www.isra-mart.com
Tornado sirens are going off in Kansas City, and this time it’s not a drill. Last month, a massive EF-5 tornado struck Joplin, Missouri, resulting in over 130 deaths. Out west, several states had record snowfall. This past April, in the mid-west and south, storm systems dumped record rainfall on the Mississippi River watershed, causing a 500-year flood and billions of dollars in damage. Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan saw unprecedented floods in 2010 and 2011 as well. For those with allergies, warm seasons are longer, extending pollen seasons. Speculation is abounding that climate change caused these weather events, or made them worse. Whether or not this is true, one thing is certain: increasingly, regulatory agencies, legislatures, and the courts will be asked to address potential causes and impacts of climate change.
Climate change has become a central challenge of our time, affecting all levels of the American legal system – local, state, and national – as well as regulatory, legislative, and judicial bodies throughout the world. Because all people and companies are energy users, this litigation will affect all of us.
Consider the most recent climate change litigation targeting the private sector. These lawsuits allege that energy production is a ‘public nuisance’, that it causes climate change, and that the companies responsible for producing the energy should be held liable. From threshold questions of standing and jurisdiction to causation and to remedies, climate change litigation stresses our case management capabilities. The temporal and geographic scope of the alleged climate change spans decades and continents. The science of climate change is asked to address causation on a global scale. If human activities become linked to climate change, then nearly all of them – whether participated in as individuals, corporations, NGOs, or governments – contribute. We may all be plaintiffs and defendants in future climate change lawsuits.
US Climate Litigation
By the time this article is published, the US Supreme Court will likely have decided one of the most important private-sector climate change cases, American Electric Power, et al, v Connecticut, et al (10-174). This case is a federal common-law claim against six operators of electricity-generating plants, which the complaint says are the nation’s largest producers of ‘greenhouse gases’. At issue is whether federal law allows states and private parties to sue utilities for their alleged contributions to climate change. The Court’s questions during oral argument allow for the view that Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than the courts, should be the branches of government to address this. The justices also questioned exactly how a district court judge – acting as a ‘kind of super EPA’ – would resolve the remarkably complex questions presented by climate change litigation and fashion an appropriate remedy.
Regardless of how the Court resolves American Electric Power, climate change litigation in the United States seems sure to expand and evolve. In part, this is because there is no comprehensive federal legislation in the United States that addresses climate change. Plaintiffs are highly motivated and hoping that their claims will fill this perceived gap in the short-term and spur legislation and regulation in the long-term.
Of the over 200 cases (as of 31 December 2010) that have been filed that directly raise an issue regarding climate change, common-law nuisance cases such as American Electric Power constitute a very small part. Most are statutory claims seeking to compel or to stop agency action. In those cases, courts apply conventional rules of statutory construction to determine whether and to what extent an agency must consider climate change under existing federal statutes such as the Clean Air Act. Given that most of these statutes are decades old, one might assume the substantial body of case law allows little room for the development of a distinct, climate-change jurisprudence. Yet, in May of this year, the next round of high-profile “regulation through litigation” suits urged that the federal and state governments have a “public trust” obligation to prevent climate change.
Climate Regulation in other Countries
We have not seen the same lawsuit-based approach outside the United States (with one exception: at the time this went to press, Micronesia had brought an action requesting that the approval of a Czech coal-fired powerplant take into account the impact of rising sea levels on the 600-island archipelago). In lieu of litigation, some industrialised nations have adopted regulatory measures to address the alleged causes and impacts of climate change. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Climate Change Act of 2008 makes it the duty of the secretary of state to ensure that by the year 2050, net UK carbon output (for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases) is at least 80 per cent lower than the 1990 baseline. In 2005, the European Union adopted the European Union Emissions Trading System – a cap-and-trade variant – which is the largest multinational emissions trading scheme in the world. In April 2010, while the nation of Japan delayed adoption of a national policy, Tokyo implemented its own cap-and-trade system, Asia’s first carbon-trading initiative, which will require 1,400 of Tokyo’s most energy and carbon-intensive organisations to meet legally binding emission targets modeled on those used in Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme.
Climate Regulation in the US
In the United States, over 500 cities have pledged to meet the Kyoto standards; and a host of states have agreed to exceed federal regulatory standards. As discussed, US plaintiffs hope their suits will add pressure for action by legislators and regulators. For example, when the lower court in American Electric Power dismissed the suit on political question grounds, many turned to the White House and Congress for a solution. At the same time, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v EPA that the EPA’s current rationale for not regulating ‘greenhouse gases’ as a ‘pollutant’ under the terms of the Clean Air Act was inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation. The EPA has subsequently endeavoured to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Role of Climate Science
The integrity of climate science on each side of the debate will strongly influence litigation and regulation. As Judge Posner, an influential American jurist and legal theorist, noted nearly 20 years ago, “law lags science; it does not lead it.” In the legal arena of the courtroom, litigants must present expert opinion supported by scientific principles that can withstand peer review and cross-examination. These questions of science are determined by judges and lay juries on an individual case basis. While legislatures and regulators do not have rules of evidence to guide what can be considered, their decisions are often shaped by scientific experts, and their conclusions are generally subject to public debate and scrutiny.
Role of Climate Lawyers
Well-poised to handle climate litigation are those international defence lawyers with historical expertise in complex litigation, environmental regulation, insurance coverage, public policy, corporate transactions, advertising and marketing, intellectual property, and construction and design. The key to success with such litigation will likely be a multi-disciplinary approach that prepares companies for new regulatory regimes, handles risk appraisals and management, and protects business assets in litigation, when necessary.
Takeaway
Climate change litigation is well under way in the United States. Elsewhere in the world, governments are addressing climate change primarily through regulation. Whether US or international law will evolve to adjudicate all of the many issues of climate change is an open question. But international companies can anticipate a climate change spotlight on their own theatre of operations soon enough.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: California ‘sensible’ to delay start of trading – experts
www.isra-mart.com
California regulators will give emitters an extra year to comply with their cap-and-trade programme, but regulated entities should not become complacent, market experts said.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has proposed launching the programme in 2012, but starting the compliance requirements in 2013, according to ARB chairwoman Mary Nichols.
But this change will not affect the stringency of the programme nor change the amount of emissions reductions that it sets out to achieve, she cautioned.
Talk of a delay has dominated the markets due to a court ruling that found that the ARB had not sufficiently analysed alternatives to cap and trade, such as a carbon tax, as part of an environmental analysis required under California law.
A trial judge issued an injunction preventing the ARB from implementing its proposed programme, but an appeals court granted the agency’s request to continue developing the programme pending the final outcome of the appeal.
Market experts welcomed the announcement because it gives emitters more time to fully develop their compliance strategies, particularly as major elements such as individual allowance allocations and a full list of eligible offset projects have yet to be finalised.
The International Emissions Trading Association “believes this delay is a sensible step to ensure the programme is a success when fully implemented”, said Hannah Mellman, US policy advisor based in Washington, DC. “The extra time will help create a better functioning market and give participants greater certainty and confidence that the programme will work as efficiently as it was intended.”
“Chairwoman Nichols has delivered an elegant solution that will keep the environment whole and have a minimal impact on sources,” said Josh Margolis, San Francisco-based co-CEO of environmental broker CantorCO2e.
But observers cautioned emitters against complacency and urged them to take the extra year to carefully plan their compliance strategies.
“Affected sources understand that ARB has given them a breather, not a pass,” Margolis said. “Some who were breathing into a paper bag, who were fast running out of options and looking for the exit, can now take the time to develop compliance options.”
The ARB staff will hold a public workshop in the next few weeks on this proposal and receive feedback on elements needed to finalise the programme rules.
California regulators will give emitters an extra year to comply with their cap-and-trade programme, but regulated entities should not become complacent, market experts said.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has proposed launching the programme in 2012, but starting the compliance requirements in 2013, according to ARB chairwoman Mary Nichols.
But this change will not affect the stringency of the programme nor change the amount of emissions reductions that it sets out to achieve, she cautioned.
Talk of a delay has dominated the markets due to a court ruling that found that the ARB had not sufficiently analysed alternatives to cap and trade, such as a carbon tax, as part of an environmental analysis required under California law.
A trial judge issued an injunction preventing the ARB from implementing its proposed programme, but an appeals court granted the agency’s request to continue developing the programme pending the final outcome of the appeal.
Market experts welcomed the announcement because it gives emitters more time to fully develop their compliance strategies, particularly as major elements such as individual allowance allocations and a full list of eligible offset projects have yet to be finalised.
The International Emissions Trading Association “believes this delay is a sensible step to ensure the programme is a success when fully implemented”, said Hannah Mellman, US policy advisor based in Washington, DC. “The extra time will help create a better functioning market and give participants greater certainty and confidence that the programme will work as efficiently as it was intended.”
“Chairwoman Nichols has delivered an elegant solution that will keep the environment whole and have a minimal impact on sources,” said Josh Margolis, San Francisco-based co-CEO of environmental broker CantorCO2e.
But observers cautioned emitters against complacency and urged them to take the extra year to carefully plan their compliance strategies.
“Affected sources understand that ARB has given them a breather, not a pass,” Margolis said. “Some who were breathing into a paper bag, who were fast running out of options and looking for the exit, can now take the time to develop compliance options.”
The ARB staff will hold a public workshop in the next few weeks on this proposal and receive feedback on elements needed to finalise the programme rules.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: Şoferii, daţi afară din marile oraşe europene
www.isra-mart.com
Capitalele europene vor avea tot mai multe zone pietonale, iar locuitorilor li se vor oferi din ce în ce mai multe alternative la "clasicul" automobil, scrie The New York Times.
Dacă în Statele Unite autorităţile încearcă o sincronizare cât mai eficientă a semafoarelor pentru fluidizarea traficului, iar firmele de software scot aplicaţie după aplicaţie pentru a veni în ajutorul şoferilor, Europa vrea mai puţine maşini pe străzile marilor capitale ale vechiului continent.
În Londra şi Stockholm, şoferii trebuie să plătească o taxă specială în momentul în care intră în zonele ultracentrale.
Zeci de oraşe din Germania au zone "verzi" unde doar automobilele cu emisii CO2 reduse au acces. Munchen, Viena şi Copenhaga au tot mai multe zone pietonale după ce autorităţile au închis pentru automobile numeroase artere, sau pieţe ale oraşelor.
Paris şi Barcelona încurajează mersul pe bicicletă prin programele de închiriere (bike-sharing). Şi programele de car-sharing devin populare în metropolele europene. Toate aceste măsuri sunt corelate cu un preţ al carburanţilor tot mai ridicat, fapt ce face din şofatul prin marile oraşe europene o experienţă din ce în ce mai neplăcută
În oraşele unde traficul rutier era la un nivel foarte ridicat, autorităţile transformă metropolele în "paradisuri pentru iubitorii de plimbări", spune Lee Schipper, specialist în domeniul transporturilor şi profesor la universitatea britanică Stanford.
Elveţia - paradis pentru pietoni, infern pentru şoferi
Elveţienii sunt şi mai drastici cu şoferii. Multe pasaje subterane sau pasarele din Zurich au fost dezafectate, iar şoferii se confruntă cu semafoare tot mai "neprietenoase". Administraţia locală care se ocupă cu sincronizarea semafoarelor a crescut intervalul la care conducătorii auto au culoarea verde. Pietonii nu trebuie să aştepte mai mult de 20 de secunde pentru a traversa. Mai mult decât atât, pe străzile din Zurich apar tot mai multe semafoare, unele în zone care nu necesită astfel mijloace de semnalizare.
Şi dacă asta nu îi descurajează pe şoferi, vatmanii tramvaielor au posibilitatea de a schimba culoarea semaforului în favoarea lor. În alte zone centrale, limita de viteză a fost redusă la maximum, semnele de circulaţie au fost eliminate în totalitate, astfel că pietonii pot traversa în orice moment şi în orice zonă de acest fel.
Andy Fellmann, şeful departamentului de planificare al traficului din Zurich savurează imaginea maşinilor blocate într-un cârd de pietoni şi biciclişti pe o stradă devenită între timp zonă pietonală, scrie jurnalistul de la New York Times. 91 % din parlamentarii elveţieni merg cu tramvaiul la serviciu.
Mall-urile nou contruite au un număr limitat de locuri de parcare, astfel că vizitatorii preferă să vină la cumpărături cu mijloacele de transport în comun.
Norvegia vrea să interzică comercializarea maşinilor pe benzină sau motorină
În Norvegia se discută serios despre un proiect de lege privind interzicerea comercializării maşinilor alimentate cu benzină, motorină sau GPL începând cu anul 2015.
Maşinile-hibrid şi cele alimentate cu benzină, motorină sau GPL aflate deja în circulaţie nu vor fi afectate.
Francezii vor să interzică circulaţia maşinilor mai vechi de 12 ani
Şi francezii vor să circulaţia maşinilor fabricate înainte de 2000 în suburbia Seine Saint Denis din Paris să fie interzisă începând cu 2012, urmând ca în viitorul nu foarte îndepărtat, restricţia să cuprindă mai toată Franţa.
Ministerul Mediului vrea să extindă restricţia, deocamdată în fază de experiment, în alte 7 oraşe din Franţa: Paris, Clermont Ferrand, Lyon, Aix en Provence, Grenoble, Bordeaux şi Nice. Comunitatea din Saint Denis va fi însă pionierul acestei iniţiative. Presa franceză spune că nu se cunosc detaliile acestui proiect, dar că municipalitatea trebuie ca până în 2012 să reuşească să pună la punct toate amănuntele pentru ca circulaţia
autovehiculelor fabricate înainte de anul 2000 să fie interzisă.
Maşinile pe benzină şi diesel, interzise in oraşele europene până în 2050
Comisia Europeană a propus la sfârşitul lunii martie interzicerea circulaţiei autovehiculelor care folosesc benzină şi motorină în centrele marilor oraşe europene până în anul 2050. Iniţiativa a fost înaintată de comisarul pe probleme de transport la Comisia Europeană Siim Kallas.
Oficialii europeni speră că în acest mod emisiile de dioxid de carbon vor scădea cu 60% şi dependenţa de petrol a Europei va fi mai mică. De asemenea, se urmăreşte ca majoritatea călătoriilor care se întind pe o distanţă mai mică de 305 kilometri să se facă cu trenul.
Comisia Europeană îşi propune ca 50% din parcul auto din Europa să fie format din maşini cu zero emisii de CO2 până în 2030, iar până în anul 2050 toate maşinile ce funcţionează pe benzină sau motorină să fie interzise în marile oraşe europene.
Se are în vedere înfiinţarea unui sistem centralizat de transport în Europa (Single European Transport Area) care să lege toate aeroporturile de principalele linii feroviare atât pentru transportul de persoane cât ţi pentru cel de marfă.
Capitalele europene vor avea tot mai multe zone pietonale, iar locuitorilor li se vor oferi din ce în ce mai multe alternative la "clasicul" automobil, scrie The New York Times.
Dacă în Statele Unite autorităţile încearcă o sincronizare cât mai eficientă a semafoarelor pentru fluidizarea traficului, iar firmele de software scot aplicaţie după aplicaţie pentru a veni în ajutorul şoferilor, Europa vrea mai puţine maşini pe străzile marilor capitale ale vechiului continent.
În Londra şi Stockholm, şoferii trebuie să plătească o taxă specială în momentul în care intră în zonele ultracentrale.
Zeci de oraşe din Germania au zone "verzi" unde doar automobilele cu emisii CO2 reduse au acces. Munchen, Viena şi Copenhaga au tot mai multe zone pietonale după ce autorităţile au închis pentru automobile numeroase artere, sau pieţe ale oraşelor.
Paris şi Barcelona încurajează mersul pe bicicletă prin programele de închiriere (bike-sharing). Şi programele de car-sharing devin populare în metropolele europene. Toate aceste măsuri sunt corelate cu un preţ al carburanţilor tot mai ridicat, fapt ce face din şofatul prin marile oraşe europene o experienţă din ce în ce mai neplăcută
În oraşele unde traficul rutier era la un nivel foarte ridicat, autorităţile transformă metropolele în "paradisuri pentru iubitorii de plimbări", spune Lee Schipper, specialist în domeniul transporturilor şi profesor la universitatea britanică Stanford.
Elveţia - paradis pentru pietoni, infern pentru şoferi
Elveţienii sunt şi mai drastici cu şoferii. Multe pasaje subterane sau pasarele din Zurich au fost dezafectate, iar şoferii se confruntă cu semafoare tot mai "neprietenoase". Administraţia locală care se ocupă cu sincronizarea semafoarelor a crescut intervalul la care conducătorii auto au culoarea verde. Pietonii nu trebuie să aştepte mai mult de 20 de secunde pentru a traversa. Mai mult decât atât, pe străzile din Zurich apar tot mai multe semafoare, unele în zone care nu necesită astfel mijloace de semnalizare.
Şi dacă asta nu îi descurajează pe şoferi, vatmanii tramvaielor au posibilitatea de a schimba culoarea semaforului în favoarea lor. În alte zone centrale, limita de viteză a fost redusă la maximum, semnele de circulaţie au fost eliminate în totalitate, astfel că pietonii pot traversa în orice moment şi în orice zonă de acest fel.
Andy Fellmann, şeful departamentului de planificare al traficului din Zurich savurează imaginea maşinilor blocate într-un cârd de pietoni şi biciclişti pe o stradă devenită între timp zonă pietonală, scrie jurnalistul de la New York Times. 91 % din parlamentarii elveţieni merg cu tramvaiul la serviciu.
Mall-urile nou contruite au un număr limitat de locuri de parcare, astfel că vizitatorii preferă să vină la cumpărături cu mijloacele de transport în comun.
Norvegia vrea să interzică comercializarea maşinilor pe benzină sau motorină
În Norvegia se discută serios despre un proiect de lege privind interzicerea comercializării maşinilor alimentate cu benzină, motorină sau GPL începând cu anul 2015.
Maşinile-hibrid şi cele alimentate cu benzină, motorină sau GPL aflate deja în circulaţie nu vor fi afectate.
Francezii vor să interzică circulaţia maşinilor mai vechi de 12 ani
Şi francezii vor să circulaţia maşinilor fabricate înainte de 2000 în suburbia Seine Saint Denis din Paris să fie interzisă începând cu 2012, urmând ca în viitorul nu foarte îndepărtat, restricţia să cuprindă mai toată Franţa.
Ministerul Mediului vrea să extindă restricţia, deocamdată în fază de experiment, în alte 7 oraşe din Franţa: Paris, Clermont Ferrand, Lyon, Aix en Provence, Grenoble, Bordeaux şi Nice. Comunitatea din Saint Denis va fi însă pionierul acestei iniţiative. Presa franceză spune că nu se cunosc detaliile acestui proiect, dar că municipalitatea trebuie ca până în 2012 să reuşească să pună la punct toate amănuntele pentru ca circulaţia
autovehiculelor fabricate înainte de anul 2000 să fie interzisă.
Maşinile pe benzină şi diesel, interzise in oraşele europene până în 2050
Comisia Europeană a propus la sfârşitul lunii martie interzicerea circulaţiei autovehiculelor care folosesc benzină şi motorină în centrele marilor oraşe europene până în anul 2050. Iniţiativa a fost înaintată de comisarul pe probleme de transport la Comisia Europeană Siim Kallas.
Oficialii europeni speră că în acest mod emisiile de dioxid de carbon vor scădea cu 60% şi dependenţa de petrol a Europei va fi mai mică. De asemenea, se urmăreşte ca majoritatea călătoriilor care se întind pe o distanţă mai mică de 305 kilometri să se facă cu trenul.
Comisia Europeană îşi propune ca 50% din parcul auto din Europa să fie format din maşini cu zero emisii de CO2 până în 2030, iar până în anul 2050 toate maşinile ce funcţionează pe benzină sau motorină să fie interzise în marile oraşe europene.
Se are în vedere înfiinţarea unui sistem centralizat de transport în Europa (Single European Transport Area) care să lege toate aeroporturile de principalele linii feroviare atât pentru transportul de persoane cât ţi pentru cel de marfă.
Isra-Mart srl: Grupul Holcim vrea sa reduca emisiile de CO2 cu 25%
www.isra-mart.com
Grupul Holcim si-a stabilit ca va reduce cu 25% emisiile de CO2 specifice pe tona de produs (ciment si lianti hidraulici similari) pana in 2015, comparativ cu nivelul anului 1990, au spus luni reprezentantii Holcim Romania.
Potrivit directorului general Holcim Romania, Daniel Bach, pentru a sprijinii acest obiectiv compania pe care o conduce va aloca 35 de milioane de euro in 2011 pentru a dezvolta proiecte orientate catre mediu si eficienta energetica, precum si pentru a asigura mentenanta echipamentelor din fabrici.
Astfel, 14 milioane de euro sunt alocati proiectului de recuperare a energiei termice reziduale de la Alesd. Acesta isi propune sa inlocuiasca aproximativ 15% din energia electrica consumata de fabrica din Alesd, care este furnizata in prezent de reteaua publica, cu energie "verde", obtinuta prin utilizarea gazelor reziduale rezultate din procesul de ardere si racire a clincherului, pentru productia de abur.
Aburul este apoi utilizat intr-o turbina pentru generarea de energie, fara a mai utiliza combustibili fosili. Proiectul are ca data de finalizare primul semestru al anului viitor.
De asemenea, circa 12 milioane de euro vor fi folositi pentru cresterea capacitatilor de co-procesare a deseurilor.
Holcim Romania a contribuit prin investitiile verzi realizate in ultimii ani la atingerea inca din 2009 a obiectivului stabilit de Holcim Grup la nivel mondial, acela de a reduce emisiile de CO2 cu 20% pana in 2010.
Grupul Holcim si-a stabilit ca va reduce cu 25% emisiile de CO2 specifice pe tona de produs (ciment si lianti hidraulici similari) pana in 2015, comparativ cu nivelul anului 1990, au spus luni reprezentantii Holcim Romania.
Potrivit directorului general Holcim Romania, Daniel Bach, pentru a sprijinii acest obiectiv compania pe care o conduce va aloca 35 de milioane de euro in 2011 pentru a dezvolta proiecte orientate catre mediu si eficienta energetica, precum si pentru a asigura mentenanta echipamentelor din fabrici.
Astfel, 14 milioane de euro sunt alocati proiectului de recuperare a energiei termice reziduale de la Alesd. Acesta isi propune sa inlocuiasca aproximativ 15% din energia electrica consumata de fabrica din Alesd, care este furnizata in prezent de reteaua publica, cu energie "verde", obtinuta prin utilizarea gazelor reziduale rezultate din procesul de ardere si racire a clincherului, pentru productia de abur.
Aburul este apoi utilizat intr-o turbina pentru generarea de energie, fara a mai utiliza combustibili fosili. Proiectul are ca data de finalizare primul semestru al anului viitor.
De asemenea, circa 12 milioane de euro vor fi folositi pentru cresterea capacitatilor de co-procesare a deseurilor.
Holcim Romania a contribuit prin investitiile verzi realizate in ultimii ani la atingerea inca din 2009 a obiectivului stabilit de Holcim Grup la nivel mondial, acela de a reduce emisiile de CO2 cu 20% pana in 2010.
Isra-Mart srl: Romania ar putea vinde surplusul de certificate de emisii cu 1,2 mld.euro
www.isra-mart.com
Ministerul Economiei vrea sa simplifice legislatia privitoare la vanzarea surplusului de certificate de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera, denumite unitati ale cantitatii atribuite (AAU), prin care spera sa obtina 1,2 miliarde de euro, de circa doua ori mai putin decat anticipa institutia anul trecut, scrie Mediafax.
"Prin prezentul act normativ se asigura premisele valorificarii AAU-urilor cu o valoare totala estimata astazi la peste 1,2 miliarde de euro prin contracte de stat si prin agenti specializati", se arata in nota de fundamentare a unui proiect de Ordonanta de urgenta pentru vanzarea surplusului Romainei de certificate de emisii poluante atribuite in baza Protocolului de Kyoto.
Principala modificare propusa este prevederea potrivit careia Guvernul va putea sa incredinteze vanzarea certificatelor de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera "unui agent specializat", care sa identifice potentialii cumparatori si sa deruleze tranzactia in numele Executivului.
Certificatele de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera sunt alocate fiecarui stat semnatar al protocolului de Kyoto. Un certificat echivaleaza cu o tona de CO2 emisa in atmosfera.
Documentul citat precizeaza ca legislatia existenta in prezent a permis Guvernului inceperea procedurilor de negociere in vederea vanzarii surplusului de 300 milioane de AAU-uri, dar, "desi s-au primit mai multe scrisori de interes pentru cumpararea acestor certificate, in cadrul discutiilor si negocierilor care au avut loc nu s-au putut inregistra progresele asteptate, deoarece legislatia in
materie cuprinde unele prevederi nejustificat de restrictive".
Totodata, intrucat pentru acest tip de tranzactii nu exista burse sau platforme reglementate la nivel international, informatiile despre comercializarile de AAU-uri sunt "limitate".
Potrivit notei de fundamentare a proiectului de act normativ, exista un "dezechilibru major" intre oferta internationala de aproape opt miliarde de AAU-uri si cererea estimata la doar 200 milioane de unitati.
In luna aprilie, Florentina Manea, director al Directiei Schimbari Climatice din Ministerul Mediului, avertiza ca pretul certificatelor de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera a scazut la jumatate comparativ cu 2009-2010, astfel ca Romania ar putea incasa doar 1,5 miliarde de euro din vanzarea surplusului de certificate, respectiv 50% din suma pe care ar fi putut sa o obtina in urma cu doi ani.
Romania dispune de un surplus de 300 milioane de certificate de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera, evaluate in urma cu doi ani la circa trei miliarde de euro. In prima parte a anului in curs pretul certificatelor a scazut la 5-6 euro pe unitate, fata de 10 euro in 2009-2010.
Manea declara la acea data ca Romania negociaza vanzarea acestor certificate cu companii din tari care nu si-au indeplinit obligatiile din protocolul de la Kyoto, precum Japonia, Spania, Portugalia sau Canada.
Sumele astfel obtinute vor fi gestionate de Fondul pentru Mediu pentru investitii in "energii verzi".
Oficiali ai Ministerului Economiei estimau in urma cu un an ca ar putea strange pana la 2,5 miliarde de euro din comerciliazarea certificatelor.
Ministerul Economiei vrea sa simplifice legislatia privitoare la vanzarea surplusului de certificate de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera, denumite unitati ale cantitatii atribuite (AAU), prin care spera sa obtina 1,2 miliarde de euro, de circa doua ori mai putin decat anticipa institutia anul trecut, scrie Mediafax.
"Prin prezentul act normativ se asigura premisele valorificarii AAU-urilor cu o valoare totala estimata astazi la peste 1,2 miliarde de euro prin contracte de stat si prin agenti specializati", se arata in nota de fundamentare a unui proiect de Ordonanta de urgenta pentru vanzarea surplusului Romainei de certificate de emisii poluante atribuite in baza Protocolului de Kyoto.
Principala modificare propusa este prevederea potrivit careia Guvernul va putea sa incredinteze vanzarea certificatelor de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera "unui agent specializat", care sa identifice potentialii cumparatori si sa deruleze tranzactia in numele Executivului.
Certificatele de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera sunt alocate fiecarui stat semnatar al protocolului de Kyoto. Un certificat echivaleaza cu o tona de CO2 emisa in atmosfera.
Documentul citat precizeaza ca legislatia existenta in prezent a permis Guvernului inceperea procedurilor de negociere in vederea vanzarii surplusului de 300 milioane de AAU-uri, dar, "desi s-au primit mai multe scrisori de interes pentru cumpararea acestor certificate, in cadrul discutiilor si negocierilor care au avut loc nu s-au putut inregistra progresele asteptate, deoarece legislatia in
materie cuprinde unele prevederi nejustificat de restrictive".
Totodata, intrucat pentru acest tip de tranzactii nu exista burse sau platforme reglementate la nivel international, informatiile despre comercializarile de AAU-uri sunt "limitate".
Potrivit notei de fundamentare a proiectului de act normativ, exista un "dezechilibru major" intre oferta internationala de aproape opt miliarde de AAU-uri si cererea estimata la doar 200 milioane de unitati.
In luna aprilie, Florentina Manea, director al Directiei Schimbari Climatice din Ministerul Mediului, avertiza ca pretul certificatelor de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera a scazut la jumatate comparativ cu 2009-2010, astfel ca Romania ar putea incasa doar 1,5 miliarde de euro din vanzarea surplusului de certificate, respectiv 50% din suma pe care ar fi putut sa o obtina in urma cu doi ani.
Romania dispune de un surplus de 300 milioane de certificate de emisii de gaze cu efect de sera, evaluate in urma cu doi ani la circa trei miliarde de euro. In prima parte a anului in curs pretul certificatelor a scazut la 5-6 euro pe unitate, fata de 10 euro in 2009-2010.
Manea declara la acea data ca Romania negociaza vanzarea acestor certificate cu companii din tari care nu si-au indeplinit obligatiile din protocolul de la Kyoto, precum Japonia, Spania, Portugalia sau Canada.
Sumele astfel obtinute vor fi gestionate de Fondul pentru Mediu pentru investitii in "energii verzi".
Oficiali ai Ministerului Economiei estimau in urma cu un an ca ar putea strange pana la 2,5 miliarde de euro din comerciliazarea certificatelor.
Isra-Mart srl: Mit spulberat: Vulcanii emit de 135 de ori mai putin CO2 decat activitatile oamenilor
www.isra-mart.com
Emisiile de dioxid de carbon ale vulcanilor sunt mult mai mici decat cele rezultate anual din activitatile oamenilor, se arata intr-o noua analiza a cercetatorilor americani. Descoperirea „inchide gura” celor care sustin ca schimbarile climatice nu au loc. De fapt, oamenii emit, in medie, de 135 de ori mai mult dioxid de carbon anual decat vulcanii. Cu alte cuvinte, din activitatile oamenilor, in mai putin de trei zile, rezulta mai mult CO2 decat emit vulcanii intr-un an.
„Intrebarea daca vulcanii emit mai mult CO2 decat activitatile umane este una dintre cele mai frecvente pe care le primesc pe e-mail de la public”, a declarat Dr Terrence Gerlach, un vulcanolog care a lucrat la Observatorul Cascades Volcano, parte a US Geological Survey.
Pentru a raspunde la aceasta intrebare, Gerlach a adunat estimarile emisiilor de CO2 din intreaga activitate vulcanica a planetei, pe pamant si subacvatica, si le-a comparat cu aceleasi estimari ale activitatilor oamenilor.
Cercetatorii calculeaza cantitatea de dioxid de carbon emisa in urma eruptiilor terestre prin metode care includ senzori cu telecomanda sau prin zboruri efectuate in norii de cenusa si prin masurarea concentratiei de izotopi a vulcanilor din oceane. Dioxidul de carbon se dizolva in magma la mari adancimi si este eliberat atunci cand magma ajunge la suprafata.
„Multi dintre scepticii in privinta schimbarilor climatice sustin ca vulcanii emit mai mult CO2 decat oamenii. Ei nu ofera niciodata vreo cifra in acest sens, insa adevarul e ca nu vom putea gasi niciodata un vulcanolog care sa fie de acord cu asta”, a precizat Gerlach.
El sustine ca „principalul motiv pentru care acest mit persista se datoreaza eruptiilor extrem de spectaculoase ale vulcanilor. Atunci cand oamenii vad la televizor o eruptie le este foarte usor sa-si imagineze ca sunt emise cantitati uriase de CO2 in atmosfera. Dar ele dureaza doar cateva ore, sunt efemere. In schimb emisiile oamenilor (gaze de esapament, centrale pe carbuni, etc) au loc 24 de ore din 24”, a explicat cercetatorul american, citat de Abc.net.au.
Cercetatorii estimeaza ca vulcanii emit in atmosfera intre 0,13 si 0,44 miliarde de tone metrice CO2, in timp ce oamenii, doar prin agricultura, inclusiv prin defrisari, produc 3,5 miliarde de tone anual. Masinile si camioanele usoare emit 2 miliarde de tone, iar in urma productiei de ciment rezulta 1,5 miliarde de tone CO2. Oricare dintre aceste cifre este de cateva ori mai mare decat emisiile anuale ale tuturor vulcanilor din lume.
Emisiile de dioxid de carbon ale vulcanilor sunt mult mai mici decat cele rezultate anual din activitatile oamenilor, se arata intr-o noua analiza a cercetatorilor americani. Descoperirea „inchide gura” celor care sustin ca schimbarile climatice nu au loc. De fapt, oamenii emit, in medie, de 135 de ori mai mult dioxid de carbon anual decat vulcanii. Cu alte cuvinte, din activitatile oamenilor, in mai putin de trei zile, rezulta mai mult CO2 decat emit vulcanii intr-un an.
„Intrebarea daca vulcanii emit mai mult CO2 decat activitatile umane este una dintre cele mai frecvente pe care le primesc pe e-mail de la public”, a declarat Dr Terrence Gerlach, un vulcanolog care a lucrat la Observatorul Cascades Volcano, parte a US Geological Survey.
Pentru a raspunde la aceasta intrebare, Gerlach a adunat estimarile emisiilor de CO2 din intreaga activitate vulcanica a planetei, pe pamant si subacvatica, si le-a comparat cu aceleasi estimari ale activitatilor oamenilor.
Cercetatorii calculeaza cantitatea de dioxid de carbon emisa in urma eruptiilor terestre prin metode care includ senzori cu telecomanda sau prin zboruri efectuate in norii de cenusa si prin masurarea concentratiei de izotopi a vulcanilor din oceane. Dioxidul de carbon se dizolva in magma la mari adancimi si este eliberat atunci cand magma ajunge la suprafata.
„Multi dintre scepticii in privinta schimbarilor climatice sustin ca vulcanii emit mai mult CO2 decat oamenii. Ei nu ofera niciodata vreo cifra in acest sens, insa adevarul e ca nu vom putea gasi niciodata un vulcanolog care sa fie de acord cu asta”, a precizat Gerlach.
El sustine ca „principalul motiv pentru care acest mit persista se datoreaza eruptiilor extrem de spectaculoase ale vulcanilor. Atunci cand oamenii vad la televizor o eruptie le este foarte usor sa-si imagineze ca sunt emise cantitati uriase de CO2 in atmosfera. Dar ele dureaza doar cateva ore, sunt efemere. In schimb emisiile oamenilor (gaze de esapament, centrale pe carbuni, etc) au loc 24 de ore din 24”, a explicat cercetatorul american, citat de Abc.net.au.
Cercetatorii estimeaza ca vulcanii emit in atmosfera intre 0,13 si 0,44 miliarde de tone metrice CO2, in timp ce oamenii, doar prin agricultura, inclusiv prin defrisari, produc 3,5 miliarde de tone anual. Masinile si camioanele usoare emit 2 miliarde de tone, iar in urma productiei de ciment rezulta 1,5 miliarde de tone CO2. Oricare dintre aceste cifre este de cateva ori mai mare decat emisiile anuale ale tuturor vulcanilor din lume.
Isra-Mart srl: Lafarge Comnord a incheiat proiectul de promovare a sanatatii si securitatii in munca
www.isra-mart.com
Lafarge Comnord a anuntat, miercuri, incheierea proiectului “Promovarea activa a sanatatii si securitatii la locul de munca”, inceput in urma cu un an.
Valoarea proiectului a fost de 304.950 lei si a fost realizat prin Programul Operational Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane 2007 – 2013.
“Proiectul care s-a derulat pe o perioada de 12 luni si-a propus promovarea unei culturi a sanatatii la locul de munca in vederea reducerii de cazuri noi de imbolnaviri profesionale si crearea unui mediu de lucru sigur pentru angajati. Acest obiectiv a fost atins prin informarea angajatilor despre politica de sanatate la locul de munca a companiei, dar si prin implicarea lor in stabilirea unor reguli de siguranta la locul de munca”, a spus Mircea Nicolau, director protectia muncii, Lafarge Comnord.
Potrivit reprezentantilor Lafarge Comnord, obiectivul general al proiectului a constat in identificarea, constientizarea si prevenirea riscurilor pentru sanatate si securitate in munca pentru cei 65 de angajati ai companiei.
Campania “Clean and green”
La 1 iulie, in cadrul tuturor statiilor de betoane ale Lafarge din Romania, se va relua campania “Clean and green”. Aceasta campanie are ca obiectiv identificarea, amenajarea si intretinerea de catre angajatii Lafarge a unor zone verzi in interiorul statiilor de betoane.
Lafarge Comnord a anuntat, miercuri, incheierea proiectului “Promovarea activa a sanatatii si securitatii la locul de munca”, inceput in urma cu un an.
Valoarea proiectului a fost de 304.950 lei si a fost realizat prin Programul Operational Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane 2007 – 2013.
“Proiectul care s-a derulat pe o perioada de 12 luni si-a propus promovarea unei culturi a sanatatii la locul de munca in vederea reducerii de cazuri noi de imbolnaviri profesionale si crearea unui mediu de lucru sigur pentru angajati. Acest obiectiv a fost atins prin informarea angajatilor despre politica de sanatate la locul de munca a companiei, dar si prin implicarea lor in stabilirea unor reguli de siguranta la locul de munca”, a spus Mircea Nicolau, director protectia muncii, Lafarge Comnord.
Potrivit reprezentantilor Lafarge Comnord, obiectivul general al proiectului a constat in identificarea, constientizarea si prevenirea riscurilor pentru sanatate si securitate in munca pentru cei 65 de angajati ai companiei.
Campania “Clean and green”
La 1 iulie, in cadrul tuturor statiilor de betoane ale Lafarge din Romania, se va relua campania “Clean and green”. Aceasta campanie are ca obiectiv identificarea, amenajarea si intretinerea de catre angajatii Lafarge a unor zone verzi in interiorul statiilor de betoane.
Isra-Mart srl: China's Objection To EU ETS Hits A380 Order
www.isra-mart.com
China’s opposition to the European Union’s (EU) inclusion of non-European airlines in its emissions trading system (ETS) is taking on greater force.
The Chinese government has blocked progress on Airbus’s sale of 10 A380s to Hong Kong Airlines because of the government’s opposition to the EU policy, industry officials say. EU representatives, however, shrug off the situation, and note there are no plans to exempt any airlines from the ETS in January.
The U.S. also has objected to the EU legislation, arguing it breaches international agreements on airline taxation. The U.S. Air Transport Association has filed a legal case against the EU. Airbus announced last week it had a purchase agreement from an unannounced customer for 10 Airbus A380s. Although Airbus officials would not name the airline, they signaled it is the same customer, also yet officially unannounced, buying 15 Boeing 747-8s. Officials say that buyer is Hong Kong Airlines.
China’s opposition to the European Union’s (EU) inclusion of non-European airlines in its emissions trading system (ETS) is taking on greater force.
The Chinese government has blocked progress on Airbus’s sale of 10 A380s to Hong Kong Airlines because of the government’s opposition to the EU policy, industry officials say. EU representatives, however, shrug off the situation, and note there are no plans to exempt any airlines from the ETS in January.
The U.S. also has objected to the EU legislation, arguing it breaches international agreements on airline taxation. The U.S. Air Transport Association has filed a legal case against the EU. Airbus announced last week it had a purchase agreement from an unannounced customer for 10 Airbus A380s. Although Airbus officials would not name the airline, they signaled it is the same customer, also yet officially unannounced, buying 15 Boeing 747-8s. Officials say that buyer is Hong Kong Airlines.
Isra-Mart srl: Taxing the air we breathe: Is the US Right To Seek Airline Exemption From European Carbon Law?
www.isra-mart.com
Business Green reports that US Airlines, American Airlines, Continental and United, along with their trade association, the Air Transport Association (ATA), will file a legal challenge to a European law requiring all airlines flying into and out of the EU to pay a charge per tonne of CO2 emitted.
The US government opposes the law. Reuters quotes an Administration official as saying, “We clearly stated our strong objections to the EU plans on both legal and policy grounds,” during talks last week in Oslo. The news agency also marked this as the strongest public criticism of the EU carbon scheme to date by President Barack Obama’s administration, by taking the view that US airlines should be exempt from the new European law.
Europe’s ruling falls under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a cap and trade system which will require all airlines to buy permits for emitting CO2 over and above a certain limit. European Union president, Jose Manuel Barroso, has said the EU does not intend to withdraw or amend the directive, calling it an established EU law. As such, a potential stand-off is poised to take place over the law which goes into effect on January 1st 2012. But is it reasonable for America’s airlines to be bound to comply?
I imagine the basis of the objection can be simply stated, since its likely the same reason cited as to why the US has failed to put a price on carbon on its own. The law will add to the cost of doing business and damage America’s already shaky airline industry. And beyond that, since it’s a unilateral European emissions law, why should it be imposed by default on an American industry?
Well, for starters, if you want to do business in a region and gain access to the huge number of customers there, then compliance with the law seems to be a prerequisite. And this law is not like a typical trade tariff which favors domestic businesses over foreign ones. Europe’s carriers will have to observe the law – and any costs the law incurs – so logically, anyone else wanting to do business in the EU will have to do the same.
Also, lets consider the existing Open Skies Agreement between the US and Europe which went into effect in 2008. Although it’s introduction was meant to liberalize the transatlantic market, it actually favors US carriers. Prior to 2008, routes used to be assigned to carriers, but Open Skies allows transatlantic carriers to operate to-and-from any airport, opening up routes to greater competition. But even so, as Forbes reported at the time, US carriers were given an advantage since full deregulation did not occur. US airlines were permitted to operate on internal-European (domestic) routes, whereas Europe’s airlines were not offered a similar privilege in return – only US carriers can service US domestic routes. Furthermore, a US law disallowing foreign ownership of American based airlines prevailed, giving US carriers another level of industry protection from foreign competition.
As this back-story suggests, there is likely a somewhat fractious relationship between the US and Europe with regard to the airline industry, so it’s easy to see why Europe is resolute over this matter; America’s airlines are protected by American law, and have access to a bigger market already by protecting its own domestic routes. So why would Europe let them off the hook by exempting them from EU ETS rules?
But aside from all the legal considerations, it would be nice (though probably naive) to think the US and it’s airlines would embrace the ruling. Cap and trade offers a market place in which profit can be made. It provides a market incentive for efficient airlines to operate more efficient aircraft, thereby avoiding the need to buy additional permits, and possibly giving industry leaders an opportunity to sell them at a profit. Why not save the money on the law suits, and step up and run competitive, efficient airlines that in any event, will enhance future success? After all, it seems a stretch to suggest Europe’s new law is unfair on US carriers and it certainly doesn’t single them out.
Business Green reports that US Airlines, American Airlines, Continental and United, along with their trade association, the Air Transport Association (ATA), will file a legal challenge to a European law requiring all airlines flying into and out of the EU to pay a charge per tonne of CO2 emitted.
The US government opposes the law. Reuters quotes an Administration official as saying, “We clearly stated our strong objections to the EU plans on both legal and policy grounds,” during talks last week in Oslo. The news agency also marked this as the strongest public criticism of the EU carbon scheme to date by President Barack Obama’s administration, by taking the view that US airlines should be exempt from the new European law.
Europe’s ruling falls under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a cap and trade system which will require all airlines to buy permits for emitting CO2 over and above a certain limit. European Union president, Jose Manuel Barroso, has said the EU does not intend to withdraw or amend the directive, calling it an established EU law. As such, a potential stand-off is poised to take place over the law which goes into effect on January 1st 2012. But is it reasonable for America’s airlines to be bound to comply?
I imagine the basis of the objection can be simply stated, since its likely the same reason cited as to why the US has failed to put a price on carbon on its own. The law will add to the cost of doing business and damage America’s already shaky airline industry. And beyond that, since it’s a unilateral European emissions law, why should it be imposed by default on an American industry?
Well, for starters, if you want to do business in a region and gain access to the huge number of customers there, then compliance with the law seems to be a prerequisite. And this law is not like a typical trade tariff which favors domestic businesses over foreign ones. Europe’s carriers will have to observe the law – and any costs the law incurs – so logically, anyone else wanting to do business in the EU will have to do the same.
Also, lets consider the existing Open Skies Agreement between the US and Europe which went into effect in 2008. Although it’s introduction was meant to liberalize the transatlantic market, it actually favors US carriers. Prior to 2008, routes used to be assigned to carriers, but Open Skies allows transatlantic carriers to operate to-and-from any airport, opening up routes to greater competition. But even so, as Forbes reported at the time, US carriers were given an advantage since full deregulation did not occur. US airlines were permitted to operate on internal-European (domestic) routes, whereas Europe’s airlines were not offered a similar privilege in return – only US carriers can service US domestic routes. Furthermore, a US law disallowing foreign ownership of American based airlines prevailed, giving US carriers another level of industry protection from foreign competition.
As this back-story suggests, there is likely a somewhat fractious relationship between the US and Europe with regard to the airline industry, so it’s easy to see why Europe is resolute over this matter; America’s airlines are protected by American law, and have access to a bigger market already by protecting its own domestic routes. So why would Europe let them off the hook by exempting them from EU ETS rules?
But aside from all the legal considerations, it would be nice (though probably naive) to think the US and it’s airlines would embrace the ruling. Cap and trade offers a market place in which profit can be made. It provides a market incentive for efficient airlines to operate more efficient aircraft, thereby avoiding the need to buy additional permits, and possibly giving industry leaders an opportunity to sell them at a profit. Why not save the money on the law suits, and step up and run competitive, efficient airlines that in any event, will enhance future success? After all, it seems a stretch to suggest Europe’s new law is unfair on US carriers and it certainly doesn’t single them out.
Isra-Mart srl: EU Carbon Prices Fall to Lowest Since the Recession
www.isra-mart.com
Prices in the EU's emissions trading system have plunged to the lowest levels since a recession-led sell off in March 2009, as European infighting over climate change goals drains the market of demand.
On Friday, prices closed at €12.30 per emissions allowance and have fallen to single digits in early trade on Monday, ICIS Heren data shows.
The reason is that the EU is planning to impose new energy efficiency legislation on the same sectors that are included in the emissions trading system. This will lower emissions from these sectors and mean that they will not have to buy as many allowances as previously thought.
Poland has now blocked moves to restrict the supply of emissions allowances and toughen up the EU's existing carbon reduction target.
The news come at the same time as international pressure is mounting on the EU to let some airlines escape the emissions trading system instead of being included next year as planned. This would remove even more expected demand for allowances.
"Overlapping climate policies have robbed the emissions trading system of its ability to provide an investment signal for clean technology. The cost of polluting is too low for companies to spend money on cutting their emissions," Isabel Save, editor at energy information provider ICIS Heren, said. "If new EU climate goals kill off demand, the supply of EU allowances will have to fall as well for prices to be sustained.
Prices in the EU's emissions trading system have plunged to the lowest levels since a recession-led sell off in March 2009, as European infighting over climate change goals drains the market of demand.
On Friday, prices closed at €12.30 per emissions allowance and have fallen to single digits in early trade on Monday, ICIS Heren data shows.
The reason is that the EU is planning to impose new energy efficiency legislation on the same sectors that are included in the emissions trading system. This will lower emissions from these sectors and mean that they will not have to buy as many allowances as previously thought.
Poland has now blocked moves to restrict the supply of emissions allowances and toughen up the EU's existing carbon reduction target.
The news come at the same time as international pressure is mounting on the EU to let some airlines escape the emissions trading system instead of being included next year as planned. This would remove even more expected demand for allowances.
"Overlapping climate policies have robbed the emissions trading system of its ability to provide an investment signal for clean technology. The cost of polluting is too low for companies to spend money on cutting their emissions," Isabel Save, editor at energy information provider ICIS Heren, said. "If new EU climate goals kill off demand, the supply of EU allowances will have to fall as well for prices to be sustained.
Isra-Mart srl: Labor way on carbon superior: NAB boss
www.isra-mart.com
NATIONAL Australia Bank boss Cameron Clyne has gone further than his major bank peers by specifically endorsing the federal government's approach to carbon abatement over the Coalition's direct-action policy.
Mr Clyne told a Melbourne business lunch yesterday that Labor's plan to price carbon and then introduce an emissions trading scheme was "economically superior" and likely to free up investment bottlenecks.
"If you're asking for an economic assessment of the two (policies), the carbon price followed by an ETS is economically superior to the direct-action policy," the NAB chief told a lunch organised by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. "It will drive certainty, it will drive investment, and so as a straight comparison between the two, that's the choice."
Mr Clyne, who is seen to be close to Wayne Swan, noted there was bipartisan agreement on the need for a 5 per cent cut in the level of 2000 emissions by 2020. The Coalition has put forward a direct-action policy, or targeted investment, to achieve the same level of abatement.
While other major bank chief executives, such as Westpac's Gail Kelly, have favoured a market mechanism to make the transition to a less carbon-intensive economy, they have stopped short of endorsing Labor's approach over that of the Coalition.
Mrs Kelly last month said that Westpac had traditionally been a supporter of an ETS. "A market-based mechanism is the best way to drive the innovation to new technology and new methodologies," she said. "A carbon price is one step towards an ETS and I think we need to remember it is only one of the solutions that you should be putting in place."
Also last month, ANZ chief Mike Smith said pricing carbon was critical to providing business certainty and unlocking sentiment. But Mr Smith said that, given the current reliance on high-emission products and services, the nation should be "under no illusion" about the scale, economic cost and complexity of transition.
NATIONAL Australia Bank boss Cameron Clyne has gone further than his major bank peers by specifically endorsing the federal government's approach to carbon abatement over the Coalition's direct-action policy.
Mr Clyne told a Melbourne business lunch yesterday that Labor's plan to price carbon and then introduce an emissions trading scheme was "economically superior" and likely to free up investment bottlenecks.
"If you're asking for an economic assessment of the two (policies), the carbon price followed by an ETS is economically superior to the direct-action policy," the NAB chief told a lunch organised by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. "It will drive certainty, it will drive investment, and so as a straight comparison between the two, that's the choice."
Mr Clyne, who is seen to be close to Wayne Swan, noted there was bipartisan agreement on the need for a 5 per cent cut in the level of 2000 emissions by 2020. The Coalition has put forward a direct-action policy, or targeted investment, to achieve the same level of abatement.
While other major bank chief executives, such as Westpac's Gail Kelly, have favoured a market mechanism to make the transition to a less carbon-intensive economy, they have stopped short of endorsing Labor's approach over that of the Coalition.
Mrs Kelly last month said that Westpac had traditionally been a supporter of an ETS. "A market-based mechanism is the best way to drive the innovation to new technology and new methodologies," she said. "A carbon price is one step towards an ETS and I think we need to remember it is only one of the solutions that you should be putting in place."
Also last month, ANZ chief Mike Smith said pricing carbon was critical to providing business certainty and unlocking sentiment. But Mr Smith said that, given the current reliance on high-emission products and services, the nation should be "under no illusion" about the scale, economic cost and complexity of transition.
Isra-Mart srl: EU 'won't back down' in China aviation row
www.isra-mart.com
The European Union has said it will continue with plans to charge airlines for pollution credits from the beginning of next year, amid reports that China has frozen a multi-billion euro Airbus order in retaliation.
Both China and the US are deeply unhappy with EU intentions to move the aviation sector into its emissions trading scheme (ETS) from 2012, but Brussels insists it will not alter legislation, agreed by MEPs and national governments in 2008.
"Whatever the Chinese or the Americans are saying, there is no Plan B - we don't intend to back down," Isaac Valero Ladron, spokesman for EU climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard, said on Saturday (25 June), reports AFP.
Under the EU rules, aviation companies will get a set of emission allowances based on data from 2004-2006. They will then bid to buy the remaining 15 percent of the available credits.
The ETS currently covers energy companies and heavy industry in Europe. By placing a price on carbon emissions, companies will be forced onto a more environmentally-fiendly path, say supporters of the scheme.
"Some of our partners who criticise us would do better for themselves and for the planet if they joined us instead in this effort," commission president Jose Manuel Barroso told a conference in Brussels this month.
But Chinese airlines fear they will have to pay an additional $122 million a year on flights to and from Europe, potentially rising to four times that figure by 2020.
The airlines have indicated that they plan to fight the EU scheme in court, with a case brought by a group of US companies due to open on 5 July at an EU court in Luxembourg. A preliminary verdict could come before the end of the year.
Washington officials at a recent aviation meeting in Oslo also demanded an exemption from the EU scheme.
And in an apparent escalation of the EU-China row, a widely-anticipated order for 10 Airbus superjumbos by Hong Kong Airlines failed to materialise at last week's Paris Air Show.
Brussels says a provision in the EU legislation does allow incoming airlines to be exempted from buying the carbon permits, if they fly from countries with "equivalent measures".
The commission is currently analysing the implications of a Chinese announcement earlier this year to reduce the level of emissions forecast for 2020.
The European Union has said it will continue with plans to charge airlines for pollution credits from the beginning of next year, amid reports that China has frozen a multi-billion euro Airbus order in retaliation.
Both China and the US are deeply unhappy with EU intentions to move the aviation sector into its emissions trading scheme (ETS) from 2012, but Brussels insists it will not alter legislation, agreed by MEPs and national governments in 2008.
"Whatever the Chinese or the Americans are saying, there is no Plan B - we don't intend to back down," Isaac Valero Ladron, spokesman for EU climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard, said on Saturday (25 June), reports AFP.
Under the EU rules, aviation companies will get a set of emission allowances based on data from 2004-2006. They will then bid to buy the remaining 15 percent of the available credits.
The ETS currently covers energy companies and heavy industry in Europe. By placing a price on carbon emissions, companies will be forced onto a more environmentally-fiendly path, say supporters of the scheme.
"Some of our partners who criticise us would do better for themselves and for the planet if they joined us instead in this effort," commission president Jose Manuel Barroso told a conference in Brussels this month.
But Chinese airlines fear they will have to pay an additional $122 million a year on flights to and from Europe, potentially rising to four times that figure by 2020.
The airlines have indicated that they plan to fight the EU scheme in court, with a case brought by a group of US companies due to open on 5 July at an EU court in Luxembourg. A preliminary verdict could come before the end of the year.
Washington officials at a recent aviation meeting in Oslo also demanded an exemption from the EU scheme.
And in an apparent escalation of the EU-China row, a widely-anticipated order for 10 Airbus superjumbos by Hong Kong Airlines failed to materialise at last week's Paris Air Show.
Brussels says a provision in the EU legislation does allow incoming airlines to be exempted from buying the carbon permits, if they fly from countries with "equivalent measures".
The commission is currently analysing the implications of a Chinese announcement earlier this year to reduce the level of emissions forecast for 2020.
Isra-Mart srl: EU Carbon Prices Likely To Stay Subdued - Analysts
www.isra-mart.com
Prices on the European carbon market are likely to remain subdued, in spite of a slight pickup this week analysts have said, after events as diverse as the Greek financial crisis and a push for more energy savings in Europe triggered a double-digit drop last week.
The fall in prices can undermine the effectiveness of the Emissions Trading System in delivering on its ultimate objective of encouraging investment in green technologies, because lower prices make it less attractive for companies to invest in long-term plans instead of buying allowances to cover their present emissions.
The price of December 2011 futures on the allowances to emit carbon dioxide fell more than 20% last week. The prices have slightly recovered this week, but are still much lower than earlier in the month, at around EUR13.46 per allowance, which gives the holder the right to emit one metric ton of CO2.
The prices had risen over EUR17 between March and May, as worries about the future of nuclear energy in Europe had prompted traders to bet on an increased use of more CO2-emitting fuels. The U.K. government set in March a price floor for tradable carbon emissions credits at GBP16 a metric ton in 2013 rising to a targeted GBP30/ton in 2020.
"In the short term there is little or no incentive for buyers to step in, and (...) there is therefore now a clear risk of prices falling further still over the coming days and weeks," said Deutsch Bank analysts Mark Lewis and Isabelle Curien in a note last Friday. They point to the latest twist in the Greek financial crisis as the main element behind the recent selloff and the current uncertainty.
But other factors are also seen as likely causes for last week's plunge.
A new European Commission proposal to increase energy efficiency in the EU presented last week was the determining factor, according to Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas, carbon and coal research at Societe Generale Commodities in Paris. Experts, and the commission's climate department itself, consider that more energy savings might negatively affect CO2 prices because they would lead to lower emissions. The commission added a last-minute a clause which allows it to monitor the situation and take the initiative if that happens, but that hasn't eased worries.
Others, including the Deutsche Bank analysts, see the Greek crisis prompting operators to bet on another economic downturn. There is a fear in the market that "the Eurozone and broader EU economy might now be on the verge of another severe slowdown, and fear that under such a scenario the commission would not be able to take the necessary measures to re-establish price tension," said Deutsche Bank analysts.
The EU could decide to take a certain amount of allowances out of the market to push prices up, but that would be even more complicated politically in case of an economic downturn.
Prices on the European carbon market are likely to remain subdued, in spite of a slight pickup this week analysts have said, after events as diverse as the Greek financial crisis and a push for more energy savings in Europe triggered a double-digit drop last week.
The fall in prices can undermine the effectiveness of the Emissions Trading System in delivering on its ultimate objective of encouraging investment in green technologies, because lower prices make it less attractive for companies to invest in long-term plans instead of buying allowances to cover their present emissions.
The price of December 2011 futures on the allowances to emit carbon dioxide fell more than 20% last week. The prices have slightly recovered this week, but are still much lower than earlier in the month, at around EUR13.46 per allowance, which gives the holder the right to emit one metric ton of CO2.
The prices had risen over EUR17 between March and May, as worries about the future of nuclear energy in Europe had prompted traders to bet on an increased use of more CO2-emitting fuels. The U.K. government set in March a price floor for tradable carbon emissions credits at GBP16 a metric ton in 2013 rising to a targeted GBP30/ton in 2020.
"In the short term there is little or no incentive for buyers to step in, and (...) there is therefore now a clear risk of prices falling further still over the coming days and weeks," said Deutsch Bank analysts Mark Lewis and Isabelle Curien in a note last Friday. They point to the latest twist in the Greek financial crisis as the main element behind the recent selloff and the current uncertainty.
But other factors are also seen as likely causes for last week's plunge.
A new European Commission proposal to increase energy efficiency in the EU presented last week was the determining factor, according to Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas, carbon and coal research at Societe Generale Commodities in Paris. Experts, and the commission's climate department itself, consider that more energy savings might negatively affect CO2 prices because they would lead to lower emissions. The commission added a last-minute a clause which allows it to monitor the situation and take the initiative if that happens, but that hasn't eased worries.
Others, including the Deutsche Bank analysts, see the Greek crisis prompting operators to bet on another economic downturn. There is a fear in the market that "the Eurozone and broader EU economy might now be on the verge of another severe slowdown, and fear that under such a scenario the commission would not be able to take the necessary measures to re-establish price tension," said Deutsche Bank analysts.
The EU could decide to take a certain amount of allowances out of the market to push prices up, but that would be even more complicated politically in case of an economic downturn.
Isra-Mart srl: Australia’s Ambiguous Carbon Legislation: A Primer
www.isra-mart.com
As Australia undergoes a record-level investment boom in its mining sector, the government’s yet-to-be decided price on carbon to be implemented in July 2012 will introduce a new set of costs and investment risks to Australian households and firms. The following primer examines the proposed carbon tax and examines some of its potential costs.
The Tax
In February 2011, Australian PM Julia Gillard announced that in July 2012, Australia would introduce a fixed-price on carbon and would transition to an emissions trading system sometime between 2015 and 2017. The government has still not decided on the price it will set for each metric tonne emitted, though it is likely to be between A$20-A$30/mt. Australia’s chief climate policy advisor, economist Ross Garnaut, recommends a price of A$26 per tonne while the mining industry favors a price of A$10. Australia’s Labour party supports a price of A$20-A$25/mt and the opposition-Liberal party to which PM Gillard belongs, maintains the price will be A$25/mt
The Rationale
Australia’s establishment of a carbon-tax is envisaged as helping the country meet two of its energy and climate policy goals. The first is reducing carbon emissions by 5% by 2020; the second is achieving its expanded-Renewable Energy Target (RET) of using renewable energy sources to meet 20% of Australian electricity supply by 2020. Though Australia produces only 1.5% of global carbon emissions the country derives around 80% of its electricity from coal and is the world’s largest carbon emitter on a per capita basis, according to The Economist.
There is also a political rationale to the carbon tax which helps explains why PM Gillard is pursuing the issue with fervor despite the fact that support for a climate change legislation has fallen to 41% from 69% in 2009 according to a poll released by the Lowy Institute on June 26. In 2010, PM Gillard came to power in Australia’s closest election in 70 years, when the Labor party lost its majority and formed a minority government with three independents and the Greens. The defeat of former PM Kevin Rudd, who Gillard replaced, was largely driven by opposition to his carbon tax plan, which Gillard opposed. Today, Gillard’s “Green-dependence” makes it very difficult to water down, postpone, or supplant the carbon tax with another policy. Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition, favors a plan of “direct action” where investments are made in projects and technologies that reduce emissions.
Costs and Risks of the Tax
It is not within the scope of this primer to address the environmental costs and benefits of Australia’s carbon tax. The focus is instead on the economic costs and potential risks that such a tax would pose to Australia’s households, firms, and the greater economy.
Higher cost of living: A price on carbon will raise electricity rates and could reduce jobs in the mining sector, which Commonwealth Bank estimates may account for more than 7% of nominal GDP in FY 2011. A contraction in the mining sector, which has been one of the largest sources of job growth in Australia, could lead to a reduction in employment, lower real wages, and an increase in Australians’ real cost of living. To offset some of the costs associated with the tax PM Gillard announced on June 27 that the Australian government would assist 90% of Australian households through tax cuts, extra payments to couples with children, and increased pensions.
Contraction of the mining sector: Australia’s economy is largely been driven by the resource boom: investments in the mining sector are estimated to rise by around 63% in FY2011(ending June 30, 2012) to A$83.3. A carbon tax that reduces activity in the sector could have an especially detrimental affect on Australia’s “two-speed” economy and reduce its terms-of-trade, which are at record levels.
Uncertainty over tax revenues: Though the carbon tax will almost certainly raise tax revenue in the short-term, it remains unclear the extent to which consumption will soften along with other sectors of the Australian economy which could result in a reduction in government revenue. The government is seeking to return to a budget surplus in FY2012 and narrow the FY2011 underlying cash deficit to 1.5% of GDP from the estimated 3.5% in FY2010. On this basis, a reduction in tax revenue in the medium-term, given declines in consumption and industry profitability, poses a risk to the government’s goal of retuning to a surplus.
Investment risk: The ambiguity surrounding Australia’s carbon price regime exposes industries working in carbon-intensive industries to greater uncertainty and makes long-term capital expenditure decisions more difficult. According to Deutsche Bank’s Head of Carbon Emissions Research, Mark Lewis, “those industries that will be most affected are those with very long-term capital investment structures. For them, the key point isn’t so much what the carbon price is today, it’s clarity around what it will be further down the line to give people the visibility to invest.” Similarly Economist Warwick McKibbin, who is a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia argues that “the key to increasing investment in energy generation in this country [Australia], and it’s not about the carbon price today, it’s about the carbon price we expect to see in 10 years, 50 years, 70 years.”
As Australia undergoes a record-level investment boom in its mining sector, the government’s yet-to-be decided price on carbon to be implemented in July 2012 will introduce a new set of costs and investment risks to Australian households and firms. The following primer examines the proposed carbon tax and examines some of its potential costs.
The Tax
In February 2011, Australian PM Julia Gillard announced that in July 2012, Australia would introduce a fixed-price on carbon and would transition to an emissions trading system sometime between 2015 and 2017. The government has still not decided on the price it will set for each metric tonne emitted, though it is likely to be between A$20-A$30/mt. Australia’s chief climate policy advisor, economist Ross Garnaut, recommends a price of A$26 per tonne while the mining industry favors a price of A$10. Australia’s Labour party supports a price of A$20-A$25/mt and the opposition-Liberal party to which PM Gillard belongs, maintains the price will be A$25/mt
The Rationale
Australia’s establishment of a carbon-tax is envisaged as helping the country meet two of its energy and climate policy goals. The first is reducing carbon emissions by 5% by 2020; the second is achieving its expanded-Renewable Energy Target (RET) of using renewable energy sources to meet 20% of Australian electricity supply by 2020. Though Australia produces only 1.5% of global carbon emissions the country derives around 80% of its electricity from coal and is the world’s largest carbon emitter on a per capita basis, according to The Economist.
There is also a political rationale to the carbon tax which helps explains why PM Gillard is pursuing the issue with fervor despite the fact that support for a climate change legislation has fallen to 41% from 69% in 2009 according to a poll released by the Lowy Institute on June 26. In 2010, PM Gillard came to power in Australia’s closest election in 70 years, when the Labor party lost its majority and formed a minority government with three independents and the Greens. The defeat of former PM Kevin Rudd, who Gillard replaced, was largely driven by opposition to his carbon tax plan, which Gillard opposed. Today, Gillard’s “Green-dependence” makes it very difficult to water down, postpone, or supplant the carbon tax with another policy. Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition, favors a plan of “direct action” where investments are made in projects and technologies that reduce emissions.
Costs and Risks of the Tax
It is not within the scope of this primer to address the environmental costs and benefits of Australia’s carbon tax. The focus is instead on the economic costs and potential risks that such a tax would pose to Australia’s households, firms, and the greater economy.
Higher cost of living: A price on carbon will raise electricity rates and could reduce jobs in the mining sector, which Commonwealth Bank estimates may account for more than 7% of nominal GDP in FY 2011. A contraction in the mining sector, which has been one of the largest sources of job growth in Australia, could lead to a reduction in employment, lower real wages, and an increase in Australians’ real cost of living. To offset some of the costs associated with the tax PM Gillard announced on June 27 that the Australian government would assist 90% of Australian households through tax cuts, extra payments to couples with children, and increased pensions.
Contraction of the mining sector: Australia’s economy is largely been driven by the resource boom: investments in the mining sector are estimated to rise by around 63% in FY2011(ending June 30, 2012) to A$83.3. A carbon tax that reduces activity in the sector could have an especially detrimental affect on Australia’s “two-speed” economy and reduce its terms-of-trade, which are at record levels.
Uncertainty over tax revenues: Though the carbon tax will almost certainly raise tax revenue in the short-term, it remains unclear the extent to which consumption will soften along with other sectors of the Australian economy which could result in a reduction in government revenue. The government is seeking to return to a budget surplus in FY2012 and narrow the FY2011 underlying cash deficit to 1.5% of GDP from the estimated 3.5% in FY2010. On this basis, a reduction in tax revenue in the medium-term, given declines in consumption and industry profitability, poses a risk to the government’s goal of retuning to a surplus.
Investment risk: The ambiguity surrounding Australia’s carbon price regime exposes industries working in carbon-intensive industries to greater uncertainty and makes long-term capital expenditure decisions more difficult. According to Deutsche Bank’s Head of Carbon Emissions Research, Mark Lewis, “those industries that will be most affected are those with very long-term capital investment structures. For them, the key point isn’t so much what the carbon price is today, it’s clarity around what it will be further down the line to give people the visibility to invest.” Similarly Economist Warwick McKibbin, who is a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia argues that “the key to increasing investment in energy generation in this country [Australia], and it’s not about the carbon price today, it’s about the carbon price we expect to see in 10 years, 50 years, 70 years.”
Isra-Mart srl: Balancing people's needs with environment
www.isra-mart.com
The stark reminder of world catastrophes induced by massive shifts in the earth plates and climate put care of our environment at the top of our minds. Christchurch is becoming almost too hard to comprehend and we wonder how we can help those now overwhelmed by more than 6000 shakes. That and the tornado in New Plymouth should not be linked but the "what next?" scenario is on everyone's minds.
I have organised an emergency kit in case of an earthquake here and I do sleep a little easier knowing I can look after those around us in our neighbourhood if we are ever hit.
My thanks to all who gave their time to help out in Christchurch, they are heroes. I attended the mayoral fundraising concert held in Rotorua a week ago. It was emotional listening to those who shared their creative talent at no cost to help out with the rebuild costs. They are also our stars.
I sat next to a wonderful woman at the concert and we got chatting. She reckoned she was considering voting Green because that was the party that cared uppermost about the environment. While it's not the place to be debating politics, she did get me thinking about Labour's legacy on valuing the environment, while also caring for the most vulnerable and those who create wealth through exports.
These are difficult balances for any party in government.
It was Labour who voted for the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and this is the centrepiece of environmental protection that drives all decisions around how we price carbon, manage waste, drive clean technology and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
New Zealand will be liable for increases in our emissions above those of 1990 levels for the period covered by the protocol from 2008-2012. These are now naturally above what we emitted in 1990 due to growth in transport and agriculture emissions. Our net emissions are within 1990 targets because the carbon absorbed by our trees planted since 1990 exceeds the increase in our gross emissions. Most sectors of the economy are already in the ETS, for example forestry, transport, electricity generation and industrial processes.
Agriculture was due to come into the market on January, 2013, under Labour. National bowed to political lobbying and put that date out to 2015. Currently, due to good prices for dairy, agricultural emissions are increasing. The cost of that increase since 1990 levels is a cost to the New Zealand economy between 2008 to 2012, but not to the agriculture sector.
We are not clawing that back but are including agriculture from 2013. We are asking them to pay for their extra emissions. They will still be receiving free emission rights for all their 1990 agriculture emissions. Agriculture will receive a free allocation equivalent to 90 per cent of their 2005 emissions. The total predicted cost over the five years is projected to be $800 million.
The price of milk and cheese is set by the international market price and it will not change. It is good to see the Commerce Commission exercise its mind about whether we are paying a fair price for the milk that we consume at home. It is pretty damning when soon we could be paying less for a bottle of wine than two litres of milk!
Labour's announcement of the re-introduction of the research and development tax credit when back in government will stimulate more research into carbon and nitrogen reduction. This will cost $30 million in the first year, rising to $200 million by year five. These costs are net of the savings from cancelling National's current grant-based initiatives.
That amounts to an $800 million investment over five years which will be paid for by the savings from ensuring agriculture pays for its fair share of greenhouse emissions. This policy has been well received by the science and clean technology sectors and is expected to increase research and innovation.
The policy is fully costed. It is also heartening to see the farming community in this region looking at changes in their farming practice.
Labour does care about the environment and we have not gone soft on our stance on this in the coming election.
Good government is all about how balanced decisions are made.
Strong decisive leadership is required to make these tough decisions and New Zealand is the envy of Australia, as shown by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's support for a transtasman carbon market announced last week.
The stark reminder of world catastrophes induced by massive shifts in the earth plates and climate put care of our environment at the top of our minds. Christchurch is becoming almost too hard to comprehend and we wonder how we can help those now overwhelmed by more than 6000 shakes. That and the tornado in New Plymouth should not be linked but the "what next?" scenario is on everyone's minds.
I have organised an emergency kit in case of an earthquake here and I do sleep a little easier knowing I can look after those around us in our neighbourhood if we are ever hit.
My thanks to all who gave their time to help out in Christchurch, they are heroes. I attended the mayoral fundraising concert held in Rotorua a week ago. It was emotional listening to those who shared their creative talent at no cost to help out with the rebuild costs. They are also our stars.
I sat next to a wonderful woman at the concert and we got chatting. She reckoned she was considering voting Green because that was the party that cared uppermost about the environment. While it's not the place to be debating politics, she did get me thinking about Labour's legacy on valuing the environment, while also caring for the most vulnerable and those who create wealth through exports.
These are difficult balances for any party in government.
It was Labour who voted for the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and this is the centrepiece of environmental protection that drives all decisions around how we price carbon, manage waste, drive clean technology and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
New Zealand will be liable for increases in our emissions above those of 1990 levels for the period covered by the protocol from 2008-2012. These are now naturally above what we emitted in 1990 due to growth in transport and agriculture emissions. Our net emissions are within 1990 targets because the carbon absorbed by our trees planted since 1990 exceeds the increase in our gross emissions. Most sectors of the economy are already in the ETS, for example forestry, transport, electricity generation and industrial processes.
Agriculture was due to come into the market on January, 2013, under Labour. National bowed to political lobbying and put that date out to 2015. Currently, due to good prices for dairy, agricultural emissions are increasing. The cost of that increase since 1990 levels is a cost to the New Zealand economy between 2008 to 2012, but not to the agriculture sector.
We are not clawing that back but are including agriculture from 2013. We are asking them to pay for their extra emissions. They will still be receiving free emission rights for all their 1990 agriculture emissions. Agriculture will receive a free allocation equivalent to 90 per cent of their 2005 emissions. The total predicted cost over the five years is projected to be $800 million.
The price of milk and cheese is set by the international market price and it will not change. It is good to see the Commerce Commission exercise its mind about whether we are paying a fair price for the milk that we consume at home. It is pretty damning when soon we could be paying less for a bottle of wine than two litres of milk!
Labour's announcement of the re-introduction of the research and development tax credit when back in government will stimulate more research into carbon and nitrogen reduction. This will cost $30 million in the first year, rising to $200 million by year five. These costs are net of the savings from cancelling National's current grant-based initiatives.
That amounts to an $800 million investment over five years which will be paid for by the savings from ensuring agriculture pays for its fair share of greenhouse emissions. This policy has been well received by the science and clean technology sectors and is expected to increase research and innovation.
The policy is fully costed. It is also heartening to see the farming community in this region looking at changes in their farming practice.
Labour does care about the environment and we have not gone soft on our stance on this in the coming election.
Good government is all about how balanced decisions are made.
Strong decisive leadership is required to make these tough decisions and New Zealand is the envy of Australia, as shown by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's support for a transtasman carbon market announced last week.
Isra-Mart srl: UK Government’s carbon floor price will waste £1 billion, claims report
www.isra-mart.com
The UK Coalition Government’s plan to set a carbon floor price within the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) could waste up to £1 billion by 2020, according to a report from think tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).
In the March Budget this year, Chancellor George Osborne announced that the Government would introduce a carbon floor price of £16 per tonne of CO2 starting in 2013, which would rise to £30 per tonne by 2020.
But the report, Hot Air, says that the carbon floor price or Carbon Price Support, which will be levied as an additional tax on carbon emissions from energy generation and calibrated to supplement the carbon price in the EU ETS, will not deliver its promised benefits.
According to the IPPR’s analysis, setting a floor price will not cut emissions because a higher carbon price in the UK will lead to a lower price elsewhere and the same amount of carbon being emitted.
And as energy companies pass the additional tax costs onto consumers, the introduction of a floor price could push an extra 60,000 UK households into fuel poverty.
The IPPR says the scheme even fails to give the energy market the long-term certainty that it is crying out for, because the level is reviewed and could be changed annually.
The report recommends that the Coalition should lobby for a Europe-wide carbon floor price, which would provide industry certainty across the region.
But if the UK insists on opting for unilateral action, the floor price should be set low to minimise any unintended consequences.
“The Carbon Price Support scheme risks giving energy and climate change policy a bad name because it will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions while piling more cost on to the shoulders of already hard-pressed consumers,” says Andrew Pendelton from ippr. “At a time of austerity and efficiency, wasting £1 billion is inexcusable; it’s enough to finance a second carbon capture and storage plant.”
The UK Coalition Government’s plan to set a carbon floor price within the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) could waste up to £1 billion by 2020, according to a report from think tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).
In the March Budget this year, Chancellor George Osborne announced that the Government would introduce a carbon floor price of £16 per tonne of CO2 starting in 2013, which would rise to £30 per tonne by 2020.
But the report, Hot Air, says that the carbon floor price or Carbon Price Support, which will be levied as an additional tax on carbon emissions from energy generation and calibrated to supplement the carbon price in the EU ETS, will not deliver its promised benefits.
According to the IPPR’s analysis, setting a floor price will not cut emissions because a higher carbon price in the UK will lead to a lower price elsewhere and the same amount of carbon being emitted.
And as energy companies pass the additional tax costs onto consumers, the introduction of a floor price could push an extra 60,000 UK households into fuel poverty.
The IPPR says the scheme even fails to give the energy market the long-term certainty that it is crying out for, because the level is reviewed and could be changed annually.
The report recommends that the Coalition should lobby for a Europe-wide carbon floor price, which would provide industry certainty across the region.
But if the UK insists on opting for unilateral action, the floor price should be set low to minimise any unintended consequences.
“The Carbon Price Support scheme risks giving energy and climate change policy a bad name because it will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions while piling more cost on to the shoulders of already hard-pressed consumers,” says Andrew Pendelton from ippr. “At a time of austerity and efficiency, wasting £1 billion is inexcusable; it’s enough to finance a second carbon capture and storage plant.”
Isra-Mart srl: Climate change policy is 'dead'
www.isra-mart.com
The climate policy of the European Union is now stuck in a dead end. Europe wanted to be the leader – showing the world the way. It wanted to export the "market-economic" instrument of emissions trading as a new standard of regulation. The climate summits in Copenhagen and in Cancun were supposed to herald a successor treaty for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
But both summits yielded zero results. Today it is clear that there is going to be no successor agreement. Also, the option of simply extending the existing Kyoto Protocol was thrown overboard by the main countries at the last G8 summit. The situation in global climate politics can be summarised in short as - there is no policy.
The emerging economies of Asia, especially, are refusing to allow their possibilities for growth to be curbed by obligatory CO2 reductions. Everywhere across the world, climate laws are being buried for good or put on ice. The once ballyhooed instrument of the emissions trading scheme is becoming obsolete. China, India and Australia are waving goodbye. In the US, the Chicago Climate Exchange was closed just after the last mid-term Congressional elections. Just before that, the self-anointed climate pope Al Gore cashed in by selling his shares.
"Climate politics is a dead project" is the buzz-phrase in Washington today. Yet, the EU is still clinging to all the measures and even discussing making them stricter than they already are. As a result, we are now left alone with the political costs of carbon reduction. We are ignoring international reality with an amazing level of tenacity.
As always - we continue to stick to the naive, worn-out argument: "Someone has to start the process." That start is a go-it-alone move. And if we do not wake up to that, then we will ruin our market economy with one-sided massive costs. Regarding industry, this process is happening slowly – almost as a creep. The Emissions Trading Scheme distorts competition to the disadvantage of European companies. As production in Europe becomes more and more costly, sooner or later industry will move to third countries - which do not have such a restrictive and costly climate policy. China and India, for example.
The consequences of the European solo mission become visible with the inclusion of airlines from third countries, into the ETS, in 2012. The row is just beginning to surface now. Since the EU wants to force airlines from third countries to participate, they are constantly taking action against it. Several third countries, such as America and China, went to court to fight this. But it is not just a question of law. A trade war recently started. China just blocked its order of the Airbus A380, in order to display its hostility against the ETS.
There is no way out of the dilemma. With the example of the inclusion of airlines in the ETS, the dimension of this problem becomes obvious. We are completely standing alone regarding the internationally non-enforceable climate measures and the costs are arising. The world is not a carbon market. It will never be one. The inclusion of airlines in ETS either ends in "war in the air", instigated by the EU or it will only be a factual Intra-European Emissions Trading Scheme - with clear disadvantages for European Airlines.
The latter situation is most likely. One of the only ways the European Commission can offer an olive branch is to meekly accept any reforms to the ETS, suggested by the third countries. The EU does not have any scope for negotiations. We have less pull than ever. And the consequences for the European aviation industry will be dramatic. The other option would be the modification of the ETS law. But then the commission would lose face.
The climate policy of the European Union is now stuck in a dead end. Europe wanted to be the leader – showing the world the way. It wanted to export the "market-economic" instrument of emissions trading as a new standard of regulation. The climate summits in Copenhagen and in Cancun were supposed to herald a successor treaty for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
But both summits yielded zero results. Today it is clear that there is going to be no successor agreement. Also, the option of simply extending the existing Kyoto Protocol was thrown overboard by the main countries at the last G8 summit. The situation in global climate politics can be summarised in short as - there is no policy.
The emerging economies of Asia, especially, are refusing to allow their possibilities for growth to be curbed by obligatory CO2 reductions. Everywhere across the world, climate laws are being buried for good or put on ice. The once ballyhooed instrument of the emissions trading scheme is becoming obsolete. China, India and Australia are waving goodbye. In the US, the Chicago Climate Exchange was closed just after the last mid-term Congressional elections. Just before that, the self-anointed climate pope Al Gore cashed in by selling his shares.
"Climate politics is a dead project" is the buzz-phrase in Washington today. Yet, the EU is still clinging to all the measures and even discussing making them stricter than they already are. As a result, we are now left alone with the political costs of carbon reduction. We are ignoring international reality with an amazing level of tenacity.
As always - we continue to stick to the naive, worn-out argument: "Someone has to start the process." That start is a go-it-alone move. And if we do not wake up to that, then we will ruin our market economy with one-sided massive costs. Regarding industry, this process is happening slowly – almost as a creep. The Emissions Trading Scheme distorts competition to the disadvantage of European companies. As production in Europe becomes more and more costly, sooner or later industry will move to third countries - which do not have such a restrictive and costly climate policy. China and India, for example.
The consequences of the European solo mission become visible with the inclusion of airlines from third countries, into the ETS, in 2012. The row is just beginning to surface now. Since the EU wants to force airlines from third countries to participate, they are constantly taking action against it. Several third countries, such as America and China, went to court to fight this. But it is not just a question of law. A trade war recently started. China just blocked its order of the Airbus A380, in order to display its hostility against the ETS.
There is no way out of the dilemma. With the example of the inclusion of airlines in the ETS, the dimension of this problem becomes obvious. We are completely standing alone regarding the internationally non-enforceable climate measures and the costs are arising. The world is not a carbon market. It will never be one. The inclusion of airlines in ETS either ends in "war in the air", instigated by the EU or it will only be a factual Intra-European Emissions Trading Scheme - with clear disadvantages for European Airlines.
The latter situation is most likely. One of the only ways the European Commission can offer an olive branch is to meekly accept any reforms to the ETS, suggested by the third countries. The EU does not have any scope for negotiations. We have less pull than ever. And the consequences for the European aviation industry will be dramatic. The other option would be the modification of the ETS law. But then the commission would lose face.
Isra-Mart srl: Green Building Council supports price on carbon
www.isra-mart.com
The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) has announced that it backs a price on carbon, provided it is accompanied by complementary measures that support the property and construction industry.
The GBCA today released its paper: ‘Putting a price on pollution: what it means for Australia’s property and construction industry’.
“The GBCA believes an emissions trading scheme or other carbon pricing mechanism may be one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways for Australia to meet its international carbon reduction targets, while at the same time boosting investment in green technologies and stimulating new sectors of the economy, potentially leading to a global competitive advantage,” says the GBCA’s Chief Executive, Romilly Madew.
“To capitalise fully on the potential of the built environment, a carbon price must be complemented with a range of integrated measures that support energy and materials efficiencies within the property and construction industry.
“These complementary measures would include energy efficiency incentives such as tax breaks and white certificates, investment in research, development and commercialisation of low-emissions technologies, and mandatory disclosure. Strong collaboration between government, industry and non-government organisations is also required to overcome the current market failures and skills gaps,” Madew adds.
Putting a price on pollution sets out the rationale and mechanics for pricing carbon and how this will impact upon the property and construction industry. The paper outlines the challenges and opportunities that a carbon price presents for the GBCA’s range of members, including building owners, developers and product manufacturers.
“Now is the time for organisations within the property and construction industry to consider how a price on carbon will affect their operations and how they can take advantage of the new green economy,” Ms Madew concludes.
The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) has announced that it backs a price on carbon, provided it is accompanied by complementary measures that support the property and construction industry.
The GBCA today released its paper: ‘Putting a price on pollution: what it means for Australia’s property and construction industry’.
“The GBCA believes an emissions trading scheme or other carbon pricing mechanism may be one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways for Australia to meet its international carbon reduction targets, while at the same time boosting investment in green technologies and stimulating new sectors of the economy, potentially leading to a global competitive advantage,” says the GBCA’s Chief Executive, Romilly Madew.
“To capitalise fully on the potential of the built environment, a carbon price must be complemented with a range of integrated measures that support energy and materials efficiencies within the property and construction industry.
“These complementary measures would include energy efficiency incentives such as tax breaks and white certificates, investment in research, development and commercialisation of low-emissions technologies, and mandatory disclosure. Strong collaboration between government, industry and non-government organisations is also required to overcome the current market failures and skills gaps,” Madew adds.
Putting a price on pollution sets out the rationale and mechanics for pricing carbon and how this will impact upon the property and construction industry. The paper outlines the challenges and opportunities that a carbon price presents for the GBCA’s range of members, including building owners, developers and product manufacturers.
“Now is the time for organisations within the property and construction industry to consider how a price on carbon will affect their operations and how they can take advantage of the new green economy,” Ms Madew concludes.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: UK carbon floor price could waste £92m a year by 2020
www.isra-mart.com
The government has been urged to rethink plans to impose a carbon floor price on UK firms, after a report today warned that current proposals would create two prices within the EU Emissions Trading System and waste £92m a year by 2020.
The study from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) examines whether a UK-only carbon floor price will reduce emissions and boost green investor confidence, as the government predicts, or instead result in a series of unintended consequences.
Chancellor George Osborne announced in the March 2011 Budget that the carbon floor price will come into effect from 2013 and start at £16 per tonne of CO2 before rising to £30 by 2020. The move is intended to provide low-carbon investors with greater certainty while also delivering a further incentive for investment in energy efficiency through higher energy prices.
However, IPPR today warned the policy would have no direct effect on emissions as any reduction in emissions in the UK would result in increased emissions elsewhere in Europe as British firms sell on their surplus EU emission allowances to their counterparts on the continent.
"The government's policy is like squeezing a balloon, ignoring the fact that it will simply bulge elsewhere," the report concluded.
It warns that a carbon floor price of £30 could cause unintended consequences, including creating £92m a year of economic waste by 2020 as a result of having two separate carbon prices in the UK and the rest of Europe.
"In effect, the government's plan swaps cheap carbon savings in Europe for expensive carbon savings in Britain," said the report.
The study estimates that the additional costs imposed through to 2020 could total £1bn, equivalent to the amount the government saved by abolishing 192 quangos.
IPPR argues that an EU-wide rather than national carbon floor price would be the best answer to the problems diagnosed by the report but, failing that, it recommends the UK should set a low-carbon floor price in order to minimise unintended consequences.
Commenting on the report, shadow energy minister Huw Irranca-Davies, urged the government to redesign the scheme.
"[IPPR] presents fundamental challenges to the scheme that need to be addressed, or it risks becoming an expensive failure," he said.
"This poorly designed scheme rewards existing renewable and nuclear generators and does not guarantee new investment in low-carbon electricity generation, while the UK-unilateral approach puts at risk jobs and competitiveness for possibly no Europe-wide reduction in carbon emissions."
However, a Treasury spokesman defended the carbon floor price plan, insisting it would help drive long term benefits for the UK economy. "Without the carbon price floor, supplying power to our homes and businesses could become increasingly expensive and unreliable," he said. "It will drive between £30bn and £40bn of new investment in low-carbon electricity generation by 2030."
His comments were echoed by a DECC source who acknowledged that while there was a risk emissions could increase in other parts of the EU as a result of the move, the impact on energy security and low carbon technology investment meant there was still a strong case for imposing a carbon floor price in the UK.
The government has been urged to rethink plans to impose a carbon floor price on UK firms, after a report today warned that current proposals would create two prices within the EU Emissions Trading System and waste £92m a year by 2020.
The study from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) examines whether a UK-only carbon floor price will reduce emissions and boost green investor confidence, as the government predicts, or instead result in a series of unintended consequences.
Chancellor George Osborne announced in the March 2011 Budget that the carbon floor price will come into effect from 2013 and start at £16 per tonne of CO2 before rising to £30 by 2020. The move is intended to provide low-carbon investors with greater certainty while also delivering a further incentive for investment in energy efficiency through higher energy prices.
However, IPPR today warned the policy would have no direct effect on emissions as any reduction in emissions in the UK would result in increased emissions elsewhere in Europe as British firms sell on their surplus EU emission allowances to their counterparts on the continent.
"The government's policy is like squeezing a balloon, ignoring the fact that it will simply bulge elsewhere," the report concluded.
It warns that a carbon floor price of £30 could cause unintended consequences, including creating £92m a year of economic waste by 2020 as a result of having two separate carbon prices in the UK and the rest of Europe.
"In effect, the government's plan swaps cheap carbon savings in Europe for expensive carbon savings in Britain," said the report.
The study estimates that the additional costs imposed through to 2020 could total £1bn, equivalent to the amount the government saved by abolishing 192 quangos.
IPPR argues that an EU-wide rather than national carbon floor price would be the best answer to the problems diagnosed by the report but, failing that, it recommends the UK should set a low-carbon floor price in order to minimise unintended consequences.
Commenting on the report, shadow energy minister Huw Irranca-Davies, urged the government to redesign the scheme.
"[IPPR] presents fundamental challenges to the scheme that need to be addressed, or it risks becoming an expensive failure," he said.
"This poorly designed scheme rewards existing renewable and nuclear generators and does not guarantee new investment in low-carbon electricity generation, while the UK-unilateral approach puts at risk jobs and competitiveness for possibly no Europe-wide reduction in carbon emissions."
However, a Treasury spokesman defended the carbon floor price plan, insisting it would help drive long term benefits for the UK economy. "Without the carbon price floor, supplying power to our homes and businesses could become increasingly expensive and unreliable," he said. "It will drive between £30bn and £40bn of new investment in low-carbon electricity generation by 2030."
His comments were echoed by a DECC source who acknowledged that while there was a risk emissions could increase in other parts of the EU as a result of the move, the impact on energy security and low carbon technology investment meant there was still a strong case for imposing a carbon floor price in the UK.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: European carbon prices slump
www.isra-mart.com
Isra-Mart news:
EU leaders were unable to agree a roadmap for the bloc to reduce emissions in the period to 2050, and the uncertainty help drive carbon prices down by nearly a fifth in the week. Earlier falls meant carbon is ending the month priced nearly a third cheaper than the beginning.
Other reasons for the slump were said to include a general lowering in commodity prices, with carbon hit hardest, due to continuing economic pressures. The EU's energy efficiency directive was also seen as a downward pressure on the price of allowances. Meanwhile others said that EU agreements on plans for the 2013-2020 phase of the ETS made it clear additional allowances would become available in future, reducing the pressure on users to secure allowances.
The price slump could have implications for European plans to support a range of carbon capture and storage and renewables demonstration projects. Funds for that suite of projects will be raised by selling 300 million ETS allowances - a funding stream that will be much smaller if the price of carbon remains depressed.
Isra-Mart news:
EU leaders were unable to agree a roadmap for the bloc to reduce emissions in the period to 2050, and the uncertainty help drive carbon prices down by nearly a fifth in the week. Earlier falls meant carbon is ending the month priced nearly a third cheaper than the beginning.
Other reasons for the slump were said to include a general lowering in commodity prices, with carbon hit hardest, due to continuing economic pressures. The EU's energy efficiency directive was also seen as a downward pressure on the price of allowances. Meanwhile others said that EU agreements on plans for the 2013-2020 phase of the ETS made it clear additional allowances would become available in future, reducing the pressure on users to secure allowances.
The price slump could have implications for European plans to support a range of carbon capture and storage and renewables demonstration projects. Funds for that suite of projects will be raised by selling 300 million ETS allowances - a funding stream that will be much smaller if the price of carbon remains depressed.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Isra-Mart S.R.L.: Ucraina incalca in continuare prevederile Conventiei de la Espoo cu privire la Canalul Bastroe
www.isra-mart.com
Reuniunea Parților la Conventia de la Espoo privind evaluarea impactului asupra mediului in context transfrontalier care s-a desfasurat la Geneva, in perioada 20-23 iunie 2011, a reconfirmat faptul ca Ucraina incalca in continuare prevederile Conventiei in ceea ce priveste proiectul Canalului Bastroe si a considerat ca avertismentul adresat Ucrainei, in anul 2008, referitor la acest proiect ramane in continuare in vigoare, se arata intr-un comunicat al Ministerului Afacerilor Externe (MAE).
“Reuniunea Partilor a incurajat, in acelasi timp, Ucraina sa continue demersurile incepute in vederea respectarii Conventiei de la Espoo. In acest context, guvernului ucrainean i s-a cerut sa respecte concluziile Raportului elaborat in 2010 de mai multi experti independenti avand ca obiect masurile pe care trebuie sa le ia Ucraina pentru respectarea Conventiei, inclusiv in ceea ce priveste proiectul Bastroe”, potrivit MAE.
Ca urmare a Deciziei adoptate la cea de-a 5-a Reuniune a Parților, Ucraina are obligatia de a raporta Comitetului de Implementare a Conventiei, la sfarsitul fiecarui an, masurile luate pentru a asigura conformitatea proiectului cu prevederile acestui instrument.
Cu aceasta ocazie, Romania a fost aleasa in calitate de membru al Comitetului de Implementare a Conventiei. Aceasta alegere confirma respectarea de catre Romania a prevederilor Conventiei.
Conventia de la Espoo
Conventia de la Espoo a fost adoptata la 25 februarie 1991 si a intrat in vigoare la 10 septembrie 1997. Romania a devenit parte la Conventie la 29 martie 2001, iar Ucraina la 20 iulie 1999.
Romania a sesizat Comitetul de Implementare a acestei Conventii sustinand ca Ucraina nu isi respecta obligatiile care ii revin in temeiul acestui tratat. Comitetul si, incepand cu anul 2008, Reuniunea Partilor considera ca Ucraina nu respecta prevederile Conventiei de la Espoo.
Reuniunea Partilor este organul de decizie al Conventiei de la Espoo si se intruneste o data la 3 ani. Reuniunea din 2008 a Conventiei a avut loc la Bucuresti, iar cea din 2014 se va desfasura in Ucraina.
Reuniunea Parților la Conventia de la Espoo privind evaluarea impactului asupra mediului in context transfrontalier care s-a desfasurat la Geneva, in perioada 20-23 iunie 2011, a reconfirmat faptul ca Ucraina incalca in continuare prevederile Conventiei in ceea ce priveste proiectul Canalului Bastroe si a considerat ca avertismentul adresat Ucrainei, in anul 2008, referitor la acest proiect ramane in continuare in vigoare, se arata intr-un comunicat al Ministerului Afacerilor Externe (MAE).
“Reuniunea Partilor a incurajat, in acelasi timp, Ucraina sa continue demersurile incepute in vederea respectarii Conventiei de la Espoo. In acest context, guvernului ucrainean i s-a cerut sa respecte concluziile Raportului elaborat in 2010 de mai multi experti independenti avand ca obiect masurile pe care trebuie sa le ia Ucraina pentru respectarea Conventiei, inclusiv in ceea ce priveste proiectul Bastroe”, potrivit MAE.
Ca urmare a Deciziei adoptate la cea de-a 5-a Reuniune a Parților, Ucraina are obligatia de a raporta Comitetului de Implementare a Conventiei, la sfarsitul fiecarui an, masurile luate pentru a asigura conformitatea proiectului cu prevederile acestui instrument.
Cu aceasta ocazie, Romania a fost aleasa in calitate de membru al Comitetului de Implementare a Conventiei. Aceasta alegere confirma respectarea de catre Romania a prevederilor Conventiei.
Conventia de la Espoo
Conventia de la Espoo a fost adoptata la 25 februarie 1991 si a intrat in vigoare la 10 septembrie 1997. Romania a devenit parte la Conventie la 29 martie 2001, iar Ucraina la 20 iulie 1999.
Romania a sesizat Comitetul de Implementare a acestei Conventii sustinand ca Ucraina nu isi respecta obligatiile care ii revin in temeiul acestui tratat. Comitetul si, incepand cu anul 2008, Reuniunea Partilor considera ca Ucraina nu respecta prevederile Conventiei de la Espoo.
Reuniunea Partilor este organul de decizie al Conventiei de la Espoo si se intruneste o data la 3 ani. Reuniunea din 2008 a Conventiei a avut loc la Bucuresti, iar cea din 2014 se va desfasura in Ucraina.
Isra-Mart S.R.L. : Avioanele companiei KLM zboara cu ulei prajit
www.isra-mart.com
Uleiul din tigaie, ramas de la friptura sau de la cartofii prajiti, pare a fi combustibilul viitorului pentru compania aeriana olandeza, KLM, care a anuntat ca, incepand din toamna acestui an, va folosi acest tip de biocarburant pentru efectuarea a 200 de zboruri comerciale intre Amsterdam si Paris.
„Amestecul va fi 50% kerosen si 50% biocarburant, obtinut din uleiul alimentar uzat, care, prelucrat, intruneste toate specificatiile tehnice ale kerosenului traditional. Iar, folosirea acestui tip de biocombustibil nu presupune schimbarea motoarelor sau a infrastructurii”, sustine Gedi Schrijver, purtatorul de cuvant al companiei KLM.
Uleiul provine din restaurante
Produs de societatea Dynamic Fuels, biocarburantul revolutionar ce va fi folosit de KLM, este obtinut din uleiul folosit in restaurante, pentru diverse prajeli, in principal fiind vorba despre uleiul vegetal.
Primul zbor demonstrativ al unui avion KLM, cu ulei prajit, a avut loc in noiembrie 2009.
Uleiul din tigaie, ramas de la friptura sau de la cartofii prajiti, pare a fi combustibilul viitorului pentru compania aeriana olandeza, KLM, care a anuntat ca, incepand din toamna acestui an, va folosi acest tip de biocarburant pentru efectuarea a 200 de zboruri comerciale intre Amsterdam si Paris.
„Amestecul va fi 50% kerosen si 50% biocarburant, obtinut din uleiul alimentar uzat, care, prelucrat, intruneste toate specificatiile tehnice ale kerosenului traditional. Iar, folosirea acestui tip de biocombustibil nu presupune schimbarea motoarelor sau a infrastructurii”, sustine Gedi Schrijver, purtatorul de cuvant al companiei KLM.
Uleiul provine din restaurante
Produs de societatea Dynamic Fuels, biocarburantul revolutionar ce va fi folosit de KLM, este obtinut din uleiul folosit in restaurante, pentru diverse prajeli, in principal fiind vorba despre uleiul vegetal.
Primul zbor demonstrativ al unui avion KLM, cu ulei prajit, a avut loc in noiembrie 2009.
Isra-Mart S.R.L.: Polonia blocheaza pozitia UE in negocierile internationale privind climatul, refuzand orice nou angajament
www.isra-mart.com
Polonia s-a opus marti oricarui nou angajament de reducere a gazelor cu efect de sera, blocand astfel pozitia Uniunii Europene in negocierile internationale asupra climatului, cu cateva zile inainte de a prelua presedintia UE, relateaza AFP.
Premierul polonez Donald Tusk i-a comunicat aceasta pozitie ministrului Mediului Andrzej Kraszewski, in timp ce acesta participa la o reuniune cu omologii sau la Luxemburg.
Polonia refuza orice angajament dincolo de reducerea cu 20% aprobata in 2008 in cadrul planului de actiune al UE.
Majoritatea ministrilor parasisera Luxemburgul cand Tusk si-a comunicat refuzul iar dezamagirea a fost vizibila, au declarat participantii la reuniune, in conditiile in care niciun avans nu va fi posibil in aceste conditii in semestrul presedintiei UE exercitat de Polonia incepand cu 1 iulie.
"Totul este inghetat. Acest refuz semnifica faptul ca nicio actiune nu va putea fi adoptata timp de sase luni", a explicat un diplomat european.
Varsovia urmeaza sa reprezinte Uniunea Europeana la summitul asupra Climatului organizat la finele lui noiembrie - inceputul lui decembrie la Durban, in Africa de Sud.
"Este dezamagitor", a comentat comisarul european insarcinat cu Climatul, Connie Hedegaard. Ea a subliniat si pozitia izolata a Poloniei, notand ca "marea majoritate a statelor UE au acceptat foaia de parcurs" a Comisiei privind reducerea suplimentara a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de sera.
Pozitia guvernului polonez nu este insa o surpriza pentru partenerii sai europeni.
Producatoare de carbuni si dependenta de aceasta energie fosila, foarte poluanta, pentru electricitate, Polonia a acceptat cu foarte multe reticente planul de actiune adoptat in 2008.
O foaie de parcurs cu noi etape si tinte a fost discutata marti la Luxemburg. Ea isi propunea sa ofere coerenta actiunii Uniunii Europene in limitarea incalzirii climatice la 2 grade Celsius in 2050.
Au fost propuse trei etape: o reducere cu 40% in raport cu nivelul din 1990 pana in 2030, cu 60% pana in 2040 si cu 80% pana in 2050.
Potrivit lui Connie Hedegaard, fost ministru danez al Climatului si Energiei, aceste propuneri vor putea fi repuse pe tapet in martie 2012, cand Danemarca va asigura presedintia europeana.
UE s-a angajat pentru 2020 sa scada cu 20% emisiile de gaze cu efect de sera, sa utilizeze in proportie de 20% energii regenerabile si sa realizeze economii de energie de 20%.
UE si-a redus emisiile de gaze cu efect de sera cu circa 16% in 2010 si a crescut cota de energie regenerabila la aproximativ 10%, potrivit datelor Comsiei. Dar a inregistrat intarzieri foarte mari in economisirea de energie, care nu a fost decat de 3%, in conditiile in care statele membre nu sunt supuse la nicio constrangere.
Polonia s-a opus marti oricarui nou angajament de reducere a gazelor cu efect de sera, blocand astfel pozitia Uniunii Europene in negocierile internationale asupra climatului, cu cateva zile inainte de a prelua presedintia UE, relateaza AFP.
Premierul polonez Donald Tusk i-a comunicat aceasta pozitie ministrului Mediului Andrzej Kraszewski, in timp ce acesta participa la o reuniune cu omologii sau la Luxemburg.
Polonia refuza orice angajament dincolo de reducerea cu 20% aprobata in 2008 in cadrul planului de actiune al UE.
Majoritatea ministrilor parasisera Luxemburgul cand Tusk si-a comunicat refuzul iar dezamagirea a fost vizibila, au declarat participantii la reuniune, in conditiile in care niciun avans nu va fi posibil in aceste conditii in semestrul presedintiei UE exercitat de Polonia incepand cu 1 iulie.
"Totul este inghetat. Acest refuz semnifica faptul ca nicio actiune nu va putea fi adoptata timp de sase luni", a explicat un diplomat european.
Varsovia urmeaza sa reprezinte Uniunea Europeana la summitul asupra Climatului organizat la finele lui noiembrie - inceputul lui decembrie la Durban, in Africa de Sud.
"Este dezamagitor", a comentat comisarul european insarcinat cu Climatul, Connie Hedegaard. Ea a subliniat si pozitia izolata a Poloniei, notand ca "marea majoritate a statelor UE au acceptat foaia de parcurs" a Comisiei privind reducerea suplimentara a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de sera.
Pozitia guvernului polonez nu este insa o surpriza pentru partenerii sai europeni.
Producatoare de carbuni si dependenta de aceasta energie fosila, foarte poluanta, pentru electricitate, Polonia a acceptat cu foarte multe reticente planul de actiune adoptat in 2008.
O foaie de parcurs cu noi etape si tinte a fost discutata marti la Luxemburg. Ea isi propunea sa ofere coerenta actiunii Uniunii Europene in limitarea incalzirii climatice la 2 grade Celsius in 2050.
Au fost propuse trei etape: o reducere cu 40% in raport cu nivelul din 1990 pana in 2030, cu 60% pana in 2040 si cu 80% pana in 2050.
Potrivit lui Connie Hedegaard, fost ministru danez al Climatului si Energiei, aceste propuneri vor putea fi repuse pe tapet in martie 2012, cand Danemarca va asigura presedintia europeana.
UE s-a angajat pentru 2020 sa scada cu 20% emisiile de gaze cu efect de sera, sa utilizeze in proportie de 20% energii regenerabile si sa realizeze economii de energie de 20%.
UE si-a redus emisiile de gaze cu efect de sera cu circa 16% in 2010 si a crescut cota de energie regenerabila la aproximativ 10%, potrivit datelor Comsiei. Dar a inregistrat intarzieri foarte mari in economisirea de energie, care nu a fost decat de 3%, in conditiile in care statele membre nu sunt supuse la nicio constrangere.
Isra-Mart S.R.L.: U.S. seeks exemption to E.U. aviation carbon dioxide plan
www.isra-mart.com
The United States demanded on Wednesday that the European Union exempt United States airlines from an European Union law widening carbon permits to aviation, hardening a standoff over a scheme due to start in 2012.
After talks in Oslo, the European Union insisted it would not back down on its unilateral plan to penalize greenhouse gas emissions from planes taking off and landing in the European Union as part of efforts to slow climate change.
"We clearly stated our strong objections to the European Union plans on both legal and policy grounds," a United States administration official told a telephone news conference after talks between European Union and United States negotiators.
In the strongest public criticism of the European Union carbon scheme to date by President Barack Obama's administration, Washington said United States airlines should be exempt from greenhouse gas penalties.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity like all other delegates, said the European Union was using "the wrong way to pursue the right objective" of slowing global warming that is predicted to cause more droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
The European Commission said there were no plans to back down, echoing statements by President Jose Manuel Barroso earlier this month.
"The Commission is ready to consult at any time, but there should be no illusion – the E.U. does not intend to withdraw or amend the ... directive. It is established European Union law," a European Union official at the meeting told Reuters.
Courts
Several United States airlines are challenging the European Union measure in European courts. Washington said its demands in Oslo focused on an exemption, not to try to get the European Union to scrap the scheme.
"The demand we made is that the E.U. Emissions Trading Scheme should not apply to U.S. carriers. We did not talk about how that might be done," another United States official said.
Washington has no plans to match the European Union move from January 1, 2012, when the European Union will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the E.T.S., a system that forces polluters to buy permits for each metric ton of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.
China has also strongly opposed the European Union plan, saying it will cost Chinese airlines 800 million yuan ($123 million) in the first year and more than triple that by 2020.
United States officials declined to speculate about what might happen on January 1, 2012, if the deadlock is unresolved. The European Union has said it will impose fines for non-compliance.
The European Union is aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, or by 30 percent if other nations also set tough goals in stalled United Nation negotiations on a United Nation treaty to slow global warming.
Mr. Obama wants strong United States action to slow climate change but has been unable to persuade the United State Senate to pass a law to cut United States emissions by 3-4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
The officials said Washington was working to cut emissions from aviation, including with a Next Generation Air Transportation System.
Annie Petsonk, of the United States Environmental Defense Fund, said the Obama administration had a choice.
"It can stand in the way of the only program in the world that sets enforceable limits on carbon pollution from aviation, or it can begin to craft a program that taps the ingenuity of this dynamic sector to cut pollution, lower costs and reduce America's dependence on imported oil," she said.
The United States demanded on Wednesday that the European Union exempt United States airlines from an European Union law widening carbon permits to aviation, hardening a standoff over a scheme due to start in 2012.
After talks in Oslo, the European Union insisted it would not back down on its unilateral plan to penalize greenhouse gas emissions from planes taking off and landing in the European Union as part of efforts to slow climate change.
"We clearly stated our strong objections to the European Union plans on both legal and policy grounds," a United States administration official told a telephone news conference after talks between European Union and United States negotiators.
In the strongest public criticism of the European Union carbon scheme to date by President Barack Obama's administration, Washington said United States airlines should be exempt from greenhouse gas penalties.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity like all other delegates, said the European Union was using "the wrong way to pursue the right objective" of slowing global warming that is predicted to cause more droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
The European Commission said there were no plans to back down, echoing statements by President Jose Manuel Barroso earlier this month.
"The Commission is ready to consult at any time, but there should be no illusion – the E.U. does not intend to withdraw or amend the ... directive. It is established European Union law," a European Union official at the meeting told Reuters.
Courts
Several United States airlines are challenging the European Union measure in European courts. Washington said its demands in Oslo focused on an exemption, not to try to get the European Union to scrap the scheme.
"The demand we made is that the E.U. Emissions Trading Scheme should not apply to U.S. carriers. We did not talk about how that might be done," another United States official said.
Washington has no plans to match the European Union move from January 1, 2012, when the European Union will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the E.T.S., a system that forces polluters to buy permits for each metric ton of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.
China has also strongly opposed the European Union plan, saying it will cost Chinese airlines 800 million yuan ($123 million) in the first year and more than triple that by 2020.
United States officials declined to speculate about what might happen on January 1, 2012, if the deadlock is unresolved. The European Union has said it will impose fines for non-compliance.
The European Union is aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, or by 30 percent if other nations also set tough goals in stalled United Nation negotiations on a United Nation treaty to slow global warming.
Mr. Obama wants strong United States action to slow climate change but has been unable to persuade the United State Senate to pass a law to cut United States emissions by 3-4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
The officials said Washington was working to cut emissions from aviation, including with a Next Generation Air Transportation System.
Annie Petsonk, of the United States Environmental Defense Fund, said the Obama administration had a choice.
"It can stand in the way of the only program in the world that sets enforceable limits on carbon pollution from aviation, or it can begin to craft a program that taps the ingenuity of this dynamic sector to cut pollution, lower costs and reduce America's dependence on imported oil," she said.
Isra-Mart S.R.L.: Polluters winners from carbon scheme
www.isra-mart.com
Additional causes for the latest sell-off included eurozone woes over Greece, and an EU efficiency directive announced this week which could send carbon emissions lower.
The EU's emissions trading scheme has endured a slew of damaging scandals from its launch in 2005, including VAT fraud, the re-sale of used credits, phishing scams and cyber-theft.
Most importantly, the scheme which is supposed to cap the carbon emissions of about 11,000 factories and power plants has seen a permanent surplus of permits called EU allowances (EUAs) since its launch in 2005.
That glut, partly a result of a financial crisis which cut economic output and pollution, is just about to get worse thanks to a European Commission plan to sell an extra 300 million permits on the market to raise funds for green energy projects.
Carbon prices have been sent a quarter lower in the past three weeks, largely because of the plan, traders say.
That drop in carbon costs has sent the profit margins of polluting British coal plants up more than a tenth.
"Certainly this should push more coal plants into merit," said Barclays Capital carbon analyst Trevor Sikorski.
The more profitable a coal-fired power plant, the higher it rises in a merit order for example compared with gas.
Meanwhile the carbon price drop has cut the value of the clean energy fund, if the EUAs were auctioned on Thursday, to 4 billion euros from 5.4 billion euros on May 31.
Polluters have already benefited from the emissions trading scheme to the tune of tens of billions of euros since 2005, from a combination of selling surplus EUAs that they did not need and passing on to consumers the cost of permits which they got for free.
Ten individual polluting companies in 2010 accumulated a combined EUA surplus worth over 4 billion euros, the Sandbag green lobby group said on Monday.
GLUT
Continuing low prices could further undermine the usefulness of the EU's flagship climate change scheme in curbing emissions.
The carbon fund is meant to raise money from selling 300 million extra EUAs before the end of 2012, especially to help fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects which trap carbon emissions from power plants and bury these underground.
EUA prices dropped over 10 percent on Thursday, to their lowest since April 2010, as jitters over the extra glut hit the start of a seasonal summer slump in buying, driving record volumes in a sell-off on the main CO2 exchange.
Other reasons for the sell-off included the macroeconomic outlook, specifically the prospect of a Greek default, and concern that a proposed EU efficiency directive may drive EUA demand lower.
The directive failed to confirm explicitly a previous option that the European Commission could remove surplus EUAs if efficiency targets drove carbon prices lower.
"If you look at all those factors, there are few reasons to go and buy CO2," said Andrew Ager, head of emissions at Bache Commodities. Traders are no longer betting on any real recovery in prices until 2014 at the earliest, when over-supply eases.
The profit margin from UK power sales for the next quarter has risen to 8.15 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) at midday on Thursday, from about 7.30 pounds on June 1, illustrating how the cost of buying EUAs has plunged while power prices have held up, especially benefiting coal.
Additional causes for the latest sell-off included eurozone woes over Greece, and an EU efficiency directive announced this week which could send carbon emissions lower.
The EU's emissions trading scheme has endured a slew of damaging scandals from its launch in 2005, including VAT fraud, the re-sale of used credits, phishing scams and cyber-theft.
Most importantly, the scheme which is supposed to cap the carbon emissions of about 11,000 factories and power plants has seen a permanent surplus of permits called EU allowances (EUAs) since its launch in 2005.
That glut, partly a result of a financial crisis which cut economic output and pollution, is just about to get worse thanks to a European Commission plan to sell an extra 300 million permits on the market to raise funds for green energy projects.
Carbon prices have been sent a quarter lower in the past three weeks, largely because of the plan, traders say.
That drop in carbon costs has sent the profit margins of polluting British coal plants up more than a tenth.
"Certainly this should push more coal plants into merit," said Barclays Capital carbon analyst Trevor Sikorski.
The more profitable a coal-fired power plant, the higher it rises in a merit order for example compared with gas.
Meanwhile the carbon price drop has cut the value of the clean energy fund, if the EUAs were auctioned on Thursday, to 4 billion euros from 5.4 billion euros on May 31.
Polluters have already benefited from the emissions trading scheme to the tune of tens of billions of euros since 2005, from a combination of selling surplus EUAs that they did not need and passing on to consumers the cost of permits which they got for free.
Ten individual polluting companies in 2010 accumulated a combined EUA surplus worth over 4 billion euros, the Sandbag green lobby group said on Monday.
GLUT
Continuing low prices could further undermine the usefulness of the EU's flagship climate change scheme in curbing emissions.
The carbon fund is meant to raise money from selling 300 million extra EUAs before the end of 2012, especially to help fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects which trap carbon emissions from power plants and bury these underground.
EUA prices dropped over 10 percent on Thursday, to their lowest since April 2010, as jitters over the extra glut hit the start of a seasonal summer slump in buying, driving record volumes in a sell-off on the main CO2 exchange.
Other reasons for the sell-off included the macroeconomic outlook, specifically the prospect of a Greek default, and concern that a proposed EU efficiency directive may drive EUA demand lower.
The directive failed to confirm explicitly a previous option that the European Commission could remove surplus EUAs if efficiency targets drove carbon prices lower.
"If you look at all those factors, there are few reasons to go and buy CO2," said Andrew Ager, head of emissions at Bache Commodities. Traders are no longer betting on any real recovery in prices until 2014 at the earliest, when over-supply eases.
The profit margin from UK power sales for the next quarter has risen to 8.15 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) at midday on Thursday, from about 7.30 pounds on June 1, illustrating how the cost of buying EUAs has plunged while power prices have held up, especially benefiting coal.
Isra-Mart S.R.L.: Gillard won't apologise for new path on carbon
www.isra-mart.com
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she did not mean to mislead Australian voters when she pledged not to introduce a carbon tax during last year's election campaign.
But, speaking to AM on the first anniversary of the coup which unseated Kevin Rudd, Ms Gillard refused to apologise, saying the path to an emissions trading scheme had taken an unexpected turn.
Asked by interviewer Sabra Lane "Why not just say sorry?", the PM replied: "When I said those words during the election campaign I did not mean to mislead anybody."
"I understand that people heard those words and they look at what's happening now and they perhaps look at me and say, 'What's going on, what did she mean then, what does she mean now'?
"I've explained to the Australian people that I never meant to mislead anybody during the last election campaign about carbon pricing."
The Government wanted to go straight to a market-based cap and trade system, but it had to compromise when the Greens won a vital Lower House seat and took the balance of power in the Senate.
The Greens insisted on an initial carbon tax for at least three years before a transition to the full emissions trading scheme.
Ms Gillard has always been reluctant to acknowledge the part the minor party played in negotiations.
And this morning she skirted around the subject again.
"We're going to get there through a path I didn't expect during the election campaign of a fixed price period for around three to five years. So yes, the route to the objective is different," she said.
Saying she would not comment on recent disastrous opinion polls that show her standing as Prime Minister, and that of the Government, is lower than when she wrested the leadership from Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard blamed Opposition Leader Tony Abbott for stirring up community disquiet.
"The Opposition each and every day invites Australians to believe they're no longer up to big reforms," she said.
"I understand [the carbon price is] causing anxiety but to become the country we want to be in the future, with the environment we want and the strong economy we want, we've got to get on with the job and price carbon."
And she said she was determined to push on with the reform no matter what the cost.
"Anybody who thinks that I'm going to fold because it's a bit tough out there has got me wrong, absolutely wrong."
Ms Gillard says opinion in the community will change when people realise how they will be compensated for the higher costs a carbon tax will impose.
"People will be able to sit at their kitchen table and work out how much assistance they're going to get and when they've worked that through they'll see a dollar figure of assistance provided by me and a dollar figure of assistance that Tony Abbott is committed to taking away."
She says it will take "months and months and months" to explain to people the details of the climate change agreement when, and if, agreement is reached in the multi-party climate change committee.
"I judge myself and the progress of the Government I lead by the difference we are making in the lives of Australians today and for the future. That does require for us to engage in and explain the big reforms in a context where the Opposition each and every day invites Australians to believe they're no longer up to big reforms."
Mr Rudd has not been giving interviews today.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she did not mean to mislead Australian voters when she pledged not to introduce a carbon tax during last year's election campaign.
But, speaking to AM on the first anniversary of the coup which unseated Kevin Rudd, Ms Gillard refused to apologise, saying the path to an emissions trading scheme had taken an unexpected turn.
Asked by interviewer Sabra Lane "Why not just say sorry?", the PM replied: "When I said those words during the election campaign I did not mean to mislead anybody."
"I understand that people heard those words and they look at what's happening now and they perhaps look at me and say, 'What's going on, what did she mean then, what does she mean now'?
"I've explained to the Australian people that I never meant to mislead anybody during the last election campaign about carbon pricing."
The Government wanted to go straight to a market-based cap and trade system, but it had to compromise when the Greens won a vital Lower House seat and took the balance of power in the Senate.
The Greens insisted on an initial carbon tax for at least three years before a transition to the full emissions trading scheme.
Ms Gillard has always been reluctant to acknowledge the part the minor party played in negotiations.
And this morning she skirted around the subject again.
"We're going to get there through a path I didn't expect during the election campaign of a fixed price period for around three to five years. So yes, the route to the objective is different," she said.
Saying she would not comment on recent disastrous opinion polls that show her standing as Prime Minister, and that of the Government, is lower than when she wrested the leadership from Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard blamed Opposition Leader Tony Abbott for stirring up community disquiet.
"The Opposition each and every day invites Australians to believe they're no longer up to big reforms," she said.
"I understand [the carbon price is] causing anxiety but to become the country we want to be in the future, with the environment we want and the strong economy we want, we've got to get on with the job and price carbon."
And she said she was determined to push on with the reform no matter what the cost.
"Anybody who thinks that I'm going to fold because it's a bit tough out there has got me wrong, absolutely wrong."
Ms Gillard says opinion in the community will change when people realise how they will be compensated for the higher costs a carbon tax will impose.
"People will be able to sit at their kitchen table and work out how much assistance they're going to get and when they've worked that through they'll see a dollar figure of assistance provided by me and a dollar figure of assistance that Tony Abbott is committed to taking away."
She says it will take "months and months and months" to explain to people the details of the climate change agreement when, and if, agreement is reached in the multi-party climate change committee.
"I judge myself and the progress of the Government I lead by the difference we are making in the lives of Australians today and for the future. That does require for us to engage in and explain the big reforms in a context where the Opposition each and every day invites Australians to believe they're no longer up to big reforms."
Mr Rudd has not been giving interviews today.
Isra-Mart S.R.L.: China will strive to meet emission reduction target
www.isra-mart.com
A Chinese official said Thursday that the country will strive to fulfill its emission reduction targets for 2020.
"China will make unswerving efforts to realize its emission reduction target, no matter how international climate change negotiations develop," said Sun Cuihua, vice director of the climate change department of the National Development and Reform Commission.
China has pledged to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 percent by the end of 2020.
According to Sun, the country will use an array of tactics to meet the target, including pushing forward emission trading systems, using market mechanisms to cut carbon emissions and promoting international cooperation in combating climate change.
Sun made the remarks during an international conference currently being held in Beijing.
The conference is focused on addressing climate change and developing low-carbon economies.
Sun said the Chinese government will fortify its policy of addressing climate change through legislation.
"The country is now conducting comprehensive research on legislation concerning climate change," she said.
She also noted that China will gradually expand its emission trading programs and set up a nationwide trading platform.
China now has nine emission trading bourses in several major cities, including Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin.
A Chinese official said Thursday that the country will strive to fulfill its emission reduction targets for 2020.
"China will make unswerving efforts to realize its emission reduction target, no matter how international climate change negotiations develop," said Sun Cuihua, vice director of the climate change department of the National Development and Reform Commission.
China has pledged to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 percent by the end of 2020.
According to Sun, the country will use an array of tactics to meet the target, including pushing forward emission trading systems, using market mechanisms to cut carbon emissions and promoting international cooperation in combating climate change.
Sun made the remarks during an international conference currently being held in Beijing.
The conference is focused on addressing climate change and developing low-carbon economies.
Sun said the Chinese government will fortify its policy of addressing climate change through legislation.
"The country is now conducting comprehensive research on legislation concerning climate change," she said.
She also noted that China will gradually expand its emission trading programs and set up a nationwide trading platform.
China now has nine emission trading bourses in several major cities, including Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin.
Isra-Mart srl: Russian alumina giant warns on carbon tax in Australia
www.isra-mart.com
THE Australian arm of Russia's Rusal, controlled by billionaire Mr Oleg Deripaska has warned Canberra that the proposed carbon tax could jeopardize future investments including in the huge Queensland Alumina refinery near Gladstone on the central Queensland coast.
In a recent submission on the government's proposed carbon tax and transition arrangements to an emissions trading scheme, Rusal warned that the proposed policy poses a threat to the continuing financial viability of QAL and to further expansions of the facility.
The QAL JV of Rio Tinto and Rusal is expected to warn its 1500 employees and contractors about the consequences for the refinery under the proposed tax. The Rusal board is also set to debate at a meeting in Hong Kong tomorrow whether the refinery has a long term future. At QAL there are growing concerns that the new tax will render the refinery globally uncompetitive and see the refinery's owners pursue investments elsewhere.
Rusal which owns 20% stake in QAL believes the proposed framework for the carbon tax will see the QAL penalized disproportionately to its peers. With Rusal weighing up some of its other major investments elsewhere in the world, the aluminium giant is expected to discuss whether QAL warrants further investment.
Rusal, which is listed in Hong Kong believes the mooted structure of the tax would see Queensland Alumina's emissions taxed at 9.6 times the rate of other Australian refineries. It is understood that this impost could put planned long-term investments in the project in doubt.
QAL which is 80% owned and operated by Rio was built in the 1960s. According to the JVs website, the operation contributes about USD 200 million a year to the local economy. The refinery, which ranks as one of the biggest in the world and which would cost an estimated USD 5 billion to USD 6 billion to replicate, is capable of producing 4 million tonnes of alumina a year. It is understood that, under the right conditions, the refinery is capable of being expanded to a 5 million tonnes a year capacity.
Rusal's Australian representatives are believed to have failed to secure a meeting with Environment Minister Mr Greg Combet to discuss their concerns. The company's concerns lie with the structure of the compensation rate proposed under the policy. The model proposed offers compensation based on average alumina refineries. Because compensation will apply a single rate per tonne of alumina based on average industry emissions, the model will not take into account the higher emission rate of alumina out of QAL.
Under the fixed compensation rate model, QAL would end up being compensated for about 65% of its emissions, compared to 94.5% compensation levels for its Australian rivals. Rusal wants to see QAL offered the same 94.5% compensation rate.
QAL said that it should be noted that in compensating QAL at 94.5% of its baseline, QAL will still pay more carbon tax than the Australian industry average and will thus have a greater financial incentive to reduce emissions in line with the policy aims of the government.
THE Australian arm of Russia's Rusal, controlled by billionaire Mr Oleg Deripaska has warned Canberra that the proposed carbon tax could jeopardize future investments including in the huge Queensland Alumina refinery near Gladstone on the central Queensland coast.
In a recent submission on the government's proposed carbon tax and transition arrangements to an emissions trading scheme, Rusal warned that the proposed policy poses a threat to the continuing financial viability of QAL and to further expansions of the facility.
The QAL JV of Rio Tinto and Rusal is expected to warn its 1500 employees and contractors about the consequences for the refinery under the proposed tax. The Rusal board is also set to debate at a meeting in Hong Kong tomorrow whether the refinery has a long term future. At QAL there are growing concerns that the new tax will render the refinery globally uncompetitive and see the refinery's owners pursue investments elsewhere.
Rusal which owns 20% stake in QAL believes the proposed framework for the carbon tax will see the QAL penalized disproportionately to its peers. With Rusal weighing up some of its other major investments elsewhere in the world, the aluminium giant is expected to discuss whether QAL warrants further investment.
Rusal, which is listed in Hong Kong believes the mooted structure of the tax would see Queensland Alumina's emissions taxed at 9.6 times the rate of other Australian refineries. It is understood that this impost could put planned long-term investments in the project in doubt.
QAL which is 80% owned and operated by Rio was built in the 1960s. According to the JVs website, the operation contributes about USD 200 million a year to the local economy. The refinery, which ranks as one of the biggest in the world and which would cost an estimated USD 5 billion to USD 6 billion to replicate, is capable of producing 4 million tonnes of alumina a year. It is understood that, under the right conditions, the refinery is capable of being expanded to a 5 million tonnes a year capacity.
Rusal's Australian representatives are believed to have failed to secure a meeting with Environment Minister Mr Greg Combet to discuss their concerns. The company's concerns lie with the structure of the compensation rate proposed under the policy. The model proposed offers compensation based on average alumina refineries. Because compensation will apply a single rate per tonne of alumina based on average industry emissions, the model will not take into account the higher emission rate of alumina out of QAL.
Under the fixed compensation rate model, QAL would end up being compensated for about 65% of its emissions, compared to 94.5% compensation levels for its Australian rivals. Rusal wants to see QAL offered the same 94.5% compensation rate.
QAL said that it should be noted that in compensating QAL at 94.5% of its baseline, QAL will still pay more carbon tax than the Australian industry average and will thus have a greater financial incentive to reduce emissions in line with the policy aims of the government.
Isra-Mart srl: China holds up Airbus order on EU CO2 row - report
www.isra-mart.com
China is holding up a multi-billion euro aircraft order, placed with Airbus by Hong Kong Airlines, in protest at European Union plans to extend carbon dioxide emissions trading to air traffic, a German newspaper reported.
Handelsblatt said on Friday the order was initially slated to be signed on Tuesday during German-Chinese top-level government consultations in Berlin, citing industry sources.
Airbus parent EADS and Hong Kong Airlines declined to comment on the matter.
An industry source had told Reuters on Thursday that Hong Kong Airlines, which said last week it would announce orders at the Paris Air Show, placed a firm order for 10 Airbus A380 superjumbos worth $3.8 billion at list prices.
The European planemaker confirmed the deal but did not disclose who the customer was.
From January 2012, the EU will require airlines flying to Europe to be included in the emissions trading scheme (ETS), a system that forces polluters to buy permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.
Airlines from around the world have attacked the EU over the plan, with some warning of the danger of a trade war and airlines from poorer nations saying they would pay a high price.
Chinese airlines in May joined U.S. rivals in voicing strong opposition to their inclusion in the EU's carbon emissions market from 2012.
Beijing's aviation authority said the EU move will cost Chinese airlines 800 million yuan ($124 million) in the first year and more than triple that by 2020. (Reporting by Ludwig Burger; Additional reporting by Maria Sheahan and Alison Leung; Editing by Dan Lalor) ($1 = 6.467 yuan)
China is holding up a multi-billion euro aircraft order, placed with Airbus by Hong Kong Airlines, in protest at European Union plans to extend carbon dioxide emissions trading to air traffic, a German newspaper reported.
Handelsblatt said on Friday the order was initially slated to be signed on Tuesday during German-Chinese top-level government consultations in Berlin, citing industry sources.
Airbus parent EADS and Hong Kong Airlines declined to comment on the matter.
An industry source had told Reuters on Thursday that Hong Kong Airlines, which said last week it would announce orders at the Paris Air Show, placed a firm order for 10 Airbus A380 superjumbos worth $3.8 billion at list prices.
The European planemaker confirmed the deal but did not disclose who the customer was.
From January 2012, the EU will require airlines flying to Europe to be included in the emissions trading scheme (ETS), a system that forces polluters to buy permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.
Airlines from around the world have attacked the EU over the plan, with some warning of the danger of a trade war and airlines from poorer nations saying they would pay a high price.
Chinese airlines in May joined U.S. rivals in voicing strong opposition to their inclusion in the EU's carbon emissions market from 2012.
Beijing's aviation authority said the EU move will cost Chinese airlines 800 million yuan ($124 million) in the first year and more than triple that by 2020. (Reporting by Ludwig Burger; Additional reporting by Maria Sheahan and Alison Leung; Editing by Dan Lalor) ($1 = 6.467 yuan)
Isra-Mart S.R.L. :EU states agree new security measures to tackle ETS fraud
www.isra-mart.com
The new security measures include a 26-trading-hour delay before transactions can go through (except for transactions between “trusted accounts”), stricter permit ownership rules and “out-of-band” confirmation of transfers, which will require a second secure channel, such as a telephone call, to confirm a sale.
The International Emissions Trading Association welcomed the move, but was scathing about the European Commission’s decision to remove serial numbers from allowances, despite warnings that this could hamper due diligence on the provenance of carbon credits.
Previous money laundering was only discovered after individual traders spotted the same serial numbers repeatedly crossing their desks.
The new security measures include a 26-trading-hour delay before transactions can go through (except for transactions between “trusted accounts”), stricter permit ownership rules and “out-of-band” confirmation of transfers, which will require a second secure channel, such as a telephone call, to confirm a sale.
The International Emissions Trading Association welcomed the move, but was scathing about the European Commission’s decision to remove serial numbers from allowances, despite warnings that this could hamper due diligence on the provenance of carbon credits.
Previous money laundering was only discovered after individual traders spotted the same serial numbers repeatedly crossing their desks.
Isra-Mart S.R.L. : Pressure mounts on Europe over ETS move
www.isra-mart.com
Opposition is ratcheting up over Europe's unilateral imposition of its emissions trading scheme to cover international airlines from next year, as the spectre of retaliatory action moves closer to the surface.
The European move is already subject to a legal challenge from US airline body the Air Transport Association, to be heard in the European courts in July, while China is the latest dissenting voice from around the world.
"If there is to be a single one, it should be done by ICAO," says ATA president Nicholas Calio. "It's ill-thought out and its practical implications are very costly in terms of growth and jobs."
IATA is promoting an ICAO-led approach and outgoing director general Giovanni Bisignani was particularly critical of Europe's decision to press ahead, describing it as "a $1.5 billion cash grab that would do nothing to reduce emissions" and adding Europe to IATA's wall of shame.
International Airlines Group chairman Antonio Vazquez says it will disrupt competitiveness. "If you need to make a connection and avoid Europe, you would do it. The [traffic] impact would be significant."
Emirates Airline president Tim Clarkfears a "patchwork quilt of complexity" could result if other regions take their action. "What it will spawn is the equivalent of ETS in Australasia, Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world." He foresees that in the next six months there will be "a lot of activity on the political level" against what adds another level of complexity to an already "highly complex industry".
Noting countries such as China have said they are not prepared to accept solutions being imposed on it, Association of European Airlines secretary general Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus says this sends a "strong message that needs to be taken seriously" by European regulators. He adds: "This is probably going to help lawyers more than environment."
Opposition is ratcheting up over Europe's unilateral imposition of its emissions trading scheme to cover international airlines from next year, as the spectre of retaliatory action moves closer to the surface.
The European move is already subject to a legal challenge from US airline body the Air Transport Association, to be heard in the European courts in July, while China is the latest dissenting voice from around the world.
"If there is to be a single one, it should be done by ICAO," says ATA president Nicholas Calio. "It's ill-thought out and its practical implications are very costly in terms of growth and jobs."
IATA is promoting an ICAO-led approach and outgoing director general Giovanni Bisignani was particularly critical of Europe's decision to press ahead, describing it as "a $1.5 billion cash grab that would do nothing to reduce emissions" and adding Europe to IATA's wall of shame.
International Airlines Group chairman Antonio Vazquez says it will disrupt competitiveness. "If you need to make a connection and avoid Europe, you would do it. The [traffic] impact would be significant."
Emirates Airline president Tim Clarkfears a "patchwork quilt of complexity" could result if other regions take their action. "What it will spawn is the equivalent of ETS in Australasia, Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world." He foresees that in the next six months there will be "a lot of activity on the political level" against what adds another level of complexity to an already "highly complex industry".
Noting countries such as China have said they are not prepared to accept solutions being imposed on it, Association of European Airlines secretary general Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus says this sends a "strong message that needs to be taken seriously" by European regulators. He adds: "This is probably going to help lawyers more than environment."
Isra-Mart srl: China blocks billion-dollar Airbus order
www.isra-mart.com
China has blocked a multi-billion dollar order for 10 Airbus superjumbo aircraft in a sharp escalation of Beijing’s protests against Europe’s plan to bring international airlines into its emissions trading scheme from the start of next year.
A Hong Kong Airlines order for the planes worth $3.8bn at list prices was due to be formally announced at the Paris air show earlier this week, according to industry executives familiar with the deal.
But Airbus, a division of the European aerospace group, EADS, learned over the weekend that the agreement was being blocked by Beijing and the announcement did not go ahead, the sources said.
“These are not the only orders taken hostage by the Chinese. The A380s are the first,” said one executive, adding there were other Airbus deals with Chinese carriers in the pipeline.
China and the United States have expressed opposition to the European Union’s move to make all airlines flying into Europe pay for their pollution, the most ambitious step yet by Brussels to make the rest of the world comply with its climate change rules.
But China’s action is the most dramatic sign of retaliation against the measure. It is not expected to have any immediate effect on Airbus’s production rates. The manufacturer won 730 orders and commitments from airlines around the world at the Paris air show.
But it may embolden other countries to consider action against the European trading scheme. Airbus declined to comment.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, wrote a joint letter with European airlines recently to the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, to warn that it was “madness to risk retaliation” from such influential players as China over the issue.
Ms Hedegaard and José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, have both made it clear Brussels has no intention of caving in to such threats.
To do so would set a worrying precedent, said Ms Hedegaard, because “it is up to the Europeans to decide European legislation”.
Until now, large polluters based in Europe such as power companies and cement factories have been covered by the emissions trading scheme the EU launched in 2005.
The scheme forces companies to pay for permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain level or cap.
It was agreed several years ago, after much debate, that airlines would be brought into the scheme from January 2012.
A lawsuit brought by US airlines that challenges the legality of the scheme is to be heard in the European Court of Justice on July 5.
The US administration formally expressed its concern to EU officials at an aviation meeting in Oslo earlier this week, but there was no talk of retaliation and any further move by the US is not expected until the outcome of the airlines’ court case is known.
A judgement is not expected for some months.
China has blocked a multi-billion dollar order for 10 Airbus superjumbo aircraft in a sharp escalation of Beijing’s protests against Europe’s plan to bring international airlines into its emissions trading scheme from the start of next year.
A Hong Kong Airlines order for the planes worth $3.8bn at list prices was due to be formally announced at the Paris air show earlier this week, according to industry executives familiar with the deal.
But Airbus, a division of the European aerospace group, EADS, learned over the weekend that the agreement was being blocked by Beijing and the announcement did not go ahead, the sources said.
“These are not the only orders taken hostage by the Chinese. The A380s are the first,” said one executive, adding there were other Airbus deals with Chinese carriers in the pipeline.
China and the United States have expressed opposition to the European Union’s move to make all airlines flying into Europe pay for their pollution, the most ambitious step yet by Brussels to make the rest of the world comply with its climate change rules.
But China’s action is the most dramatic sign of retaliation against the measure. It is not expected to have any immediate effect on Airbus’s production rates. The manufacturer won 730 orders and commitments from airlines around the world at the Paris air show.
But it may embolden other countries to consider action against the European trading scheme. Airbus declined to comment.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, wrote a joint letter with European airlines recently to the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, to warn that it was “madness to risk retaliation” from such influential players as China over the issue.
Ms Hedegaard and José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, have both made it clear Brussels has no intention of caving in to such threats.
To do so would set a worrying precedent, said Ms Hedegaard, because “it is up to the Europeans to decide European legislation”.
Until now, large polluters based in Europe such as power companies and cement factories have been covered by the emissions trading scheme the EU launched in 2005.
The scheme forces companies to pay for permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain level or cap.
It was agreed several years ago, after much debate, that airlines would be brought into the scheme from January 2012.
A lawsuit brought by US airlines that challenges the legality of the scheme is to be heard in the European Court of Justice on July 5.
The US administration formally expressed its concern to EU officials at an aviation meeting in Oslo earlier this week, but there was no talk of retaliation and any further move by the US is not expected until the outcome of the airlines’ court case is known.
A judgement is not expected for some months.
Isra-Mart srl: Going green at the Paris Air Show
www.isra-mart.com
The Paris Air Show is very much geared towards the defence industry, as my video round-up (see below) of the news and technical advances that caught my eye this week shows. Indeed, some of the leading business jet manufacturers would not be at the show at all if it were not for their military or special missions aircraft – the latter include law enforcement, border patrol and surveillance.
The other main theme of the show was green technology. Although aviation as a whole accounts for a tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions – less than 3 per cent, trailing far behind power generation and shipping, among others – its share is growing, and it is a highly visible and easily identifiable target.
The EU emissions trading scheme, for example, while seen in many other parts of the world as hugely unfair, is very dear to the heart of rulemakers in Brussels, who are adamant that they will not be deflected from their green – and taxation – goals.
General aviation has warmed to the theme of ecological sustainability, with a Gulfstream G450, similar to the one I have tested, becoming the first business jet to cross the Atlantic using biofuels. The aircraft, operated by Honeywell, flew from North America to Europe with one of its Rolls-Royce Tay engines running on a half-and-half blend of petroleum-based jet fuel and Honeywell Green Jet Fuel.
The Honeywell fuel is derived from camelina, an inedible crop that is claimed not to compete with the cultivation of food as it can be grown on marginal land or between rotations of food crops.
Although flight tests are needed to confirm all the modelling, what I hear about flying with biofuels is that it is hard to detect any difference from fossil-derived jet fuel. But their green benefits are hard to miss.
The Paris Air Show is very much geared towards the defence industry, as my video round-up (see below) of the news and technical advances that caught my eye this week shows. Indeed, some of the leading business jet manufacturers would not be at the show at all if it were not for their military or special missions aircraft – the latter include law enforcement, border patrol and surveillance.
The other main theme of the show was green technology. Although aviation as a whole accounts for a tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions – less than 3 per cent, trailing far behind power generation and shipping, among others – its share is growing, and it is a highly visible and easily identifiable target.
The EU emissions trading scheme, for example, while seen in many other parts of the world as hugely unfair, is very dear to the heart of rulemakers in Brussels, who are adamant that they will not be deflected from their green – and taxation – goals.
General aviation has warmed to the theme of ecological sustainability, with a Gulfstream G450, similar to the one I have tested, becoming the first business jet to cross the Atlantic using biofuels. The aircraft, operated by Honeywell, flew from North America to Europe with one of its Rolls-Royce Tay engines running on a half-and-half blend of petroleum-based jet fuel and Honeywell Green Jet Fuel.
The Honeywell fuel is derived from camelina, an inedible crop that is claimed not to compete with the cultivation of food as it can be grown on marginal land or between rotations of food crops.
Although flight tests are needed to confirm all the modelling, what I hear about flying with biofuels is that it is hard to detect any difference from fossil-derived jet fuel. But their green benefits are hard to miss.
Isra-Mart srl: Neste Oil invests E5 million in GreenStream to reduce CO2 emissions
www.isra-mart.com
Neste Oil, a Finland-based company engaged in the refining and marketing of oil, has invested E5 million in GreenStream's Climate Opportunity Fund, which finances projects aimed at reducing CO2 emissions in developing countries.
The investment is part of Neste Oil's worldwide greenhouse gas balance management program and will give the company access to emission allowances under the EU emissions trading scheme for the trading period beginning in 2013.
"Reducing climate impact and managing our greenhouse gas balance are important goals for us," says Neste Oil's Energy Director, Jussi Hintikka. "In addition to acquiring emission allowances, the new fund investment enables us to support environmental projects in developing countries and meet our own emissions trading obligations."
The investment is a continuation of Neste Oil's cooperation with GreenStream that began during the current emissions trading period. The fund invests in projects including renewable energy initiatives in China that have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions several millions of tons by 2020. GreenStream Network Plc is the Nordic region's leading asset management company in the climate and renewable energy markets with current assets under management totaling some EUR 170 million
Neste Oil, a Finland-based company engaged in the refining and marketing of oil, has invested E5 million in GreenStream's Climate Opportunity Fund, which finances projects aimed at reducing CO2 emissions in developing countries.
The investment is part of Neste Oil's worldwide greenhouse gas balance management program and will give the company access to emission allowances under the EU emissions trading scheme for the trading period beginning in 2013.
"Reducing climate impact and managing our greenhouse gas balance are important goals for us," says Neste Oil's Energy Director, Jussi Hintikka. "In addition to acquiring emission allowances, the new fund investment enables us to support environmental projects in developing countries and meet our own emissions trading obligations."
The investment is a continuation of Neste Oil's cooperation with GreenStream that began during the current emissions trading period. The fund invests in projects including renewable energy initiatives in China that have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions several millions of tons by 2020. GreenStream Network Plc is the Nordic region's leading asset management company in the climate and renewable energy markets with current assets under management totaling some EUR 170 million
Isra-Mart srl: The Alternative Energy Fallacy
www.isra-mart.com
In 2009, the world produced some 13.2 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons, or about 4,200 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. Burning those hydrocarbons poured roughly 31.3 billion metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. The basic premise of alternative energy is that widespread deployments of wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles will slash hydrocarbon consumption, reduce CO2 emissions and give us a cleaner, greener and healthier planet. That premise, however, is fatally flawed because our planet cannot produce enough non-ferrous industrial metals to make a meaningful difference and the prices of those metals are even more volatile than the prices of the hydrocarbons that alternative energy hopes to supplant.
The ugly but undeniable reality is that aggregate global production of non-ferrous industrial metals including aluminum, chromium, copper, zinc, manganese, nickel, lead and a host of lesser metals is about 35 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. All of those metals are already being used to provide the basic necessities and minor luxuries of modern life. There are no significant unused supplies of industrial metals that can be used for large-scale energy substitution. Even if there were, the following graph that compares the Dow Jones UBS Industrial Metals Index (^DJUBSIN) with the Amex Oil Index (^XOI) shows that industrial metal prices are more volatile and climbing faster than hydrocarbon prices, which means that most alternative energy schemes are like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
For all their alleged virtues and perceived benefits, most alternative energy technologies are prodigious consumers of industrial metals. The suggestion that humanity can find enough slop in 35 pounds of per capita industrial metals production to make a meaningful dent in 4,200 pounds of per capita hydrocarbon production is absurd beyond reckoning. It just can't happen at a relevant scale.
I'm a relentless critic of vehicle electrification schemes like Tesla Motors (TSLA) because they're the most egregious offenders and doomed to fail when EV hype goes careening off the industrial metals cliff at 120 mph. Let's get real here. Tesla carries a market capitalization of $2.8 billion and has a net worth of less than $400 million, so its stock price is 86% air – a bubble in search of a pin. Tesla plans to become a global leader in the development of new electric drive technologies that will use immense amounts of industrial metals to conserve irrelevant amounts of hydrocarbons. Even if Tesla achieves its lofty technological goals it must fail as a business. Investors who chase the EV dream without considering the natural resource realities are doomed to suffer immense losses. Tesla can't possibly succeed. Its fair market value is zero. The stock is a perfect short.
I won't even get into the sophistry of wind turbines and solar panels.
Next on my list of investment catastrophes in the making are the lithium-ion battery developers like A123 Systems (AONE), Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technologies (VLNC) and Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) that plan to use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as fuel tank substitutes, or worse yet for grid-connected systems that will smooth the power output from inherently variable wind and solar power facilities that also use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as hydrocarbon substitutes. Talk about compounding the foolishness.
I can only identify one emerging battery technology that has a significant potential to reduce hydrocarbon consumption and industrial metal consumption at the same time while offering better performance. That technology is the PbC® Battery from Axion Power International (AXPW.OB), a third generation lead-acid-carbon battery that uses 30% less industrial metals to deliver all of the performance and five to ten times the cycle life. There may be other examples, but I'll have to rely on my readers to identify them.
Humanity cannot reduce its consumption of hydrocarbons by increasing its consumption of industrial metals. The only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is to use less and waste less. There are a world of sensible and economic fuel efficiency technologies that can help us achieve the frequently conflicting long-term goals of reduced hydrocarbon consumption and increased industrial metals sustainability. They include but are not limited to:
* Better buiding design and insulation;
* Smarter power management systems;
* Telecommuting;
* Denser cities with shorter commutes;
* Smart transportation management to reduce congestion;
* Buses and carpooling;
* Bicycles and ebikes;
* Shifting freight to rail from trucks;
* Smaller vehicles that use lightweight composites to replace industrial metals;
* Deploying solar and wind with battery backup for remote power and in developing countries;
* Shipping efficiency technologies, such as better hull coatings, slow steaming, etc.; and
* Recycling, recycling and recycling
My colleague Tom Konrad wrote a 28 part series on "The Best Peak Oil Investments." While I'm skeptical about the future of biofuels after suffering major losses in the biodiesel business, Tom's work provides an exhaustive overview of the energy efficiency space and a wide variety of investment ideas that have the potential to make a real difference. Since we can't simply take a couple of giant leaps into the future, we'll just have to get out of our current mess the same way we got into it – one step at a time.
We live in a cruel world. There is no fairy godmother that can miraculously accommodate the substitution of scarce industrial metals for hydrocarbons that are a hundred times more plentiful. We can and we must do better, but we can't solve humanity's problems until we accept the harsh realities of global resource constraints without the filters of political ideology and wishful thinking.
In 2009, the world produced some 13.2 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons, or about 4,200 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. Burning those hydrocarbons poured roughly 31.3 billion metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. The basic premise of alternative energy is that widespread deployments of wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles will slash hydrocarbon consumption, reduce CO2 emissions and give us a cleaner, greener and healthier planet. That premise, however, is fatally flawed because our planet cannot produce enough non-ferrous industrial metals to make a meaningful difference and the prices of those metals are even more volatile than the prices of the hydrocarbons that alternative energy hopes to supplant.
The ugly but undeniable reality is that aggregate global production of non-ferrous industrial metals including aluminum, chromium, copper, zinc, manganese, nickel, lead and a host of lesser metals is about 35 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. All of those metals are already being used to provide the basic necessities and minor luxuries of modern life. There are no significant unused supplies of industrial metals that can be used for large-scale energy substitution. Even if there were, the following graph that compares the Dow Jones UBS Industrial Metals Index (^DJUBSIN) with the Amex Oil Index (^XOI) shows that industrial metal prices are more volatile and climbing faster than hydrocarbon prices, which means that most alternative energy schemes are like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
For all their alleged virtues and perceived benefits, most alternative energy technologies are prodigious consumers of industrial metals. The suggestion that humanity can find enough slop in 35 pounds of per capita industrial metals production to make a meaningful dent in 4,200 pounds of per capita hydrocarbon production is absurd beyond reckoning. It just can't happen at a relevant scale.
I'm a relentless critic of vehicle electrification schemes like Tesla Motors (TSLA) because they're the most egregious offenders and doomed to fail when EV hype goes careening off the industrial metals cliff at 120 mph. Let's get real here. Tesla carries a market capitalization of $2.8 billion and has a net worth of less than $400 million, so its stock price is 86% air – a bubble in search of a pin. Tesla plans to become a global leader in the development of new electric drive technologies that will use immense amounts of industrial metals to conserve irrelevant amounts of hydrocarbons. Even if Tesla achieves its lofty technological goals it must fail as a business. Investors who chase the EV dream without considering the natural resource realities are doomed to suffer immense losses. Tesla can't possibly succeed. Its fair market value is zero. The stock is a perfect short.
I won't even get into the sophistry of wind turbines and solar panels.
Next on my list of investment catastrophes in the making are the lithium-ion battery developers like A123 Systems (AONE), Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technologies (VLNC) and Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) that plan to use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as fuel tank substitutes, or worse yet for grid-connected systems that will smooth the power output from inherently variable wind and solar power facilities that also use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as hydrocarbon substitutes. Talk about compounding the foolishness.
I can only identify one emerging battery technology that has a significant potential to reduce hydrocarbon consumption and industrial metal consumption at the same time while offering better performance. That technology is the PbC® Battery from Axion Power International (AXPW.OB), a third generation lead-acid-carbon battery that uses 30% less industrial metals to deliver all of the performance and five to ten times the cycle life. There may be other examples, but I'll have to rely on my readers to identify them.
Humanity cannot reduce its consumption of hydrocarbons by increasing its consumption of industrial metals. The only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is to use less and waste less. There are a world of sensible and economic fuel efficiency technologies that can help us achieve the frequently conflicting long-term goals of reduced hydrocarbon consumption and increased industrial metals sustainability. They include but are not limited to:
* Better buiding design and insulation;
* Smarter power management systems;
* Telecommuting;
* Denser cities with shorter commutes;
* Smart transportation management to reduce congestion;
* Buses and carpooling;
* Bicycles and ebikes;
* Shifting freight to rail from trucks;
* Smaller vehicles that use lightweight composites to replace industrial metals;
* Deploying solar and wind with battery backup for remote power and in developing countries;
* Shipping efficiency technologies, such as better hull coatings, slow steaming, etc.; and
* Recycling, recycling and recycling
My colleague Tom Konrad wrote a 28 part series on "The Best Peak Oil Investments." While I'm skeptical about the future of biofuels after suffering major losses in the biodiesel business, Tom's work provides an exhaustive overview of the energy efficiency space and a wide variety of investment ideas that have the potential to make a real difference. Since we can't simply take a couple of giant leaps into the future, we'll just have to get out of our current mess the same way we got into it – one step at a time.
We live in a cruel world. There is no fairy godmother that can miraculously accommodate the substitution of scarce industrial metals for hydrocarbons that are a hundred times more plentiful. We can and we must do better, but we can't solve humanity's problems until we accept the harsh realities of global resource constraints without the filters of political ideology and wishful thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
