE CHALLENGE, THE VISION, and THE DEAL.” The introduction said to us clearly - the Prime Minister does not want to see the reality of climate change being submerged under tons of other global problems. The task of his leadership towards a Copenhagen 2009 agreement is to lead to an agreed timetable for the decrease of CO2 emissions from human made causes - it is this, rather then the maze of other linked problems, that he intends to tackle. He laid bare the problem in his first two segments - but his aim is the third segment - THE DEAL. We intend to post his whole presentation - but for this fast posting we want to go directly to the DEAL, point out questions that came up in follow up discussions, and the full information that was then provided to the very few members of the media present at a follow up press conference. *** The Prime Minister wants to see in the December 2009 declaration a deal based on four key elements: FIRSTLY: A Long Term Vision for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 1990 baseline by 2050. This in order to set out targets for businesses in planning their investments. SECONDLY: An Ambitious Medium Term Goal for the industrialized countries modeled after the European commitment to 30% reduction by 2020. “A tall order, I know, but it meets the challenge and creates opportunities.” But that is not enough. The Major Emerging Economies will also have to join this endeavour by taking actions. They must stabilise, and subsequently reduce, their emissions. This obviously taking in consideration the different levels of development of the individual countries. IN THIS PRESERVATION OF FORESTS WILL PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE. Without clear 10 to 15-year reduction commitments from the industrialized countries it will not be possible to develop cost effective measures. THIRDLY: The Technology aspect requires the development and dissemination of low carbon technologies and INNOVATION within a global collaborative effort that promotes programs and policies that sustain economic development while ensuring decreased emissions. We must encourage investment and financing of low-carbon technologies. FOURTHLY: Dealing with the special needs of the most vulnerable developing countries that contributed least to global warming and suffer the hardest consequences, they must be given a safety net which includes financial support for their efforts including adaptation. The Prime Minister wants to see cost-effective, market-based instruments - efficiency standards and national, regional, and global carbon markets. He looked further at places that such moves were started already - the EU, China, in many countries in Asia, other emerging economies. “I believe the Chinese business sector and government have understood the prospects for low carbon technology. They can see a double benefit. Firstly their economy and, secondly, their participation in the global economy. They are already out there seeking to be part of the next generation of smart, low-carbon technologies” - he said. Mr. Rasmussen did not mince words: “Following the last oil crisis Toyota started to build smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. General Motors did not. Today Toyota is the most sold car in America.” “In China, cars are produced according to strict fuel efficiency standards. At the same time, US manufacturers are struggling with old fashioned fuel intensive models” - he said. “DO I NEED TO SAY MORE?” From here Mr. Rasmussen pointed out that much did actually happen in many US individual States that have also established regional carbon markets and energy efficiency standards - so - he wants to see America lead again by example, by entrepreneurship - politically as well as economically. “I know,” he said, “that many people fear competition from China, especially in energy intensive sectors. And Yes, no deal can address climate change without both China and the United States being part of it. But do not deceive yourself: with emissions at 24 tons per capita the USA has a long way to go and cannot afford to wait for others. There are huge gains to be won by moving rapidly and with determination.” The choices that will be made in 2009 are not short of shaping actually the future of planet earth for the next century - but Mr. Rasmussen does not think that his goals are unattainable - they are not impossible and they are not unaffordable - they are actually absolutely vital for our survival - he said - and he offered also that they are vital for our economic recovery and growth. “We could continue to wring our hands, watching helplessly as the oil price rises and falls. Watch weather systems spreading havoc. Continue to transfer huge amounts of wealth to autocratic regimes and rely on unstable supplies of oil and gas. Watch our planet grow more unlivable every day. But that is not an option. We are not going to do that.” *** Professor Bhagawati, in his remarks mentioned, in reference to the present calamity of the US financial sector, also with application to the issues here at hand, that we were once used to the image of a ship captain standing in a position of salute when his ship was going down, this after putting his passengers into the lifeboats. Now we see the captains leaving in the lifeboats and leaving the passengers behind to go down instead. He also suggested that from Kyoto I we will probably not go to Kyoto II, but rather to Copenhagen I. He wants to have in Poznan, Poland, in December 2008, already the agreement to go to 50% reduction of emissions, and during 2009 the negotiations for the intermediary steps with the consideration of different responsibilities for different stages of development, taken in full account. *** We brought up the question about the timetable from now to December 2009, with the intermediary stop at Poznan in December 2008. We explained that the US elections in November 2008 will have produced a new President-elect, but no practical change in the US representation - what-so-ever - at the Poznan meeting. Simply - the US has only one President at one time. This will make it impossible to deal with the US in order to come up with the Poznan decision, that is needed in order to reach an agreement that Mr.Rasmussen expects at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009. Mr. Rasmussen answered that he is already in contact with both US Presidential campaigns, and both said that they will be ready with their plans when they take over on January 20, 2009. But this is also no solution - this because of the fact that a US negotiator will have to be approved by Congress - and it is hardly possible of having such an approval before March to the earliest. Really, as cabinet positions will have to be approved first - let me say that this will not happen before April. With Poznan having become a dud, negotiations April - November 2009, can hardly be expected at turning Copenhagen of being more then a Poznan II, rather then a Kyoto II or Copenhagen I. *** The Prime Minister is optimistic nevertheless and expects the EU to push for renewable energy and energy savings, and lead by example. He also puts his hope for Europe’s energy in the construction of pipelines from Central Asia that bypass Russia. Furthermore, as it is true that climate change is with us for a long time - and it only got worse in the last two century because of the man-caused emissions, nevertheless, it is the confluence of that reason, with the present political reason, the fact that huge amounts of money are transferred to unstable regimes in payment for the energy, is strengthening our resolve to take action now. We must now brake our addiction to oil. The Prime Minister also told us of a “Troica meeting” with the UN Secretary-General: Indonesia, Poland, Denmark - or the organizers of the Bali (2007), Poznan (2008) , and Copenhagen (2009) meetings, which just happened, a day earlier, at this reunion at the UN. So, there was already a promise of 50% by 2050 / as per 1990, that was put on the table in Bali, and then backed by the G8 meeting in Japan.These answers to questions from the floor got then further amplified in the meeting with the four members of the Press that participated at the follow up session. And this is what I call now the Roadmap: The year 2009 will involve Heads of State. (a) In February - March 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will hold a Heads-of-State Meeting at the UN in order to start the process rolling. (b) In July 2009, probably in Rome, there will be a meeting of the G8 ++ - that is the major evolving countries - probably 5 of them if not more. This to reach an agreement that can then be brought to all Heads-of-State in a September Session of the UN. (c) thus an energy/climate change UN High-Level September meeting at the UN headquarters in New York City. (d) The December 2009 Copenhagen meeting. Further, we wanted to know what the Prime Minister thinks about a US that will be spending now $1.5 trillion on the Wall Street Bailout - so where will the money come for doing the right things needed in regard to climate change? But the fighting optimist believes that really this is not a question of money, but political will. Again, I felt compelled to wish good luck and to mention that we are all with him and hope he can pull it through. Last comment for this first report is that I watched in amazement how the Prime Minister was accosted at the Columbia Forum reception by an Iranian young lady student, who for perhaps 15 minutes was trying him out on those famous cartoons, and how he tried to explain to her the workings of a democracy and the fact that freedom of speech, the press, religion, mean that one religion cannot be imposed on others, and that the government has no right to intervene in a democracy, even though this student seemed not to want to accept this reality. Columbia University must really have succeeded in bringing on board all sorts of students - and we wish the school luck also, in the attempt to forge well behaved citizens even with hard to reach individuals that surely must come from the leading families of political strata of some of the most repulsive regimes. Finally, another student, waiting in line to talk to the Prime Minister, felt compelled to say - “let’s go back to energy questions.” A different student, without offering a question, thanked the Prime Minister for his strong stands. ——–
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 24th, 2008 Why doesn’t Greece like carbon capture? EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - If Europe is to get serious on climate change, we have no choice but to embrace a controversial series of carbon emission mitigation technologies known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. Its proponents say without the technology, coal with continue to produce some 60 percent of Europe’s energy needs and all its carbon emissions will continue to enter the atmosphere. Greece has worries about carbon capture technology similar to those of environmental groups. *** The Balkan country’s concerns have been dismissed as worries about losing competitive advantage to other member states as they are most likely unable to deploy CCS due to earthquakes in the region. But Greece’s concerns go much further. *** Not against CCS: “It would not be true to say that we are against CCS,” inists the Greek diplomat, “or that we don’t want to see it developed. In the fight against climate change, we need every weapon available to us. “But we have to be careful not to let these weapons backfire on us, our children or our children’s children,” he says, arguing that the burial of carbon has to be forever, and so future generations come into play. He says that when the European Council first made a decision on CCS, it was to develop the technology in an environmentally safe way. “And this has been an on-going concern that we continue to raise. In order to be sustainable, it has to be environmentally friendly and safe.” “We believe we’re going very, very fast with the wide deployment of this novel technology,” he warns. “The parliament is also in a hurry to implement this basically untested technology.” “What about the precautionary principle?” he asks. “Environmentally safe application needs time and patience. “In five years’ time, if there is a big accident, that would be the end of CCS … These people who are rushing this through, without ensuring safety and environmental safeguards, may actually harm what we want to achieve with CCS.” *** Oil recovery: “Why this rush? Is it the desire to fight climate change? Perhaps. Is it based on commercial strategies? Perhaps that is also true. Perhaps it is a combination of both,” he says, referring to the interests of oil firms in the technology. The petrol giants such as Shell and BP are hoping to use a CCS-related process called “enhanced oil recovery” to inject CO2 into geological formations to achieve greater oil recovery. CCS boosters say that this is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged, as the sale of recovered oil brings online supplementary revenue streams that can thus lower the overall cost of the process. “All our experience [with CCS] so far has focussed on enhanced oil recovery by petrol companies,” he points out. “But the injection experience is not the same as a storage experience, it is different.” And here, Mr Psychas points to worries both he and environmental groups have over the corrosive effects on storage sites, and the potential for leakage. *** Acidic brine in our aquifers: “If the carbon leaks, how are we going to trap it? How we are going to monitor a leakage if it’s small and far away from the storage site? The Greek diplomat argues that in order to ensure that there is no potential leakage, implementation first requires at least two years’ worth of measurement of background data that can then be compared to monitoring data during operation of a storage site. Mr Psychas says that thus part of their main efforts in discussions on CCS is ensuring reliability of any monitoring systems. “We should be very sure we can trust the data, so we need to be very strict with the whole monitoring scheme. We need concise standards and procedures, and a verification and validation process.” He also insists this be done by an independent body. “Additionally CO2 is not like petrol, it can dissolve minerals. This has already been established by some North American studies. By dissolving the minerals, it can create escape paths, and since it’s buoyant, it can also get into aquifers.” Researchers performing a 2006 United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment on CCS in Texas found that in their location, buried CO2 dissolved large amounts of the surrounding minerals that were supposed to keep it locked away forever. The CO2 reacted with salty water in the geological formation turning it as acidic as vinegar. The acidified brine then dissolved other minerals, including metals such as iron and manganese, and large amounts of carbonate materials. Carbonate are often used in the cement used to contain the CO2. If these are dissolved, the CO2 could leak into the atmosphere or the acidic brine into drinking water. *** Freshwater use: The diplomat is also concerned about problems that are specific to Greece and other Mediterranean countries. “Carbon capture requires the use of 90 percent more freshwater than ordinary power stations. That might especially be a problem for areas in southern Europe.” He also admits that earthquakes are indeed a concern. “In an earthquake zone such as the south-east Mediterranean, the seismic activity of storing carbon dioxide underground might trigger earthquakes. “So even if in the end CCS is shown to work, it might still leave some at a competitive disadvantage. We will have developed a technological tool that some countries will not be able to use due to earthquakes.” Ultimately, like some environmental groups, he is worried that the very expensive process of developing CCS will result in monies being diverted from renewable energies, and allow the coal industry to carry on regardless. “Of course we have to fight climate change fast, but in doing so, we might just end up burying our problems and not really facing them. “Everyone is talking about reduction of CO2. This is not reduction – it’s removal. “It’s like sweeping things under the rug. It’s out of sight and everything looks clean. But we all know the dangers of tripping over the lump. We cannot afford to create a situation that will cause future generations to fall over.” ——————- Carbon capture in Europe can begin to make money by 2030, report says. LEIGH PHILLIPS, The EUobserver, September 23, 2008. A controversial and experimental technology that hopes to scrub coal-fired power production of its carbon emissions and store them underground could indeed be an affordable tool in the European Union’s toolbox of alternative energy systems that aim to fix our climate problems, according to a new report. Carbon captured from coal plants and stored underground will become economically viable by 2030, according to a new report. The technology - “carbon capture and storage” or CCS - is the main mechanism for improving the environmental impact of coal plants within a panoply of technologies that are often promoted as ‘clean coal’ by such politicians as George Bush and the coal industry. The technology - which is actually three different technologies that are still very much under development, the most effective of which is yet to be established - involves ‘capturing’ the carbon from the burning of coal and ’storing’ this CO2 somewhere - perhaps in an exhausted oil field, deep underground or underwater - forever - so that the carbon does not enter the atmosphere. Apart from environmental considerations, the main obstacle to its uptake is that CCS costs two or three times what conventional coal plants do, and so thus far, power companies have balked at developing the technology. However, according to a new report from the business management consultancy McKinsey, the technology should be “economically viable” for the private sector by 2030, and so until then, it is essential that the public purse gets the ball rolling by subsidising 10 to 12 demonstration plants to be up and running by 2015. Until 2030, the technology would add an extra €60 to €90 per tonne of carbon released to the cost of producing coal-powered energy, making the whole idea far too expensive. But as the cost of buying carbon pollution permits rises under the EU’s emissions trading schemes, by 2030, CCS would cost only an extra €30 to €40 per tonne of CO2, a much more affordable figure, according to a range of calculations from Deutsche Bank, UBS and other institutions. This figure could drop still further if the technology was adopted by coal plants everywhere around the world, say the McKinsey analysts. *** Demonstration projects need funding soon: However, if Europe does not get moving with funding such demonstration projects fairly soon, and if the first commercial projects do not start until well after the demonstration phase, “CCS could struggle to reach large scale in 2030″, says the report - and by then, it will be too late. Europe needs to make massive reductions in its carbon emissions now. Energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs hailed the report for helping “to push the technology forward”. His comments are unsurprising, as the European Commission strongly backs the development of CCS, and as part of its package on climate and energy unveiled in January, it proposed a regulatory framework that would enable monies from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to support CCS development. Last March, European leaders also committed themselves to having 10 to 12 demonstration plants online by 2015. However, despite this pledge, divisions on the technology within the council are substantial. The UK and the Netherlands are strong backers, as carbon storage can also be used as a mechanism for pumping out extra oil from a dying oil field, something which the two countries believe can extend the life of their North Sea oil industries. Before the recent change of government, Italy had strong oppositions, but the new Berlusconi administration has rallied behind the idea. Germany meanwhile is wavering, while Greece is the most outspoken opponent, echoing the environmental criticisms of such groups as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and is afraid that because the country lies in an earthquake zone, it will not be able to deploy the technology anywhere in its territory and will be frozen out of any benefits from emissions reductions, meaning they will have to be made elsewhere in its economy. *** No such thing as clean coal: Most environmental groups are steadfastly opposed, saying there is no such thing as clean coal and worry that the manoeuvre will allow the coal industry to stay in business while genuine renewable sources of energy such as wind, geothermal and solar power are sidelined. A number of diplomats also ask why a particular technology should be benefiting from subsidies, and not renewables. Green groups say that in any case 2030 is not soon enough to deliver the emissions savings Europe needs to make. “The report only proves that CCS cannot be delivered within the right time frame. Climate change scientists such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say emissions must peak before 2015,” said a campaigner with Greenpeace, Joris Den Blanken. “It’s just too late. Better to start right away with investing in energy efficiency and technologies that are already proven such as renewables.” They are also concerned that CCS wastes energy, with the technology itself requiring 10 to 40 percent of the energy produced by a power station. Environmentalists also fear that storing carbon underground is not safe or permanent, and argue that the technology is incredibly water-intensive, adding extra pressure on the already limited water resources of southern EU member states. Ecologists are not however of one mind on the subject. Norwegian environmental group Bellona argues that whatever the demerits of CCS, governments must be realistic and recognise that if Europe does not take the lead in developing the technology, other jurisdictions, notably China, are moving ahead with building dozens of new coal plants that without CCS technology strapped on will wipe out all the other efforts of Western governments and industry at reducing carbon emissions. The Worldwide Fund for Animals, or WWF, also feels that CCS is a necessary evil. Mr Davies’ proposal is to be voted on by the parliament’s environment committee on 7 October. To read an interview with the environment attache for Greece’s mission to the EU on his country’s opposition to the technology, please read this companion article. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 19th, 2008 From: conference at brazilcham.com How Is Brazil Holding Up in the Wall Street Turmoil? “Brazil’s Central Bank has not needed to supply liquidity to local financial markets despite the turmoil roiling global markets, the bank’s president said on Monday. Henrique Meirelles also stressed that Brazilian banks are weathering the market mayhem well because they have healthy levels of liquidity, above those required by the Central Bank. ‘A full decoupling doesn’t exist for any economy but what does exist is an increase in the resistance to the crisis,’ Meirelles told reporters.” (Reuters, September 15, 2008) 2008 Brazil Economic Conference - Monday, October 13, 2008, Washington DC. HE Guido Mantega HE Henrique Meirelles on Confirmed Speakers: HE Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Brazilian Ambassador to the United States, Brazilian Embassy Luiz Fernando Figueiredo, Founding Partner and Head Portfolio Manager, Mauá Investimentos Sergio Ribeiro da Costa Werlang, Executive Officer and Chief Risk Officer, Banco Itau Holdings Financeira S.A. Paulo Leme, Director of Emerging Markets, Goldman, Sachs & Co. The Mayflower Hotel Sponsorship and table reservations: ————– Brazil is in a favored position because of the simple reality that for years it started to address the problem of dependency on a world energy market that is out of the hands of an aspiring fast developing nation. They did not just talk about it but actually made progress towards the goal of energy independence. When luck stroke, and Brazil even found oil - they are now in a position that they do not have to develop these resources unless it is in their national interest. They are probably the only country in the world today that can even tell the international oil corporations - please stay home. In the meantime they have the luxury of conquering the world with their ingenuity in the beer market, and offer for sale also ethanol. If you did not notice - both products contain biofuels. Brazil’s economy can afford to continue a strong reliance on agriculture for food and fuels and keep foreign gold-diggers at bay. We hope thus that the effort at bringing investments to Brazil will not weaken the scrutiny of the intent of the foreign corporations. Further, we are heartened by information we get from Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, about interest of continuing above by an extrapolation into the area of GREEN CHEMISTRY. This is the natural development of the future of a strong and independent Brazil. The following event will take place in New York, in conjunction with the Brazilian President being the Traditional First Speaker at the UN General Assembly Opening Session - further - in recognition of the Brazilian success story:
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 16th, 2008 From: lorenz.martin at oeschger.unibe.ch 8th International NCCR Climate Summer School with participation of “Climate variability, forcings, feedbacks and responses: the long-term 30 August - 4 September 2009, Grindelwald, Switzerland The topics covered at the NCCR Climate Summer School 2009 will include: The Summer School invites young researchers from all fields of climate Lecturers for keynotes and workshops (confirmed): The Summer School is open to young researchers (PhD students and DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS: 20 DECEMBER 2008 On-line information and the application form are available at Contact: Permalink | |