www.isra-mart.com
Defra is planning to crack down on retailers handing out plastic carrier bags to customers, after new figures revealed that a voluntary commitment by supermarkets to cut the number of bags they distribute has stalled.
Figures released by the government-backed Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) today reveal a five per cent national increase in the number of single-use carrier bags handed out in supermarkets in 2010 compared to 2009/2010.
However, indicative national figures showed a decline in the number of bags handed out in Northern Ireland and Wales, the two countries which have legislated to cut carrier bag use. In contrast, bag use has risen in England and Scotland where no such legislation is in place.
Between 2009/2010, Northern Ireland saw bag use drop 14 per cent, while Wales saw the number of bags handed out decrease by seven per cent. However, bag use in Scotland and England rose by nine per cent and seven per cent respectively.
Recycling minister Lord Henley slammed supermarkets for failing to take responsibility for cutting bag use, and said that the government is now considering forcing retailers to act.
"This isn't good enough," he said. "Retailers need to take responsibility and lift their game to cut down on the number of single-use carrier bags they hand out. If results do not improve we will consider additional measures to make this happen, including legislation."
In 2008, the UK government, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and leading supermarkets agreed to a voluntary approach to cut the number of single-use bags by 50 per cent by spring 2009.
In May 2009, when the formal agreement ended, WRAP reported that retailers had cut the number of single-use bags by 48 per cent.
However, while there is an agreement to provide figures to WRAP on an annual basis, there no current sector target for carrier bag use in place.
Responding to the figures today, the BRC blamed the increase on rising sales and changing shopper habits.
BRC head of environment Bob Gordon argued that the voluntary scheme had been a success, and described the latest figures as "encouraging", given the context of rising sales and changing shopping habits.
"These figures show that retailers and customers are changing their habits without the need for compulsory bag bans or charges," he said.
"In the face of sales growth it was inevitable that year-on-year reductions would be hard to maintain, and the overall numbers remain the sort of result other environmental campaigns can only dream of."
Gordon added that reducing carrier bags is just one element of retailers' overall efforts to reduce their environmental impact.
"Retailers, working with consumers, will continue to do all they can to drive down the number of carrier bags being given out wherever possible, but it's time to accept that bags are not the be all and end all of environmental issues," he said.
"An obsession with carrier bags must not get in the way of these bigger green goals."
However, a spokeswoman from Defra dismissed the excuses, arguing that the rise in bag use is unacceptable.
She said that ministers are now looking closely at the policy of charging shoppers in Wales for carrier bags, and is also examining the results of initiatives in other countries.
"We're not going to wait for the results of Wales' policy, or for the EU consultation [considering banning plastic bags] to finish. The figures are already there and carrier bag use has to come down," she said.
The results will also further fuel recent criticism from green groups of the government's Waste Review, which proposes wider use of voluntary agreements with industry to tackle waste levels.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: UK leads market as banks slowly warm to offshore wind
www.isra-mart.com
The number of banks willing to back European offshore wind projects is steadily growing, according to a new report that predicts a record €3bn (£2.6bn) of bank funding will be delivered to the emerging industry this year.
The mid-year report published by the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) today showed a "comfortable" 4.5 per cent increase in the installation of offshore turbines compared to the first half of 2010.
The report also said that three to five project transactions are expected to close in 2011 with a record €3bn provided by banks. It added that more than 20 financial institutions have now obtained firm credit committee approval to take on risk attached to offshore wind projects.
Christian Kjaer, chief executive officer of EWEA, welcomed the figures, but warned the European market is "not home and dry yet".
"The sector is coming out of the financial crisis but is still facing a potential worsening of the general economic crisis," he said.
"The number of banks providing capital for offshore wind farm investments is steadily growing, although there is a continued need for attracting an increasing number of large institutional investors to offshore wind farms - presently the largest construction projects going on in Europe."
The report also said non-recourse lending is now becoming a large contributor of capital and could support nearly 50 per cent of the capacity under construction by the end of the year.
Other possible boons to the market include plans by the UK for a Green Investment Bank and the recently unveiled German proposal for a €5bn programme from the KfW infrastructure bank to support offshore wind projects.
EWEA also hailed Dong Energy's policy of "recylcing" minority stakes in its existing projects to finance new investments. The company is currently in the process of selling 49 per cent of its Gunfleet Sands project in the UK, and in March it sold 50 per cent of the Anholt project in Denmark.
"The novelty in that last transaction is that it took place prior to completion of the wind farm," the EWEA said. "Even if the investors will not bear the construction risk, DONG guarantees completion on time and on budget. Demonstrating that such an approach is possible will certainly create new opportunities for utilities and developers to sell stakes in their projects before they become fully operational."
The report also underlined the UK's position as the world's leading offshore wind energy market.
It confirmed that 108 new offshore wind turbines with a total capacity of 348MW were connected to power grids in the UK, Germany and Norway during the first six months of 2011.
However, of these 101 were built off the UK coast, with only six built in German waters, and a single turbine erected in Norway.
The market was dominated by Siemens, which supplied 84 per cent of machines, followed by BARD with 16 per cent.
However, a raft of new manufacturers are currently preparing to launch larger next generation offshore wind turbines as the UK moves to rapidly expand its burgeoning offshore wind market.
The number of banks willing to back European offshore wind projects is steadily growing, according to a new report that predicts a record €3bn (£2.6bn) of bank funding will be delivered to the emerging industry this year.
The mid-year report published by the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) today showed a "comfortable" 4.5 per cent increase in the installation of offshore turbines compared to the first half of 2010.
The report also said that three to five project transactions are expected to close in 2011 with a record €3bn provided by banks. It added that more than 20 financial institutions have now obtained firm credit committee approval to take on risk attached to offshore wind projects.
Christian Kjaer, chief executive officer of EWEA, welcomed the figures, but warned the European market is "not home and dry yet".
"The sector is coming out of the financial crisis but is still facing a potential worsening of the general economic crisis," he said.
"The number of banks providing capital for offshore wind farm investments is steadily growing, although there is a continued need for attracting an increasing number of large institutional investors to offshore wind farms - presently the largest construction projects going on in Europe."
The report also said non-recourse lending is now becoming a large contributor of capital and could support nearly 50 per cent of the capacity under construction by the end of the year.
Other possible boons to the market include plans by the UK for a Green Investment Bank and the recently unveiled German proposal for a €5bn programme from the KfW infrastructure bank to support offshore wind projects.
EWEA also hailed Dong Energy's policy of "recylcing" minority stakes in its existing projects to finance new investments. The company is currently in the process of selling 49 per cent of its Gunfleet Sands project in the UK, and in March it sold 50 per cent of the Anholt project in Denmark.
"The novelty in that last transaction is that it took place prior to completion of the wind farm," the EWEA said. "Even if the investors will not bear the construction risk, DONG guarantees completion on time and on budget. Demonstrating that such an approach is possible will certainly create new opportunities for utilities and developers to sell stakes in their projects before they become fully operational."
The report also underlined the UK's position as the world's leading offshore wind energy market.
It confirmed that 108 new offshore wind turbines with a total capacity of 348MW were connected to power grids in the UK, Germany and Norway during the first six months of 2011.
However, of these 101 were built off the UK coast, with only six built in German waters, and a single turbine erected in Norway.
The market was dominated by Siemens, which supplied 84 per cent of machines, followed by BARD with 16 per cent.
However, a raft of new manufacturers are currently preparing to launch larger next generation offshore wind turbines as the UK moves to rapidly expand its burgeoning offshore wind market.
Isra-Mart srl: British Gas crosses finishing line as FiT deadline looms
www.isra-mart.com
British Gas has completed a solar farm that will be eligible for feed-in-tariff incentives, after it today flicked the switch on a 4.6MW array at Toyota's Derby factory.
The utility connected 17,000 photovoltaic panels to the grid in Burnaston in a project costing more than £10m.
As revealed by BusinessGreen, the utility was planning to complete the giant array ahead of deep cuts to feed-in tariffs that will come into effect from 1 August.
DECC is set to slash feed-in tariff incentives for all solar installations with more than 50 kilowatts of capacity by between 40 and 70 per cent, in response to ministerial concerns that solar farm developers will drain the limited funds that are primarily intended for domestic rooftop installations.
Completion of the solar farm before the deadline means British Gas can now claim the feed-in tariff, while Toyota Manufacturing UK will benefit from any renewable electricity generated.
A spokesman from British Gas confirmed that the Toyota array is the only solar farm it completed after the government confirmed it would review the incentive rates offered to large solar farms.
The array is one of the biggest in the UK manufacturing sector and the first large-scale solar array for the UK car industry. British Gas said all the solar panels were manufactured in the UK.
Colin MacDonald, head of microgeneration at British Gas, said the array demonstrated one way that energy-intensive manufacturing plants can improve their environmental impact. The installation is expected to save up to 2,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year.
"As well as improving Derbyshire's green credentials, we hope it will act as a beacon for homes and businesses throughout the county to think about renewable energy," he said.
British Gas has also installed some 'showcase' elements at the plant's shops, including a ‘brise soleil', which is a sunshade of solar panels above a window and a wall of solar glass to replace existing windows.
Toyota's vehicle plant in Burnaston currently makes the Auris, Auris Hybrid and Avensis models.
In related news, Toyota has reportedly changed its position to back a proposal by President Obama to boost US mileage standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
According to Bloomberg, the Japanese car maker had initially expressed concerns about the proposals, arguing that US-based carmakers will gain an advantage because fuel-economy standards for light trucks will increase more slowly than for cars.
But Toyota is now planning to publicly back the proposals, ahead of Obama's announcement tomorrow.
British Gas has completed a solar farm that will be eligible for feed-in-tariff incentives, after it today flicked the switch on a 4.6MW array at Toyota's Derby factory.
The utility connected 17,000 photovoltaic panels to the grid in Burnaston in a project costing more than £10m.
As revealed by BusinessGreen, the utility was planning to complete the giant array ahead of deep cuts to feed-in tariffs that will come into effect from 1 August.
DECC is set to slash feed-in tariff incentives for all solar installations with more than 50 kilowatts of capacity by between 40 and 70 per cent, in response to ministerial concerns that solar farm developers will drain the limited funds that are primarily intended for domestic rooftop installations.
Completion of the solar farm before the deadline means British Gas can now claim the feed-in tariff, while Toyota Manufacturing UK will benefit from any renewable electricity generated.
A spokesman from British Gas confirmed that the Toyota array is the only solar farm it completed after the government confirmed it would review the incentive rates offered to large solar farms.
The array is one of the biggest in the UK manufacturing sector and the first large-scale solar array for the UK car industry. British Gas said all the solar panels were manufactured in the UK.
Colin MacDonald, head of microgeneration at British Gas, said the array demonstrated one way that energy-intensive manufacturing plants can improve their environmental impact. The installation is expected to save up to 2,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year.
"As well as improving Derbyshire's green credentials, we hope it will act as a beacon for homes and businesses throughout the county to think about renewable energy," he said.
British Gas has also installed some 'showcase' elements at the plant's shops, including a ‘brise soleil', which is a sunshade of solar panels above a window and a wall of solar glass to replace existing windows.
Toyota's vehicle plant in Burnaston currently makes the Auris, Auris Hybrid and Avensis models.
In related news, Toyota has reportedly changed its position to back a proposal by President Obama to boost US mileage standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
According to Bloomberg, the Japanese car maker had initially expressed concerns about the proposals, arguing that US-based carmakers will gain an advantage because fuel-economy standards for light trucks will increase more slowly than for cars.
But Toyota is now planning to publicly back the proposals, ahead of Obama's announcement tomorrow.
Isra-Mart srl: Protected areas "insufficient" to stem biodiversity loss
www.isra-mart.com
Designating increasing amounts of land and sea as protected areas has failed to halt a "steep decline" in biodiversity, leaving an urgent reduction in man's ecological footprint as the only option for preserving the natural environment.
That is the conclusion of a new study published yesterday in the Marine Ecology Progress Series journal, which calculates that levels of consumption and population growth mean we will need the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050 in order to halt recent declines in biodiversity.
Talks at Nagoya last year saw nations agree to protect more than 17 per cent of the world's land mass and 10 per cent of the oceans - a huge increase on the 5.8 per cent of land and 0.08 per cent of oceans that are currently protected.
But the researchers say that even if the Nagoya targets are met they will not bring a halt to the rapid rate of species loss.
They estimate that 30 per cent of the world's ecosystems will have to be covered for protected areas to stem biodiversity loss, a level which given current rates of expansion is not likely to be realised for 185 years on land and 80 years at sea.
Meanwhile, climate change, habitat loss and resource exploitation, it is predicted, will cause mass extinctions within 50 years.
Moreover, the report warns that even if there were, a political drive to protect 30 per cent of land this would bring zones into conflict with other human interests that are likely to outweigh those of biodiversity.
The report also claims that protected areas are seriously underfunded. The researchers estimate that $24bn is needed to manage them, but just $6bn is being spent.
Dr Peter Sale, assistant director of the United Nations University's Institute for Water, Environment and Health, which produced the report, said the international community could take one of two paths: "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss. That path will fail.
"The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population."
Designating increasing amounts of land and sea as protected areas has failed to halt a "steep decline" in biodiversity, leaving an urgent reduction in man's ecological footprint as the only option for preserving the natural environment.
That is the conclusion of a new study published yesterday in the Marine Ecology Progress Series journal, which calculates that levels of consumption and population growth mean we will need the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050 in order to halt recent declines in biodiversity.
Talks at Nagoya last year saw nations agree to protect more than 17 per cent of the world's land mass and 10 per cent of the oceans - a huge increase on the 5.8 per cent of land and 0.08 per cent of oceans that are currently protected.
But the researchers say that even if the Nagoya targets are met they will not bring a halt to the rapid rate of species loss.
They estimate that 30 per cent of the world's ecosystems will have to be covered for protected areas to stem biodiversity loss, a level which given current rates of expansion is not likely to be realised for 185 years on land and 80 years at sea.
Meanwhile, climate change, habitat loss and resource exploitation, it is predicted, will cause mass extinctions within 50 years.
Moreover, the report warns that even if there were, a political drive to protect 30 per cent of land this would bring zones into conflict with other human interests that are likely to outweigh those of biodiversity.
The report also claims that protected areas are seriously underfunded. The researchers estimate that $24bn is needed to manage them, but just $6bn is being spent.
Dr Peter Sale, assistant director of the United Nations University's Institute for Water, Environment and Health, which produced the report, said the international community could take one of two paths: "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss. That path will fail.
"The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population."
Isra-Mart srl: General Motors invests $7.5m in Sunlogic in bid to double solar output
www.isra-mart.com
Auto giant General Motors (GM) has today ploughed $7.5m into US solar manufacturer Sunlogics in a deal designed to support the company's newly announced goal of doubling its global solar capacity from 30MW to 60MW by the end of 2015.
The deal with also see GM fit solar-powered charging canopies for electric cars at Chevrolet dealerships and a range of other facilities.
In addition, the company will fit large-scale solar arrays at its sites and purchase the electricity generated.
"Global solar energy use is predicted to more than double by 2016, so we believe that investing in renewable energy is a smart and strategic business decision," said Jon Lauckner, president of GM Ventures. "And, the Chevrolet solar charging canopy project complements our electrification strategy that started with the Chevrolet Volt by helping our cars live up to their fullest green potential."
Sunlogics and GM have already fitted solar photovoltaic canopies and charging stations at Volt dealerships in Grand Blanc, Michigan, and Modesto, California, as part of at the Chevrolet "Green Zone".
A similar system is in place at GM's Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant, where the Volt is built, as well as at three other factories.
The investment means that GM's venture capital arm has now spent about $43.5m of the $100m investment fund the company established last June.
Sunlogic said it would use the cash injection to build manufacturing facilities in Detroit, Ontario and establish its own corporate headquarters.
Auto giant General Motors (GM) has today ploughed $7.5m into US solar manufacturer Sunlogics in a deal designed to support the company's newly announced goal of doubling its global solar capacity from 30MW to 60MW by the end of 2015.
The deal with also see GM fit solar-powered charging canopies for electric cars at Chevrolet dealerships and a range of other facilities.
In addition, the company will fit large-scale solar arrays at its sites and purchase the electricity generated.
"Global solar energy use is predicted to more than double by 2016, so we believe that investing in renewable energy is a smart and strategic business decision," said Jon Lauckner, president of GM Ventures. "And, the Chevrolet solar charging canopy project complements our electrification strategy that started with the Chevrolet Volt by helping our cars live up to their fullest green potential."
Sunlogics and GM have already fitted solar photovoltaic canopies and charging stations at Volt dealerships in Grand Blanc, Michigan, and Modesto, California, as part of at the Chevrolet "Green Zone".
A similar system is in place at GM's Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant, where the Volt is built, as well as at three other factories.
The investment means that GM's venture capital arm has now spent about $43.5m of the $100m investment fund the company established last June.
Sunlogic said it would use the cash injection to build manufacturing facilities in Detroit, Ontario and establish its own corporate headquarters.
Isra-Mart srl: London cycle hire scheme to expand west
www.isra-mart.com
London's mass cycle hire scheme is to expand into new parts of the city following a first year of operation which saw more than six million journeys using the distinctive, blue-and-grey bikes.
The expansion was announced by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, at an event before this weekend's anniversary of the scheme, modelled on similar systems in Paris and elsewhere, and the biggest public cycling project in the UK.
The London version was launched amid gloomy predictions of possible indifference, mass vandalism and theft, and likely carnage as many thousands of inexperienced, helmet-less cyclists took to the capital's busy streets.
More or less all of these have been prove wrong. Bike use has peaked at almost 30,000 trips a day, and while there have been a small number of minor injuries to users the scheme has, as yet, experienced no major accidents.
This has happened even amid regular grumbles about the computerised docking station system, run by outside contractors Serco, which has been plagued with gremlins.
Thursday's announcement will see the bikes spread west and south-west, into parts of the boroughs of Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, and Kensington and Chelsea. This will happen within the next two years, funded in part by an extra £25m from the scheme's sponsors, Barclays.
Johnson marked the anniversary with a press event at Westfield, riding one of the bikes around the shopping centre's main floor for the benefit of the cameras, and roping in shoppers to ride alongside him, one of whom managed to fall off.
The rental bikes, he argued, had made the city safer for all cyclists, claiming London had seen a 15 per cent increase in cycling since the scheme was launched, while overall deaths and serious injuries to cyclists had fallen.
He said: "I think we are seeing a change. Most drivers have really learned that they must expect cyclists on the roads. Maybe to begin with people found it irritating but they're getting the hang of it. They realise London is a cycle city."
The hope was that as the bikes became more common, Londoners would increasingly abandon cars for short, local journeys and errands such as shopping, he said "I'm starting to sound messianic and nannying now, but you don't need to get into a car to do some of these things".
There was no reason why the docking stations could not be extended into thus-far ignored areas of the capital, for example to the north and south-east, Johnson added: "We're prepared to go in any direction. The sole constraints are time and money."
The first phase of the rental system, which took a number of months to complete, involves a planned 6,000 machines across 400 rental points. The pre-Olympic eastward expansion will see an extra 2,000 bikes added to the fleet.
Johnson said that even as a keen cyclist with his own bike he used the scheme "from time to time".
He said: "It's a different experience, a more stately, ceremonious kind of ride. It's more sit-up-and-beg, which I like. I wish my own bike was more like that - I'll have to get cowhorn handlebars."
Perhaps unfairly on Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone, who first devised the scheme, the machines have become known to most Londoners as "Boris bikes". The mayor insisted he resisted this term: "I call them - religiously - the Transport for London Barclays cycle hire scheme."
London's mass cycle hire scheme is to expand into new parts of the city following a first year of operation which saw more than six million journeys using the distinctive, blue-and-grey bikes.
The expansion was announced by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, at an event before this weekend's anniversary of the scheme, modelled on similar systems in Paris and elsewhere, and the biggest public cycling project in the UK.
The London version was launched amid gloomy predictions of possible indifference, mass vandalism and theft, and likely carnage as many thousands of inexperienced, helmet-less cyclists took to the capital's busy streets.
More or less all of these have been prove wrong. Bike use has peaked at almost 30,000 trips a day, and while there have been a small number of minor injuries to users the scheme has, as yet, experienced no major accidents.
This has happened even amid regular grumbles about the computerised docking station system, run by outside contractors Serco, which has been plagued with gremlins.
Thursday's announcement will see the bikes spread west and south-west, into parts of the boroughs of Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, and Kensington and Chelsea. This will happen within the next two years, funded in part by an extra £25m from the scheme's sponsors, Barclays.
Johnson marked the anniversary with a press event at Westfield, riding one of the bikes around the shopping centre's main floor for the benefit of the cameras, and roping in shoppers to ride alongside him, one of whom managed to fall off.
The rental bikes, he argued, had made the city safer for all cyclists, claiming London had seen a 15 per cent increase in cycling since the scheme was launched, while overall deaths and serious injuries to cyclists had fallen.
He said: "I think we are seeing a change. Most drivers have really learned that they must expect cyclists on the roads. Maybe to begin with people found it irritating but they're getting the hang of it. They realise London is a cycle city."
The hope was that as the bikes became more common, Londoners would increasingly abandon cars for short, local journeys and errands such as shopping, he said "I'm starting to sound messianic and nannying now, but you don't need to get into a car to do some of these things".
There was no reason why the docking stations could not be extended into thus-far ignored areas of the capital, for example to the north and south-east, Johnson added: "We're prepared to go in any direction. The sole constraints are time and money."
The first phase of the rental system, which took a number of months to complete, involves a planned 6,000 machines across 400 rental points. The pre-Olympic eastward expansion will see an extra 2,000 bikes added to the fleet.
Johnson said that even as a keen cyclist with his own bike he used the scheme "from time to time".
He said: "It's a different experience, a more stately, ceremonious kind of ride. It's more sit-up-and-beg, which I like. I wish my own bike was more like that - I'll have to get cowhorn handlebars."
Perhaps unfairly on Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone, who first devised the scheme, the machines have become known to most Londoners as "Boris bikes". The mayor insisted he resisted this term: "I call them - religiously - the Transport for London Barclays cycle hire scheme."
Isra-Mart srl: EPA proposes crackdown on fracking air pollution
www.isra-mart.com
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled plans to crackdown on air pollution from controversial "fracking" projects, having previously angered green groups by delaying new regulations to tackle smog.
The agency yesterday set out proposals designed to tackle air pollution from oil and gas wells and, in particular, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" projects, which have been accused of contributing to water and air pollution.
The proposed standards, which were issued by the EPA in response to a court order, would require oil and gas well operators to meet new standards for a range of pollutants.
In particular, they would be required to cut emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOC) from a variety of processes, with fracking projects required to reduce VOC emissions by 95 per cent.
The EPA said this steep reduction would have to be achieved by capturing natural gas that currently escapes into the air and making that gas available for sale.
"This administration has been clear that natural gas is a key component of our clean energy future and the steps announced today will help ensure responsible production of this domestic energy source," said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, in a statement. "Reducing these emissions will help cut toxic pollution that can increase cancer risks and smog that can cause asthma attacks and premature death – all while giving these operators additional product to bring to market."
The agency said that capturing VOC emissions would have the added benefit of reducing methane emissions from fracking projects, which, according to some scientists, have undermined industry claims that fracking represents a cleaner alternative to other forms of fossil fuels.
It added that new standards for storage tanks, transmission pipelines and other equipment would help cut emissions of methane and cancer-causing air pollution by up to a quarter.
The move is likely to face fresh criticism from industry groups and Republicans who have accused the EPA of imposing too many costly regulations on the energy industry.
However, the EPA stressed that an analysis of the new standards show that the technologies required to capture emissions are highly cost effective and would deliver net savings to the industry of tens of millions of dollars annually from the value of natural gas that would no longer escape to the air.
In related news, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting she attend a hearing next month on the agency's recently delayed smog standards.
The letter again underscored Republican efforts to scupper the proposed standards altogether, warning Jackson that the hearing would form part of a series targetting the new rules.
"Given the potentially devastating impacts of your proposed new standards on the US economy and jobs and the vast array of new regulatory and control requirements that will be triggered for States, localities and businesses across the nation, the Committee will conduct hearings relating to the proposed ozone standards after the August congressional work period," the letter stated.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled plans to crackdown on air pollution from controversial "fracking" projects, having previously angered green groups by delaying new regulations to tackle smog.
The agency yesterday set out proposals designed to tackle air pollution from oil and gas wells and, in particular, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" projects, which have been accused of contributing to water and air pollution.
The proposed standards, which were issued by the EPA in response to a court order, would require oil and gas well operators to meet new standards for a range of pollutants.
In particular, they would be required to cut emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOC) from a variety of processes, with fracking projects required to reduce VOC emissions by 95 per cent.
The EPA said this steep reduction would have to be achieved by capturing natural gas that currently escapes into the air and making that gas available for sale.
"This administration has been clear that natural gas is a key component of our clean energy future and the steps announced today will help ensure responsible production of this domestic energy source," said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, in a statement. "Reducing these emissions will help cut toxic pollution that can increase cancer risks and smog that can cause asthma attacks and premature death – all while giving these operators additional product to bring to market."
The agency said that capturing VOC emissions would have the added benefit of reducing methane emissions from fracking projects, which, according to some scientists, have undermined industry claims that fracking represents a cleaner alternative to other forms of fossil fuels.
It added that new standards for storage tanks, transmission pipelines and other equipment would help cut emissions of methane and cancer-causing air pollution by up to a quarter.
The move is likely to face fresh criticism from industry groups and Republicans who have accused the EPA of imposing too many costly regulations on the energy industry.
However, the EPA stressed that an analysis of the new standards show that the technologies required to capture emissions are highly cost effective and would deliver net savings to the industry of tens of millions of dollars annually from the value of natural gas that would no longer escape to the air.
In related news, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting she attend a hearing next month on the agency's recently delayed smog standards.
The letter again underscored Republican efforts to scupper the proposed standards altogether, warning Jackson that the hearing would form part of a series targetting the new rules.
"Given the potentially devastating impacts of your proposed new standards on the US economy and jobs and the vast array of new regulatory and control requirements that will be triggered for States, localities and businesses across the nation, the Committee will conduct hearings relating to the proposed ozone standards after the August congressional work period," the letter stated.
Isra-Mart srl: China to unveil plan for 17 per cent cut in carbon intensity by 2015
www.isra-mart.com
China is moving forward with plans to cut the carbon intensity of its economy by 17 per cent by 2015, according to reports in the state-owned China Daily newspaper that claim a detailed plan for curbing emissions will be released in the near future.
Citing comments from Xie Zhenhua, vice-minister of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) at a conference earlier this week, the paper reported that work is near completion on a strategy detailing how the government intends to meet the carbon and energy intensity targets contained in the recently released 12th Five-Year Plan that runs from 2011 to 2015.
The Five-Year Plan featured a commitment to cut the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP by 16 per cent and curb the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP by 17 per cent.
Su Wei, director-general of the Department of Climate Change of the NDRC, told China Daily that the targets would now be fed down to local governments.
"The targets surely need to be handed over to local governments and a specialised blueprint for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a necessity," Su said.
The 2015 targets are intended as a stepping stone towards China meeting its internationally stated goal of cutting carbon intensity by between 40 and 45 per cent by 2020 against 2005 levels.
Xie also said the NDRC was investigating measures to reduce emissions post 2020, including plans to accelerate the development of carbon capture and storage technologies that would allow China to continue to tap its giant coal reserves.
China is moving forward with plans to cut the carbon intensity of its economy by 17 per cent by 2015, according to reports in the state-owned China Daily newspaper that claim a detailed plan for curbing emissions will be released in the near future.
Citing comments from Xie Zhenhua, vice-minister of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) at a conference earlier this week, the paper reported that work is near completion on a strategy detailing how the government intends to meet the carbon and energy intensity targets contained in the recently released 12th Five-Year Plan that runs from 2011 to 2015.
The Five-Year Plan featured a commitment to cut the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP by 16 per cent and curb the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP by 17 per cent.
Su Wei, director-general of the Department of Climate Change of the NDRC, told China Daily that the targets would now be fed down to local governments.
"The targets surely need to be handed over to local governments and a specialised blueprint for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a necessity," Su said.
The 2015 targets are intended as a stepping stone towards China meeting its internationally stated goal of cutting carbon intensity by between 40 and 45 per cent by 2020 against 2005 levels.
Xie also said the NDRC was investigating measures to reduce emissions post 2020, including plans to accelerate the development of carbon capture and storage technologies that would allow China to continue to tap its giant coal reserves.
Isra-Mart srl: Planners approve nuclear power station preparatory work
www.isra-mart.com
Planners in Somerset have given the go-ahead for work to begin on the site of the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain for 20 years.
Officials approved the site despite strong protests from opponents who say the preparatory work for Hinkley C will wreck the coastline.
The site's developers, EDF Energy, say the power station will help secure Britain's power supply and boost the local economy.
Anti-nuclear campaigners believe West Somerset district council has been pressured by the government to approve the site, and villagers whose lives will be affected say the project would change the area forever.
Crispin Aubrey, of the Stop Hinkley campaign, argued that the work would leave a "devastated wasteland" and said it was "inaccurate" to describe the work EDF has been given permission for as "preparatory".
"The extent of the activity, the clearance of most vegetation, hedges and trees, the excavation of more than 2m cubic metres of soil and rocks, the re-routing of underground streams, the creation of roads and roundabouts, major changes to the landscape ... mean it is effectively the beginning of construction of the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station," he said.
Hey claimed the "over-riding" pressure to proceed had come from the government and asked councillors at a meeting of West Somerset district council's planning committee: "Are you prepared to over-ride local concerns because the government is leaning on you?
"The real purpose of this application is not to significantly advance the timing of the new plant, it is to destroy all that is precious about the site so that when the main application for the power station is made to the infrastructure planning commission [IPC] it will meet with less opposition.
"If the site is covered in concrete, then it will be so much easier for the decision to be made in its favour."
Nikki Clark, also of the Stop Hinkley campaign, claimed not enough work had been done to assess the risk of Hinkley C being damaged because of rising sea levels.
"Ongoing events at Fukushima are a timely reminder of the consequences of flooding at coastal nuclear sites," she added.
A third group member, Helen Grant, told the meeting: "Nuclear was flavour of the month before Fukishima. Now governments around the world are wobbling on nuclear."
Opponents of the scheme have pointed out that if the government went cold on nuclear energy, or EDF decided to pull out of the project, the area would be left with the "biggest hole in Europe".
However, not all local residents are opposed to the scheme, and many feel it will bring jobs to an area in which they are much needed and which has lived with nuclear power stations for more than 50 years.
David Rosser, the south-west and Wales regional director of the Confederation of British Industry, said: "We believe it critical that we are able to guarantee a secure and low carbon energy mix for the UK in the decades to come."
Rupert Cox, the chief executive of Somerset Chamber of Commerce, said: "It's an opportunity to kickstart the local economy - thousands of jobs during construction, hundreds for the many years of operation and millions of pounds for the local economy and the skills and training provision in Somerset."
EDF will immediately submit applications for various permits required to build, commission, operate and decommission the Hinkley C nuclear power station. It will submit its development consent order - full planning permission - to the infrastructure planning commission later this year.
The company has promised to restore the site if the build does not go ahead. It says 500 jobs will be created during the preparatory stage, and it is ploughing £25m into minimising the impact of the work on the local environment and communities.
It says the power station will be safe and will help secure Britain's energy supply.
The EDF chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, thanked the councillors for giving permission for work to go ahead.
"They have taken a major decision enabling a project which is vital to the country," he said. "We are committed to listen to the community and to deliver this investment in partnership with the people of Somerset."
Planners in Somerset have given the go-ahead for work to begin on the site of the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain for 20 years.
Officials approved the site despite strong protests from opponents who say the preparatory work for Hinkley C will wreck the coastline.
The site's developers, EDF Energy, say the power station will help secure Britain's power supply and boost the local economy.
Anti-nuclear campaigners believe West Somerset district council has been pressured by the government to approve the site, and villagers whose lives will be affected say the project would change the area forever.
Crispin Aubrey, of the Stop Hinkley campaign, argued that the work would leave a "devastated wasteland" and said it was "inaccurate" to describe the work EDF has been given permission for as "preparatory".
"The extent of the activity, the clearance of most vegetation, hedges and trees, the excavation of more than 2m cubic metres of soil and rocks, the re-routing of underground streams, the creation of roads and roundabouts, major changes to the landscape ... mean it is effectively the beginning of construction of the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station," he said.
Hey claimed the "over-riding" pressure to proceed had come from the government and asked councillors at a meeting of West Somerset district council's planning committee: "Are you prepared to over-ride local concerns because the government is leaning on you?
"The real purpose of this application is not to significantly advance the timing of the new plant, it is to destroy all that is precious about the site so that when the main application for the power station is made to the infrastructure planning commission [IPC] it will meet with less opposition.
"If the site is covered in concrete, then it will be so much easier for the decision to be made in its favour."
Nikki Clark, also of the Stop Hinkley campaign, claimed not enough work had been done to assess the risk of Hinkley C being damaged because of rising sea levels.
"Ongoing events at Fukushima are a timely reminder of the consequences of flooding at coastal nuclear sites," she added.
A third group member, Helen Grant, told the meeting: "Nuclear was flavour of the month before Fukishima. Now governments around the world are wobbling on nuclear."
Opponents of the scheme have pointed out that if the government went cold on nuclear energy, or EDF decided to pull out of the project, the area would be left with the "biggest hole in Europe".
However, not all local residents are opposed to the scheme, and many feel it will bring jobs to an area in which they are much needed and which has lived with nuclear power stations for more than 50 years.
David Rosser, the south-west and Wales regional director of the Confederation of British Industry, said: "We believe it critical that we are able to guarantee a secure and low carbon energy mix for the UK in the decades to come."
Rupert Cox, the chief executive of Somerset Chamber of Commerce, said: "It's an opportunity to kickstart the local economy - thousands of jobs during construction, hundreds for the many years of operation and millions of pounds for the local economy and the skills and training provision in Somerset."
EDF will immediately submit applications for various permits required to build, commission, operate and decommission the Hinkley C nuclear power station. It will submit its development consent order - full planning permission - to the infrastructure planning commission later this year.
The company has promised to restore the site if the build does not go ahead. It says 500 jobs will be created during the preparatory stage, and it is ploughing £25m into minimising the impact of the work on the local environment and communities.
It says the power station will be safe and will help secure Britain's energy supply.
The EDF chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, thanked the councillors for giving permission for work to go ahead.
"They have taken a major decision enabling a project which is vital to the country," he said. "We are committed to listen to the community and to deliver this investment in partnership with the people of Somerset."
Isra-Mart srl: Montana's $85m carbon capture pilot gets go-ahead
www.isra-mart.com
An $85m pilot project to inject one million tons of CO2 into a dome almost a mile beneath the earth's surface was given the go-ahead by the US government this week.
The Big Sky Sequestration project was given $67m from the public purse in addition to the $18m in required matching funds raised from private partners, including Vecta Oil and Gas, SR2020 and Schlumberger.
A team comprised of five universities, three national laboratories and five private sector companies will lead the eight-year experiment to discover whether large amounts of CO2 from power stations and industry can be safely stored underground without affecting surrounding rock formations or water reserves.
The project will be located at Kevin Dome, which naturally traps CO2 in a 700 square mile formation, but has the potential to store significantly more carbon, according to the researchers.
The team will inject the gas into a rock layer that has not previously stored gas, enabling them to study rocks that have no CO2 exposure alongside those that have.
"Since we are getting the CO2 from a naturally occurring source, we can learn from nature how the CO2 has been stored safely in rock formations for millions of years," said project director Lee Spangler. "This grant will enable us to learn about the transportation, injection and monitoring of CO2 in an engineered system."
Wells may be drilled as soon as next week, with gas storage slated to begin in two years' time, Spangler added.
The approval marks a major boost for the US CCS sector following a series of project delays and cancellations, including the decision earlier this month by energy giant American Electric Power to shelve a $688m pilot project citing the US government's failure to deliver coherent climate change legislation.
An $85m pilot project to inject one million tons of CO2 into a dome almost a mile beneath the earth's surface was given the go-ahead by the US government this week.
The Big Sky Sequestration project was given $67m from the public purse in addition to the $18m in required matching funds raised from private partners, including Vecta Oil and Gas, SR2020 and Schlumberger.
A team comprised of five universities, three national laboratories and five private sector companies will lead the eight-year experiment to discover whether large amounts of CO2 from power stations and industry can be safely stored underground without affecting surrounding rock formations or water reserves.
The project will be located at Kevin Dome, which naturally traps CO2 in a 700 square mile formation, but has the potential to store significantly more carbon, according to the researchers.
The team will inject the gas into a rock layer that has not previously stored gas, enabling them to study rocks that have no CO2 exposure alongside those that have.
"Since we are getting the CO2 from a naturally occurring source, we can learn from nature how the CO2 has been stored safely in rock formations for millions of years," said project director Lee Spangler. "This grant will enable us to learn about the transportation, injection and monitoring of CO2 in an engineered system."
Wells may be drilled as soon as next week, with gas storage slated to begin in two years' time, Spangler added.
The approval marks a major boost for the US CCS sector following a series of project delays and cancellations, including the decision earlier this month by energy giant American Electric Power to shelve a $688m pilot project citing the US government's failure to deliver coherent climate change legislation.
Isra-Mart srl: Green groups slam White House delay to smog rules
www.isra-mart.com
US environmental groups yesterday accused President Obama of caving in to heavy industry and the GOP, after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced further delays to the introduction of new rules designed to curb smog.
The EPA had been expected to finalise the rules this week, but in a statement released yesterday the watchdog said it would not confirm new ozone emission limits until a review of the legislation by the White House Office of Management and Budget is completed.
"Following completion of this final step, EPA will finalise its reconsideration, but will not issue the final rule on 29 July, the date the agency had intended," the EPA said in the statement. "We look forward to finalising this standard shortly."
The rules were originally proposed in 2008 during the Bush administration and were due to come into effect last August, but have since been delayed on four occasions, sparking fierce criticism from 'green' groups.
The original standards set out by the Bush administration were deemed too lax by the EPA's own scientists, resulting in a scenario that EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has described as "legally indefensible".
Earlier this year, the agency proposed tougher limits on ground-level ozone – a key component in smog – of between 60 and 70 parts per billion over eight hours.
However, the tighter limits have been heavily criticised by Republicans and industry lobbyists, such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, which have warned the cost of complying with the new clean air standards would harm the economy.
The EPA has countered by arguing that the rules will deliver net economic benefits, claiming that improvement in air quality would prevent up to 12,000 premature deaths a year and save $100bn in health benefits.
Public health and 'green' groups slammed the latest delay, directly linking the failure to introduce tighter air quality rules with premature deaths.
"This deplorable delay – the fourth so far – means more deaths and suffering throughout the nation from dangerous smog pollution," said Earthjustice attorney David Baron in a statement. "Millions of Americans are being denied the health protection that doctors say they need. The President needs to stop stalling and start protecting people's lungs as the law requires."
His comments were echoed by Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program, who warned that the EPA had little choice but to introduce the new standards.
"The science has been in for three years. It's past time to set the new standard," she said in a statement. "The law says the Environmental Protection Agency has to base its decision on the science. At this point, setting a standard outside the range scientists have determined is a clear violation of the Clean Air Act. The first step to protecting public health is setting the standard based on science."
US environmental groups yesterday accused President Obama of caving in to heavy industry and the GOP, after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced further delays to the introduction of new rules designed to curb smog.
The EPA had been expected to finalise the rules this week, but in a statement released yesterday the watchdog said it would not confirm new ozone emission limits until a review of the legislation by the White House Office of Management and Budget is completed.
"Following completion of this final step, EPA will finalise its reconsideration, but will not issue the final rule on 29 July, the date the agency had intended," the EPA said in the statement. "We look forward to finalising this standard shortly."
The rules were originally proposed in 2008 during the Bush administration and were due to come into effect last August, but have since been delayed on four occasions, sparking fierce criticism from 'green' groups.
The original standards set out by the Bush administration were deemed too lax by the EPA's own scientists, resulting in a scenario that EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has described as "legally indefensible".
Earlier this year, the agency proposed tougher limits on ground-level ozone – a key component in smog – of between 60 and 70 parts per billion over eight hours.
However, the tighter limits have been heavily criticised by Republicans and industry lobbyists, such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, which have warned the cost of complying with the new clean air standards would harm the economy.
The EPA has countered by arguing that the rules will deliver net economic benefits, claiming that improvement in air quality would prevent up to 12,000 premature deaths a year and save $100bn in health benefits.
Public health and 'green' groups slammed the latest delay, directly linking the failure to introduce tighter air quality rules with premature deaths.
"This deplorable delay – the fourth so far – means more deaths and suffering throughout the nation from dangerous smog pollution," said Earthjustice attorney David Baron in a statement. "Millions of Americans are being denied the health protection that doctors say they need. The President needs to stop stalling and start protecting people's lungs as the law requires."
His comments were echoed by Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program, who warned that the EPA had little choice but to introduce the new standards.
"The science has been in for three years. It's past time to set the new standard," she said in a statement. "The law says the Environmental Protection Agency has to base its decision on the science. At this point, setting a standard outside the range scientists have determined is a clear violation of the Clean Air Act. The first step to protecting public health is setting the standard based on science."
Isra-Mart srl: Trading Emissions shares slump after carbon sale fails
www.isra-mart.com
Shares in Trading Emissions slumped by 9pc after the company said it had ended talks about selling its carbon emissions portfolio.
The group slumped 7 to 73p, having told the market that extreme volatility in the price of carbon allowances had dashed its hopes of selling the division. Only last month, the company, which invests in renewable energy projects, had said it was on the brink of selling the portfolio and had reached the "final stages" of negotiations. On that day, its shares dropped 12pc to 95p when it said the investments would fetch "a minimum of 50p per share".
However, since then, the prices of European Union allowances and certified emission reduction securities have dropped by about 20pc to their lowest level in more than two years.
Trading Emissions said: "While encouraged by the level of interest in the company's carbon-related securities, the board has concluded that to sell the company's entire portfolio now, at a time of extreme market volatility, would not be in line with the stated investment policy of a tactical and controlled realisation."
Trading Emissions said on Wednesday it still plans to sell the carbon portfolio at the "appropriate" time, with money returned to shareholders by October.
The company, which raised £135m on Aim in 2005, is now worth £184m.
Shares in Trading Emissions slumped by 9pc after the company said it had ended talks about selling its carbon emissions portfolio.
The group slumped 7 to 73p, having told the market that extreme volatility in the price of carbon allowances had dashed its hopes of selling the division. Only last month, the company, which invests in renewable energy projects, had said it was on the brink of selling the portfolio and had reached the "final stages" of negotiations. On that day, its shares dropped 12pc to 95p when it said the investments would fetch "a minimum of 50p per share".
However, since then, the prices of European Union allowances and certified emission reduction securities have dropped by about 20pc to their lowest level in more than two years.
Trading Emissions said: "While encouraged by the level of interest in the company's carbon-related securities, the board has concluded that to sell the company's entire portfolio now, at a time of extreme market volatility, would not be in line with the stated investment policy of a tactical and controlled realisation."
Trading Emissions said on Wednesday it still plans to sell the carbon portfolio at the "appropriate" time, with money returned to shareholders by October.
The company, which raised £135m on Aim in 2005, is now worth £184m.
Isra-Mart srl: Carbon tax legislation out for comment
www.isra-mart.com
The public has a month to comment on draft legislation detailing how the federal government's carbon price will operate and be enforced.
Draft legislation, released on Thursday, also includes bills establishing the clean energy regulator to run the carbon price and the independent climate change authority that will advise on future directions for the policy.
Also, the government will step up its campaign to sell the carbon tax, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said during a speech at the Sydney University Law School.
From next week, the government will mail a brochure to all households outlining the carbon price proposal.
Mr Combet said he found people became more comfortable with the government's approach to dealing with climate change once they had the package explained in detail.
'People are interested in the facts,' he said.
'This is very important in an environment where (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott has created such fear and apprehension in the community, completely unjustifiably, in a totally unprincipled manner.'
The package of 14 draft bills is open for comment until August 22.
Mr Combet hopes to introduce the final legislation to the House of Representatives in September.
The draft bills detail how the three-year fixed carbon price and the subsequent move to an emissions trading scheme will work.
They also enshrine in legislation the target of reducing Australian emissions to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050.
Mr Combet said the legislation specified rules for what sources of carbon emissions would be covered by the tax, such as excluding agriculture and detailing the new petrol taxation arrangements.
The legislation links the carbon price to the carbon farming initiative and sets up the assistance measures from emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries.
The minister said the government was still drafting legislation for the household assistance measures Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced earlier in July.
The government also intends to introduce more legislation in 2012 that would cover the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the government was rushing to lock in the carbon tax before voters could have a say through an election.
'Once more it appears the Labor government is steamrolling ahead with a carbon tax the community doesn't want and is failing to think through the implications of its policy,' he said.
The Australian Greens welcomed the legislation's release.
'The Greens will go over this draft legislation with a fine-toothed comb,' deputy leader Christine Milne said.
The party wants to make sure it reflects the agreement announced earlier in July and continue discussions with the government and independents.
The public has a month to comment on draft legislation detailing how the federal government's carbon price will operate and be enforced.
Draft legislation, released on Thursday, also includes bills establishing the clean energy regulator to run the carbon price and the independent climate change authority that will advise on future directions for the policy.
Also, the government will step up its campaign to sell the carbon tax, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said during a speech at the Sydney University Law School.
From next week, the government will mail a brochure to all households outlining the carbon price proposal.
Mr Combet said he found people became more comfortable with the government's approach to dealing with climate change once they had the package explained in detail.
'People are interested in the facts,' he said.
'This is very important in an environment where (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott has created such fear and apprehension in the community, completely unjustifiably, in a totally unprincipled manner.'
The package of 14 draft bills is open for comment until August 22.
Mr Combet hopes to introduce the final legislation to the House of Representatives in September.
The draft bills detail how the three-year fixed carbon price and the subsequent move to an emissions trading scheme will work.
They also enshrine in legislation the target of reducing Australian emissions to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050.
Mr Combet said the legislation specified rules for what sources of carbon emissions would be covered by the tax, such as excluding agriculture and detailing the new petrol taxation arrangements.
The legislation links the carbon price to the carbon farming initiative and sets up the assistance measures from emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries.
The minister said the government was still drafting legislation for the household assistance measures Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced earlier in July.
The government also intends to introduce more legislation in 2012 that would cover the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the government was rushing to lock in the carbon tax before voters could have a say through an election.
'Once more it appears the Labor government is steamrolling ahead with a carbon tax the community doesn't want and is failing to think through the implications of its policy,' he said.
The Australian Greens welcomed the legislation's release.
'The Greens will go over this draft legislation with a fine-toothed comb,' deputy leader Christine Milne said.
The party wants to make sure it reflects the agreement announced earlier in July and continue discussions with the government and independents.
Isra-Mart srl: US fury at EU plan for emissions trading scheme for airlines
www.isra-mart.com
The US transport industry yesterday vented its anger at EU plans to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) it claims will cost its airlines more than US$3 billion by 2020.
From January, airlines flying through EU airspace will be expected to join the ETS system and buy permits for any carbon emissions they produce over a certain level.
At a hearing yesterday, representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, Transport and State departments and US pilot and airline associations slammed the scheme, calling it “illegal”, “arbitrary” and “unjust”.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica said: “The message from Congress and the US government is loud and clear: the US will not participate in this ill-advised and illegal EU programme.”
Tom Petri, Chairman of the US Aviation Subcommittee, said: “The EU is not sovereign over the US or the rest of the world, and has no right to levy taxes outside of the EU.”
Mica said: “This EU scheme is an arbitrary and unjust violation of international law that disadvantages US air carriers and kills US aviation jobs."
Nancy Young, VP of Environmental Affairs at the US Air Transport Association, told the hearing: “US airlines will be required to pay into EU coffers more than $3.1 billion between 2012 and 2020. That outlay could support more than 39,200 US airline jobs.”
Petri added: “Since the EU has shown no interest in working with the international community to address its concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we believe that the US should not participate in this unilateral and questionable ETS programme.
“We believe a better approach is to work with the international civil aviation community through the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation.”
Draft legislation to forbid US airlines from participating in the ETS has been introduced in Congress.
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) has also warned that the ETS scheme could distort the competitiveness of European airlines, as all their flights would be affected.
Its Secretary General, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, said: “The EU ETS has a number of flaws. But this proposed [Congress] Bill is not the answer. If adopted, it will only increase the tensions between the EU and the US, as EU member states are bound by the ETS directive to ensure compliance.”
The AEA believes a far better approach for the EU and the US would be to accelerate negotiations towards a global sectoral approach within the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
In June, IFW reported how Chinese and Russian airlines had also expressed concerns over the ETS.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association (Iata) in Singapore, Chai Haibo, Deputy Secretary-general of the China Air Transport Association (CATA), said the EU plan to unilaterally force countries into the ETS was “radically unreasonable”.
"China will not join the EU’s carbon trading scheme, despite the consequences," Haibo said.
The US transport industry yesterday vented its anger at EU plans to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) it claims will cost its airlines more than US$3 billion by 2020.
From January, airlines flying through EU airspace will be expected to join the ETS system and buy permits for any carbon emissions they produce over a certain level.
At a hearing yesterday, representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, Transport and State departments and US pilot and airline associations slammed the scheme, calling it “illegal”, “arbitrary” and “unjust”.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica said: “The message from Congress and the US government is loud and clear: the US will not participate in this ill-advised and illegal EU programme.”
Tom Petri, Chairman of the US Aviation Subcommittee, said: “The EU is not sovereign over the US or the rest of the world, and has no right to levy taxes outside of the EU.”
Mica said: “This EU scheme is an arbitrary and unjust violation of international law that disadvantages US air carriers and kills US aviation jobs."
Nancy Young, VP of Environmental Affairs at the US Air Transport Association, told the hearing: “US airlines will be required to pay into EU coffers more than $3.1 billion between 2012 and 2020. That outlay could support more than 39,200 US airline jobs.”
Petri added: “Since the EU has shown no interest in working with the international community to address its concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we believe that the US should not participate in this unilateral and questionable ETS programme.
“We believe a better approach is to work with the international civil aviation community through the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation.”
Draft legislation to forbid US airlines from participating in the ETS has been introduced in Congress.
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) has also warned that the ETS scheme could distort the competitiveness of European airlines, as all their flights would be affected.
Its Secretary General, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, said: “The EU ETS has a number of flaws. But this proposed [Congress] Bill is not the answer. If adopted, it will only increase the tensions between the EU and the US, as EU member states are bound by the ETS directive to ensure compliance.”
The AEA believes a far better approach for the EU and the US would be to accelerate negotiations towards a global sectoral approach within the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
In June, IFW reported how Chinese and Russian airlines had also expressed concerns over the ETS.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association (Iata) in Singapore, Chai Haibo, Deputy Secretary-general of the China Air Transport Association (CATA), said the EU plan to unilaterally force countries into the ETS was “radically unreasonable”.
"China will not join the EU’s carbon trading scheme, despite the consequences," Haibo said.
Isra-Mart srl: US airlines to play no part in "ill-advised and illegal" emissions trading scheme
www.isra-mart.com
US politicians have stepped up their sabre-rattling over the EU's plans to include aviation in its emissions trading scheme, declaring unequivocally that US airlines will not participate.
The bi-partisan Congressional Transportation Committee introduced a bill last week that would legally prevent US carriers from taking part in the cap-and-trade scheme, which will charge all airlines per tonne of CO2 for all flights in and out of the EU from next year.
Its national trade body is also embroiled in a legal battle at the European Court of Justice, where it is claiming that the scheme is effectively a tax that contravenes international law.
Congressional leaders and witnesses told an aviation subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday that US airlines would pay more than $3.1bn to the EU by 2020, slightly down on other forecasts, which would damage an already teetering industry badly and see substantial layoffs.
"This appropriately named EU 'scheme' is an arbitrary and unjust violation of international law that disadvantages US air carriers and kills US aviation jobs," said John Mica, a Republican from Florida who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "The message from Congress and the US government is loud and clear: the United States will not participate in this ill-advised and illegal EU programme."
The EU argues that the ETS is neither a tax nor a charge, but a pollution ceiling and the inclusion of aviation is fully consistent with international law.
However, this is not a view shared on the other side of the Atlantic and the US remains aggrieved that attempts to have its airlines excluded from the scheme fell on deaf ears.
"The European Union is not sovereign over the United States or the rest of the world, and has no right to levy taxes outside of the EU," said Representative Tom Petri, a Wisconsin Republican. "Since the EU has shown no interest in working with the international community to address their concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we believe that the United States should not participate in their unilateral and questionable ETS programme."
The standoff and aggressive legislation tabled in the US has led to fears of a trade war, something European airlines are desperate to avoid. While keen to reduce the sector's soaring emissions, they would prefer a global deal to be worked out by International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Earlier this week, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, secretary-general of the Association of European Airlines, urged the EU to sit down with its American counterparts and head off the growing tensions.
"With the ETS clock ticking very loudly now, we have once again urged the Commission to address the issues being raised by Europe's major trade," he said. "Our position is clear: European carriers must not be caught in the political crossfire."
US politicians have stepped up their sabre-rattling over the EU's plans to include aviation in its emissions trading scheme, declaring unequivocally that US airlines will not participate.
The bi-partisan Congressional Transportation Committee introduced a bill last week that would legally prevent US carriers from taking part in the cap-and-trade scheme, which will charge all airlines per tonne of CO2 for all flights in and out of the EU from next year.
Its national trade body is also embroiled in a legal battle at the European Court of Justice, where it is claiming that the scheme is effectively a tax that contravenes international law.
Congressional leaders and witnesses told an aviation subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday that US airlines would pay more than $3.1bn to the EU by 2020, slightly down on other forecasts, which would damage an already teetering industry badly and see substantial layoffs.
"This appropriately named EU 'scheme' is an arbitrary and unjust violation of international law that disadvantages US air carriers and kills US aviation jobs," said John Mica, a Republican from Florida who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "The message from Congress and the US government is loud and clear: the United States will not participate in this ill-advised and illegal EU programme."
The EU argues that the ETS is neither a tax nor a charge, but a pollution ceiling and the inclusion of aviation is fully consistent with international law.
However, this is not a view shared on the other side of the Atlantic and the US remains aggrieved that attempts to have its airlines excluded from the scheme fell on deaf ears.
"The European Union is not sovereign over the United States or the rest of the world, and has no right to levy taxes outside of the EU," said Representative Tom Petri, a Wisconsin Republican. "Since the EU has shown no interest in working with the international community to address their concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we believe that the United States should not participate in their unilateral and questionable ETS programme."
The standoff and aggressive legislation tabled in the US has led to fears of a trade war, something European airlines are desperate to avoid. While keen to reduce the sector's soaring emissions, they would prefer a global deal to be worked out by International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Earlier this week, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, secretary-general of the Association of European Airlines, urged the EU to sit down with its American counterparts and head off the growing tensions.
"With the ETS clock ticking very loudly now, we have once again urged the Commission to address the issues being raised by Europe's major trade," he said. "Our position is clear: European carriers must not be caught in the political crossfire."
Isra-Mart srl: Aviation association calls for ETS singularity
www.isra-mart.com
The European Regions Airline Association (ERA) has urged the European Commission to adopt an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The association has written to EU vice president Kallas to withdrawal the ETS completely or suspend its introduction until the US and China settle their disputes over the scheme. In the US, carriers are trying to implement a bill that will make ETS illegal. “Aviation is a global industry and needs a global solution on emissions and climate change,” said Mike Ambrose, director general of ERA. “In pressing ahead with the EU ETS as a unilateral solution, the European Commission has brought the current situation on itself. A situation whereby intra-EU carriers would be the only airlines left complying with the scheme, would do nothing for the environment but would be detrimental to Europe’s economic stability, its businesses and citizens, particularly those in the EU’s regions.”
The European Regions Airline Association (ERA) has urged the European Commission to adopt an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The association has written to EU vice president Kallas to withdrawal the ETS completely or suspend its introduction until the US and China settle their disputes over the scheme. In the US, carriers are trying to implement a bill that will make ETS illegal. “Aviation is a global industry and needs a global solution on emissions and climate change,” said Mike Ambrose, director general of ERA. “In pressing ahead with the EU ETS as a unilateral solution, the European Commission has brought the current situation on itself. A situation whereby intra-EU carriers would be the only airlines left complying with the scheme, would do nothing for the environment but would be detrimental to Europe’s economic stability, its businesses and citizens, particularly those in the EU’s regions.”
Isra-Mart srl: US and Europe Battle Over Carbon Fees for Airlines
www.isra-mart.com
Sharply divergent climate change policies on opposite sides of the Atlantic are setting off political fireworks as European environmental regulators prepare to extend their reach across the ocean. Starting Jan. 1, the European Union will require all carriers entering or leaving its airports to either reduce their emissions or pay a charge — whether the airline is United, Air France or Lufthansa.
Airplane on runway
Getty Images
Until now, the United States and Europe have taken a to-each-his-own attitude on how to handle the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, leaving American consumers largely immune to aggressive European environmental regulation and its costs. But come 2012, Americans flying to Europe are likely to be paying indirectly for the emissions their trips create — chiefly through steeper fares, although uncertainty persists about how much higher they will be.
American carriers and air freight companies will also face a new type of competition, because the “cleanest” airlines will pay less in emissions fees.
The United States airline industry has fought aggressively against inclusion in the European Union Emissions Trading System, most recently in a lawsuit filed before the European Court of Justice, the European Union’s highest court. It argues that the European Union has no legal right to regulate American carriers or flight emissions that are released over other countries or into international airspace as planes make their way across the ocean. A ruling is not expected until late this year at the earliest.
The issue has also created diplomatic tensions. “The European Union is imposing this on U.S. carriers without our agreement,” Wendell Albright, director of the Office of Aviation Negotiations at the State Department, said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is for the U.S. to decide on targets or appropriate action for U.S. airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.”
He said the Obama administration had voiced its displeasure to the European Union and was “exploring various options” to address the standoff.
The European emissions trading system relies on a cap-and-trade mechanism in which companies that exceed their government-mandated targets for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions must buy carbon permits from businesses that earned them by emitting less than they were allowed. New industries enter the program each year.
American carriers project that they will end up spending $3.1 billion on the carbon permits by 2020. That could ultimately raise the price of a trans-Atlantic ticket as much as $57 for a flight from New York to London, according to some industry estimates.
The European Union is “attempting to regulate the airlines of the world,” said Nancy Young, vice president for environmental affairs at the Air Transport Association, the largest airline industry group in the United States. “The plan violates international law.”
European Union officials are standing firm, saying that adding civil aviation and cargo flights to Europe’s expanding emissions trading system is both legal and nonnegotiable.
“In Europe, we’re trying to do something with climate change and we now have emissions targets for sector after sector,” said Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner for climate action. “We now include power producers, we now include manufacturing, so how can we not include aviation?”
Under the current plan, all airlines flying into airports within the European Union will have to reduce their emissions next year by 3 percent from average levels between 2004 and 2006, or buy carbon permits to make up the difference.
Ms. Hedegaard added that was unfair to require European airlines to pay for their pollution on routes that United Airlines or Air China flew for free.
At a hearing before the European Court of Justice last month, lawyers from the European Union and environmental groups said inclusion was legal, comparing the emissions fees to a landing charge or to a prohibition on overly noisy aircraft.
Annie Petsonk, a lawyer who attended for the Environmental Defense Fund and who previously worked for the Justice Department, said: “The E.U. system is not a tax — if you don’t want to pay you can reduce your emissions. ”
At the heart of the dispute are the disparate political positions taken by Europe and the United States on appropriate measures for reining in greenhouse gas emissions and the gravity of climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions from air travel are one of the fastest-growing sources of the gases that scientists say are warming the planet, and they have an outsize effect because they are released high in the atmosphere, scientists say.
While a substantial contingent in Congress continues to express skepticism that human-caused climate change is a serious problem, European countries have been obliged to reduce emissions since 2005 under the Kyoto Protocol, which was never ratified by the United States.
Countries like Britain have written stringent emissions reductions targets into law. With those in mind, Britain refused last year to permit construction of a new runway at Heathrow Airport because it would enable more air travel. British companies, including the telecommunications company Vodafone and Aveva, a software giant, have taken steps to cut business flying.
International climate treaties assign the International Civil Aviation Organization, a body that governs protocols and procedures for global aviation, to oversee the reduction of airline emissions through its member states. The Obama administration, while emphasizing that it supports programs to reduce the growth in airline emissions, has cited such treaties in arguing that the European Union has overstepped its jurisdiction.
But critics counter that the aviation organization, which consists of representatives from 190 nations, has been ineffective on that front, relying on purely voluntary measures. “We would have liked to see a global agreement, but for how long can this sector avoid being part of the solution to the climate problem?” Ms. Hedegaard said.
Perry Flint, a Washington spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, said that the American airline fleet was generally older and therefore less fuel-efficient than its Western European counterpart. But many American carriers are already taking steps to reduce emissions, like buying more fuel-efficient jets and flying more direct routes. Those efforts have been driven primarily by high fuel costs and a desire to project an environmentally friendly corporate image, not by the anticipated European mandates.
This month, American Airlines, which has flown an all-Boeing fleet since 2009, announced that it had bought more than 250 new planes from the European manufacturer Airbus, citing efficiency as a big factor.
With their European Court case unlikely to be decided soon, American carriers have started monitoring and reporting emissions from their flights to the European Union as required in preparation for entering the system — albeit “under protest.”
Other foreign airlines like the national carrier Air China have been negotiating separately with the European Union. The Europeans have said that airlines could be exempted from the system if they proposed equivalent emissions-reducing measures at home; these might include using cleaner fuels.
Part of the uncertainty over the extent of a ticket price increase — the European Union suggests it might just be a few dollars — is rooted in how carbon permit prices vary over time, depending on demand. Currently the price is low because of the global recession.
In 2012, the European Union plans to hand out a substantial number of free credits to ease the transition. But airlines that significantly improve their environmental performance might not need to buy the credits at all. They could even earn extra credits to sell, which could in theory reduce the price of a ticket.
Sharply divergent climate change policies on opposite sides of the Atlantic are setting off political fireworks as European environmental regulators prepare to extend their reach across the ocean. Starting Jan. 1, the European Union will require all carriers entering or leaving its airports to either reduce their emissions or pay a charge — whether the airline is United, Air France or Lufthansa.
Airplane on runway
Getty Images
Until now, the United States and Europe have taken a to-each-his-own attitude on how to handle the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, leaving American consumers largely immune to aggressive European environmental regulation and its costs. But come 2012, Americans flying to Europe are likely to be paying indirectly for the emissions their trips create — chiefly through steeper fares, although uncertainty persists about how much higher they will be.
American carriers and air freight companies will also face a new type of competition, because the “cleanest” airlines will pay less in emissions fees.
The United States airline industry has fought aggressively against inclusion in the European Union Emissions Trading System, most recently in a lawsuit filed before the European Court of Justice, the European Union’s highest court. It argues that the European Union has no legal right to regulate American carriers or flight emissions that are released over other countries or into international airspace as planes make their way across the ocean. A ruling is not expected until late this year at the earliest.
The issue has also created diplomatic tensions. “The European Union is imposing this on U.S. carriers without our agreement,” Wendell Albright, director of the Office of Aviation Negotiations at the State Department, said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is for the U.S. to decide on targets or appropriate action for U.S. airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.”
He said the Obama administration had voiced its displeasure to the European Union and was “exploring various options” to address the standoff.
The European emissions trading system relies on a cap-and-trade mechanism in which companies that exceed their government-mandated targets for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions must buy carbon permits from businesses that earned them by emitting less than they were allowed. New industries enter the program each year.
American carriers project that they will end up spending $3.1 billion on the carbon permits by 2020. That could ultimately raise the price of a trans-Atlantic ticket as much as $57 for a flight from New York to London, according to some industry estimates.
The European Union is “attempting to regulate the airlines of the world,” said Nancy Young, vice president for environmental affairs at the Air Transport Association, the largest airline industry group in the United States. “The plan violates international law.”
European Union officials are standing firm, saying that adding civil aviation and cargo flights to Europe’s expanding emissions trading system is both legal and nonnegotiable.
“In Europe, we’re trying to do something with climate change and we now have emissions targets for sector after sector,” said Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner for climate action. “We now include power producers, we now include manufacturing, so how can we not include aviation?”
Under the current plan, all airlines flying into airports within the European Union will have to reduce their emissions next year by 3 percent from average levels between 2004 and 2006, or buy carbon permits to make up the difference.
Ms. Hedegaard added that was unfair to require European airlines to pay for their pollution on routes that United Airlines or Air China flew for free.
At a hearing before the European Court of Justice last month, lawyers from the European Union and environmental groups said inclusion was legal, comparing the emissions fees to a landing charge or to a prohibition on overly noisy aircraft.
Annie Petsonk, a lawyer who attended for the Environmental Defense Fund and who previously worked for the Justice Department, said: “The E.U. system is not a tax — if you don’t want to pay you can reduce your emissions. ”
At the heart of the dispute are the disparate political positions taken by Europe and the United States on appropriate measures for reining in greenhouse gas emissions and the gravity of climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions from air travel are one of the fastest-growing sources of the gases that scientists say are warming the planet, and they have an outsize effect because they are released high in the atmosphere, scientists say.
While a substantial contingent in Congress continues to express skepticism that human-caused climate change is a serious problem, European countries have been obliged to reduce emissions since 2005 under the Kyoto Protocol, which was never ratified by the United States.
Countries like Britain have written stringent emissions reductions targets into law. With those in mind, Britain refused last year to permit construction of a new runway at Heathrow Airport because it would enable more air travel. British companies, including the telecommunications company Vodafone and Aveva, a software giant, have taken steps to cut business flying.
International climate treaties assign the International Civil Aviation Organization, a body that governs protocols and procedures for global aviation, to oversee the reduction of airline emissions through its member states. The Obama administration, while emphasizing that it supports programs to reduce the growth in airline emissions, has cited such treaties in arguing that the European Union has overstepped its jurisdiction.
But critics counter that the aviation organization, which consists of representatives from 190 nations, has been ineffective on that front, relying on purely voluntary measures. “We would have liked to see a global agreement, but for how long can this sector avoid being part of the solution to the climate problem?” Ms. Hedegaard said.
Perry Flint, a Washington spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, said that the American airline fleet was generally older and therefore less fuel-efficient than its Western European counterpart. But many American carriers are already taking steps to reduce emissions, like buying more fuel-efficient jets and flying more direct routes. Those efforts have been driven primarily by high fuel costs and a desire to project an environmentally friendly corporate image, not by the anticipated European mandates.
This month, American Airlines, which has flown an all-Boeing fleet since 2009, announced that it had bought more than 250 new planes from the European manufacturer Airbus, citing efficiency as a big factor.
With their European Court case unlikely to be decided soon, American carriers have started monitoring and reporting emissions from their flights to the European Union as required in preparation for entering the system — albeit “under protest.”
Other foreign airlines like the national carrier Air China have been negotiating separately with the European Union. The Europeans have said that airlines could be exempted from the system if they proposed equivalent emissions-reducing measures at home; these might include using cleaner fuels.
Part of the uncertainty over the extent of a ticket price increase — the European Union suggests it might just be a few dollars — is rooted in how carbon permit prices vary over time, depending on demand. Currently the price is low because of the global recession.
In 2012, the European Union plans to hand out a substantial number of free credits to ease the transition. But airlines that significantly improve their environmental performance might not need to buy the credits at all. They could even earn extra credits to sell, which could in theory reduce the price of a ticket.
Isra-Mart srl: EU-US dogfight over cleaner sky
www.isra-mart.com
The European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) is the Union's key tool in combating climate change by reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. Starting from January 2012, the airlines will join the ETS scheme, meaning that all freight and passengers carriers, regardless of their origin, entering or leaving airports in the EU would need to either reduce their emissions or pay a charge.
So far, the EU's environment policies have interfered excessively in relations with Europe's most important partner, the US, which places far less emphasis on global warming.
For the first time, the EU's regulations on climate change will directly affect American consumers, through the higher costs of their cross-Atlantic flights, although it is still unclear how much higher prices will be.
In addition, EU regulations are introducing a new type of competition to American markets, with the least-polluting airlines benefiting from the lowest emissions fees.
Under the current scheme, all airlines landing at EU airports would have to reduce their gases emissions by 3% from average levels between 2004 and 2006, or buy carbon permits to compensate.
As a result, the US airline companies have fought vigorously against inclusion in the ETS. The recent lawsuit before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) argued that the EU did not have the legal right to regulate American carriers nor flight emissions released over countries or into international airspace.
As the ruling is not expected before the end of the year, the issue sparked diplomatic tensions as well.
On 27 July, State Department Office of Aviation Negotiations Director Wendell Albright said: “The European Union is imposing this on US carriers without our agreement,” and added that it was for the US “to decide on targets or appropriate action for US airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions”.
Air Transport Association Environmental Affairs Vice President Nancy Young accused the European Union of “attempting to regulate the airlines of the world,” underlining that “the plan violates international law”.
The airlines project additional spending of $3.1 billion (€2.1 billion) on carbon permits by the end of decade, which could ultimately raise the price of a transatlantic tickets.
In response, Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that European leaders are “trying to do something with climate change”. She added that “emissions targets for sector after sector” were set and reminded that power producers were included, manufacturing would be included and asked how the aviation sector could be excluded: “We would have liked to see a global agreement, but for how long can this sector avoid being part of the solution to the climate problem?”
Lawyers representing the EU before the ECJ stipulated that inclusion was legal and compared the emissions fees to landing charges and prohibition of noise-polluting aircraft.
The bill was introduced on 20 July by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) to ban US air carriers from participating in the ETS. “This unjust European Union emissions-trading scheme is a clear violation of international law that puts US air carriers at a competitive disadvantage, kills US aviation jobs, and may lead to a trade war,” Mica said, presenting the bill.
US Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri said: “The EU is not sovereign over the US or the rest of the world, and has no right to levy taxes outside the EU.”
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) Secretary-General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus has also warned that the ETS scheme could distort the competitiveness of European airlines and said that “the EU ETS has a number of flaws. But this proposed [Congress] Bill is not the answer. If adopted, it will only increase the tensions between the EU and the US, as EU member states are bound by the ETS directive to ensure compliance.” He suggested that a far better approach for the EU and the US would be to accelerate negotiations towards a global approach within the framework International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
The ICAO is charged by the international climate treaties to oversee the reduction of airline emissions through its member states, but has been widely criticised for its ineffectiveness caused by purely voluntary measures that it was mandated to conduct.
Despite the turmoil, most American airlines have begun to monitor their levels of emissions from their European flights, preparing to enter the ETS system “under protest”, however.
Additionally, many of the companies have announced their acquisition of new aircraft from the European producer Airbus, due to higher fuel efficiency.
Finally, European officials have said that airlines could negotiate exemptions from the scheme if they provide equivalent emissions-reducing measures at home, such as use of cleaner fuels or higher ecological standards of production.
The European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) is the Union's key tool in combating climate change by reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. Starting from January 2012, the airlines will join the ETS scheme, meaning that all freight and passengers carriers, regardless of their origin, entering or leaving airports in the EU would need to either reduce their emissions or pay a charge.
So far, the EU's environment policies have interfered excessively in relations with Europe's most important partner, the US, which places far less emphasis on global warming.
For the first time, the EU's regulations on climate change will directly affect American consumers, through the higher costs of their cross-Atlantic flights, although it is still unclear how much higher prices will be.
In addition, EU regulations are introducing a new type of competition to American markets, with the least-polluting airlines benefiting from the lowest emissions fees.
Under the current scheme, all airlines landing at EU airports would have to reduce their gases emissions by 3% from average levels between 2004 and 2006, or buy carbon permits to compensate.
As a result, the US airline companies have fought vigorously against inclusion in the ETS. The recent lawsuit before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) argued that the EU did not have the legal right to regulate American carriers nor flight emissions released over countries or into international airspace.
As the ruling is not expected before the end of the year, the issue sparked diplomatic tensions as well.
On 27 July, State Department Office of Aviation Negotiations Director Wendell Albright said: “The European Union is imposing this on US carriers without our agreement,” and added that it was for the US “to decide on targets or appropriate action for US airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions”.
Air Transport Association Environmental Affairs Vice President Nancy Young accused the European Union of “attempting to regulate the airlines of the world,” underlining that “the plan violates international law”.
The airlines project additional spending of $3.1 billion (€2.1 billion) on carbon permits by the end of decade, which could ultimately raise the price of a transatlantic tickets.
In response, Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that European leaders are “trying to do something with climate change”. She added that “emissions targets for sector after sector” were set and reminded that power producers were included, manufacturing would be included and asked how the aviation sector could be excluded: “We would have liked to see a global agreement, but for how long can this sector avoid being part of the solution to the climate problem?”
Lawyers representing the EU before the ECJ stipulated that inclusion was legal and compared the emissions fees to landing charges and prohibition of noise-polluting aircraft.
The bill was introduced on 20 July by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) to ban US air carriers from participating in the ETS. “This unjust European Union emissions-trading scheme is a clear violation of international law that puts US air carriers at a competitive disadvantage, kills US aviation jobs, and may lead to a trade war,” Mica said, presenting the bill.
US Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri said: “The EU is not sovereign over the US or the rest of the world, and has no right to levy taxes outside the EU.”
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) Secretary-General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus has also warned that the ETS scheme could distort the competitiveness of European airlines and said that “the EU ETS has a number of flaws. But this proposed [Congress] Bill is not the answer. If adopted, it will only increase the tensions between the EU and the US, as EU member states are bound by the ETS directive to ensure compliance.” He suggested that a far better approach for the EU and the US would be to accelerate negotiations towards a global approach within the framework International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
The ICAO is charged by the international climate treaties to oversee the reduction of airline emissions through its member states, but has been widely criticised for its ineffectiveness caused by purely voluntary measures that it was mandated to conduct.
Despite the turmoil, most American airlines have begun to monitor their levels of emissions from their European flights, preparing to enter the ETS system “under protest”, however.
Additionally, many of the companies have announced their acquisition of new aircraft from the European producer Airbus, due to higher fuel efficiency.
Finally, European officials have said that airlines could negotiate exemptions from the scheme if they provide equivalent emissions-reducing measures at home, such as use of cleaner fuels or higher ecological standards of production.
Isra-Mart srl: New bill in Congress bars airlines from emissions trading
www.isra-mart.com
Opposition to EU plans to extend its Emissions Trading System (ETS) to cover all flights landing at or departing from a European airport from 2012 is mounting in Washington. A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, backed by Democrats and Republicans that prohibits US airlines from taking part in the ETS. The bill's co-sponsor, John Mica (Republican, Florida), Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said, at a hearing on 27 July, that the legislation would be sent to the House floor for a vote as soon as possible. A requisite parallel bill has not been introduced yet in the Senate. US administration officials did not take a specific stance on the legislation at the hearing but they did make clear their opposition to US carriers being covered by the ETS.
"There are a wide range of options," said Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Transportation, when asked by lawmakers what concretely the administration planned to do to block the EU move. These include filing a complaint at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), adopting unilateral trade sanctions like countervailing measures, or raising objections at the joint committee that oversees implementation of the 2007 EU-US 'Open Skies' Air Transport agreement. Kurland would not say which of these options the administration was most likely to pursue. She did note that in October 2011, the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice was due to give an opinion on a complaint filed by US airlines on the issue. Kurland characterised the EU's plans as "the wrong way to pursue the right objective."
Chairman Mica said that the inclusion of airlines in the ETS was "just a cash-grab" that was "probably contrary to international treaties." His Republican colleague, Thomas Petri (Wisconsin), said "we need to aggressively work with other countries to come up with alternative solutions." Democrat Peter DeFazio (Oregon) urged the administration to file a case with the WTO as soon as possible. "They need to understand that we're serious about this," added Jerry Costello (Democrat, Illinois). Speaking for US airlines, Nancy Young, Vice President of the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), said that her organisation needed the US government's help on this issue and that the ATA supported the bill. Representing US pilots, Lee Moak, President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, was equally hostile to the ETS, calling it "an arbitrary, voodoo tax scheme."
EU SNUBBED BUT NOT SILENT
All the witnesses who spoke at the hearing were strongly opposed to the EU's plans. There was no testimony from any environmental group, nor did anyone address the hearing on behalf of the EU. However, the European Commission did submit a written information note to the hearing that rebuts the main arguments underpinning the Congressional bill. Whereas the bill's sponsors slam the EU for acting unilaterally, the Commission notes that the EU only took action after more than 15 years of unsuccessful efforts to get a global agreement on aviation emissions in the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
The EU executive denies that the ETS is a tax. It stresses that 85% of emissions allowances will be given out for free, while the other 15% will be auctioned in a way that rewards the most fuel efficient airlines. Estimating how much airlines might end up paying, it notes that "at current carbon prices" a Brussels-Washington flight would cost "less than two dollars each way" per passenger. The Commission denies that the EU is flouting international law, saying the measure conforms to the 1944 Chicago Convention. Moreover, the EU is willing to discuss what equivalent measures the US might take that would allow US airlines to be exempted from the scheme, it says. Finally, contrary to what was claimed at the hearing, the Commission says that the member states have agreed to use all the revenues they collect from auctioning out allowances to tackle climate change.
Opposition to EU plans to extend its Emissions Trading System (ETS) to cover all flights landing at or departing from a European airport from 2012 is mounting in Washington. A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, backed by Democrats and Republicans that prohibits US airlines from taking part in the ETS. The bill's co-sponsor, John Mica (Republican, Florida), Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said, at a hearing on 27 July, that the legislation would be sent to the House floor for a vote as soon as possible. A requisite parallel bill has not been introduced yet in the Senate. US administration officials did not take a specific stance on the legislation at the hearing but they did make clear their opposition to US carriers being covered by the ETS.
"There are a wide range of options," said Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Transportation, when asked by lawmakers what concretely the administration planned to do to block the EU move. These include filing a complaint at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), adopting unilateral trade sanctions like countervailing measures, or raising objections at the joint committee that oversees implementation of the 2007 EU-US 'Open Skies' Air Transport agreement. Kurland would not say which of these options the administration was most likely to pursue. She did note that in October 2011, the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice was due to give an opinion on a complaint filed by US airlines on the issue. Kurland characterised the EU's plans as "the wrong way to pursue the right objective."
Chairman Mica said that the inclusion of airlines in the ETS was "just a cash-grab" that was "probably contrary to international treaties." His Republican colleague, Thomas Petri (Wisconsin), said "we need to aggressively work with other countries to come up with alternative solutions." Democrat Peter DeFazio (Oregon) urged the administration to file a case with the WTO as soon as possible. "They need to understand that we're serious about this," added Jerry Costello (Democrat, Illinois). Speaking for US airlines, Nancy Young, Vice President of the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), said that her organisation needed the US government's help on this issue and that the ATA supported the bill. Representing US pilots, Lee Moak, President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, was equally hostile to the ETS, calling it "an arbitrary, voodoo tax scheme."
EU SNUBBED BUT NOT SILENT
All the witnesses who spoke at the hearing were strongly opposed to the EU's plans. There was no testimony from any environmental group, nor did anyone address the hearing on behalf of the EU. However, the European Commission did submit a written information note to the hearing that rebuts the main arguments underpinning the Congressional bill. Whereas the bill's sponsors slam the EU for acting unilaterally, the Commission notes that the EU only took action after more than 15 years of unsuccessful efforts to get a global agreement on aviation emissions in the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
The EU executive denies that the ETS is a tax. It stresses that 85% of emissions allowances will be given out for free, while the other 15% will be auctioned in a way that rewards the most fuel efficient airlines. Estimating how much airlines might end up paying, it notes that "at current carbon prices" a Brussels-Washington flight would cost "less than two dollars each way" per passenger. The Commission denies that the EU is flouting international law, saying the measure conforms to the 1944 Chicago Convention. Moreover, the EU is willing to discuss what equivalent measures the US might take that would allow US airlines to be exempted from the scheme, it says. Finally, contrary to what was claimed at the hearing, the Commission says that the member states have agreed to use all the revenues they collect from auctioning out allowances to tackle climate change.
Isra-Mart srl: US Vilifies Carbon-Trading Scheme for Airlines
www.isra-mart.com
Starting in 2012, airlines with flights to the EU will have to pay for certificates to emit CO2. But the United States has balked at the expensive plan. Their resistance threatens to spark a major trade dispute.
Does Europe really want to dictate an idea for climate protection to the rest of the world? That's the question being asked by US leaders in Washington, who are throwing their support behind a protest by the American airline industry against an EU climate rule.
The new regulation comes into force in January 2012 and requires airlines to buy certificates for carbon emissions to take off or land at European Union airports. The EU will sell the certificates and allow them to be re-sold. It's a way of bringing the airline industry under the EU's emissions-trading scheme, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which has applied to European industry since 2005.
But the Americans don't like it. In fact, the Obama administration is protesting the plan with enough vigor to risk a massive trade dispute. "The European Union is imposing this on U.S. carriers without our agreement," said Wendell Albright, director of the Office of Aviation Negotiations at the State Department, to the New York Times this week. "It is for the U.S. to decide on targets or appropriate action for U.S. airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions."
This rift has been growing for months, meanwhile congress is working up defensive measures. Lawmakers in the House of Representatives are forging a bill to forbid any American airline from taking part in the EU ETS. Airlines in the country have also taken action against the rule before the European Court of Justice.
Nancy Young, vice president for environmental affairs at the Air Transport Association, an airline industry group, says the EU is "attempting to regulate the airlines of the world," according to the New York Times. "The plan violates international law."
The airlines estimate that participating in the EU ETS would cost $3.1 billion through 2020. China has also protested the new rules, and it has reportedly blocked an order worth billions to the European aerospace company Airbus.
The EU, nevertheless, intends to stick to the new plan. Connie Hedegaard, a European Commission member in charge of climate action, says it would be unfair to demand emissions certificates only from European airlines while big foreign firms like United Airlines or Air China fly the same routes for free.
Starting in 2012, airlines with flights to the EU will have to pay for certificates to emit CO2. But the United States has balked at the expensive plan. Their resistance threatens to spark a major trade dispute.
Does Europe really want to dictate an idea for climate protection to the rest of the world? That's the question being asked by US leaders in Washington, who are throwing their support behind a protest by the American airline industry against an EU climate rule.
The new regulation comes into force in January 2012 and requires airlines to buy certificates for carbon emissions to take off or land at European Union airports. The EU will sell the certificates and allow them to be re-sold. It's a way of bringing the airline industry under the EU's emissions-trading scheme, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which has applied to European industry since 2005.
But the Americans don't like it. In fact, the Obama administration is protesting the plan with enough vigor to risk a massive trade dispute. "The European Union is imposing this on U.S. carriers without our agreement," said Wendell Albright, director of the Office of Aviation Negotiations at the State Department, to the New York Times this week. "It is for the U.S. to decide on targets or appropriate action for U.S. airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions."
This rift has been growing for months, meanwhile congress is working up defensive measures. Lawmakers in the House of Representatives are forging a bill to forbid any American airline from taking part in the EU ETS. Airlines in the country have also taken action against the rule before the European Court of Justice.
Nancy Young, vice president for environmental affairs at the Air Transport Association, an airline industry group, says the EU is "attempting to regulate the airlines of the world," according to the New York Times. "The plan violates international law."
The airlines estimate that participating in the EU ETS would cost $3.1 billion through 2020. China has also protested the new rules, and it has reportedly blocked an order worth billions to the European aerospace company Airbus.
The EU, nevertheless, intends to stick to the new plan. Connie Hedegaard, a European Commission member in charge of climate action, says it would be unfair to demand emissions certificates only from European airlines while big foreign firms like United Airlines or Air China fly the same routes for free.
Isra-Mart srl: How Germany plans to succeed in a nuclear free, low carbon economy
www.isra-mart.com
Germany has taken some fundamental energy decisions in recent months, ones that are interesting for other countries to study and learn from. The most “famous” decision recently has been to phase out nuclear power in the next ten years. This move builds on years of debate and a societal decision after Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident to move away from nuclear energy.
There has been much less focus, however, on the phasing in of other sources of energy. Nor has there been much focus on how Germany can remain the economic powerhouse of Europe, and the world’s second largest exporting country, while removing a significant source of energy from its grid.
This phase-in story is vital to understand, especially taking into account that Germany plans to meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets while it phases out nuclear power. So, how will this work?
A bit of history
The coalition that governed Germany from 1998 to 2005, led by the Social Democrats and the Greens, put in place a series of policies to scale up renewables and phase out nuclear energy. Just last year the new and current government coalition (a more conservative mix) decided on a new energy concept that consisted of two main elements.
1.
Agreement to phase out nuclear energy, but on a slower timeframe. To do so they decided to extend the lifetimes of the 17 German nuclear power plants by eight to twelve years.
2.
Agreement to an ambitious set of short and long-term energy and climate policy goals including:
* a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 coupled with a longer term 80 to 95% target by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels),
* a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, e.g. an increase of renewable power in power generation from 17% in 2010 to 35% in 2020 and 80% in 2050
* a target to reduce energy consumption from buildings by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
* A target to reduce energy consumption from transportation by 10% in 2020 and 25% in 2050.
After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, however, there was a decision to go back to the original phase-out schedule of 2000, while keeping in place the climate and energy targets the government had set the year before. This approach was backed by a large majority, with eighty-five percent of parliamentarians voting for both a more rapid phase-out and a number of measures (see below) on the phase-in of clean energy.
Three strategic approaches moving forward
Germany’s energy transition is based on three strategic approaches.
First, energy efficiency
Although efforts will focus on improving energy efficiency in all sectors, there is a strong focus on the building sector. This is important due to its long-living capital stocks and long renovation cycles in Germany. In other words, windows of opportunity to change buildings that stay around for decades don’t come along very regularly, so you have to grasp them when they do. If you miss that window energy efficiency measures at buildings will be much more costly or even infeasible.
The approach is two-pronged. First of all, there is the European Union directive on Energy Performance of Buildings, which states that all new buildings must consume nearly zero energy from 2020 onwards. Germany of course must follow this regulation as well. In addition, Germany has put in place new incentive programs to support the renovation of buildings. In addition to using the auction revenue from the European Emissions Trading Scheme (Europe’s “cap-and-trade” system) for renovation programs, Germany has also put in place special tax reductions for the renovation of buildings. Together 3.4 billion euros will go towards a lower energy consuming, modernized building sector in Germany.
Second, carbon free energy in all sectors
In order to achieve the long-term decarbonisation target, all sectors must transform their fuel basis to carbon-free energies. In the power sector, the focus is on renewable energies, linked with the ambitious targets noted above. For some sectors, electricity and district heating will play a significant role if produced by renewable or low-carbon energy sources.
In the interim period new highly efficient and flexible gas power plants will likely be built as back-up power. New coal fired power plants are highly unlikely. With the significant increase of renewable energies and fact that there will be full auctioning of emission allowances under the European Union Emissions trading Scheme, the economics just don’t add up.
Given the significant role of electricity for the decarbonization for many sectors, the fast and early transition of the power sector to renewable energies is a key pillar of the transition of the energy system. As noted above, the new renewables targets are being implemented with regular revisions.
In the transport sector, Germany must implement the EU auto efficiency standards. In addition, Germany has put in place a strong innovation program for electric mobility with the goal to have one million electric cars on the market by 2020 and six million by 2030. There are currently 42 million traditional cars on the road.
Third, strategic focus on the long-term goals
As noted above, policy is focused on reducing emissions in the sectors with long-living capital stocks, e.g. buildings and power plants. These sectors structure energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions for long periods of time.
However, one must ensure that the infrastructure for such a transition is in place. Therefore, Germany has started a new legal process to develop the “target grid 2050” which includes all infrastructure roll out and adjustments needed for a renewable-energy dominated electricity system.
This planning process creates the basis for regulators to license related investments and thus provides certainty around the future of the grid. Special efforts will be made to adjust and roll-out the necessary infrastructure, including the transmission networks which will transport wind power from the northern parts of the country to the South, smart distribution networks which can manage large shares of electric cars and power production from decentralized sources as well as sufficient storage options to deal with large shares of variable power sources.
A lesson for other countries?
This package of proposals forms the basis for Germany’s confidence that it can phase out one source of energy and phase in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The combination of a mix of policies (emissions trading, standards, regulations, incentives) with planning and investments in the longer-term infrastructure is the pathway Germany has chosen.
While this mix will not necessarily be the same in every country, other countries can learn from the different pieces of the German package to transition to an economically strong, low carbon economy.
Germany has taken some fundamental energy decisions in recent months, ones that are interesting for other countries to study and learn from. The most “famous” decision recently has been to phase out nuclear power in the next ten years. This move builds on years of debate and a societal decision after Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident to move away from nuclear energy.
There has been much less focus, however, on the phasing in of other sources of energy. Nor has there been much focus on how Germany can remain the economic powerhouse of Europe, and the world’s second largest exporting country, while removing a significant source of energy from its grid.
This phase-in story is vital to understand, especially taking into account that Germany plans to meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets while it phases out nuclear power. So, how will this work?
A bit of history
The coalition that governed Germany from 1998 to 2005, led by the Social Democrats and the Greens, put in place a series of policies to scale up renewables and phase out nuclear energy. Just last year the new and current government coalition (a more conservative mix) decided on a new energy concept that consisted of two main elements.
1.
Agreement to phase out nuclear energy, but on a slower timeframe. To do so they decided to extend the lifetimes of the 17 German nuclear power plants by eight to twelve years.
2.
Agreement to an ambitious set of short and long-term energy and climate policy goals including:
* a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 coupled with a longer term 80 to 95% target by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels),
* a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, e.g. an increase of renewable power in power generation from 17% in 2010 to 35% in 2020 and 80% in 2050
* a target to reduce energy consumption from buildings by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
* A target to reduce energy consumption from transportation by 10% in 2020 and 25% in 2050.
After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, however, there was a decision to go back to the original phase-out schedule of 2000, while keeping in place the climate and energy targets the government had set the year before. This approach was backed by a large majority, with eighty-five percent of parliamentarians voting for both a more rapid phase-out and a number of measures (see below) on the phase-in of clean energy.
Three strategic approaches moving forward
Germany’s energy transition is based on three strategic approaches.
First, energy efficiency
Although efforts will focus on improving energy efficiency in all sectors, there is a strong focus on the building sector. This is important due to its long-living capital stocks and long renovation cycles in Germany. In other words, windows of opportunity to change buildings that stay around for decades don’t come along very regularly, so you have to grasp them when they do. If you miss that window energy efficiency measures at buildings will be much more costly or even infeasible.
The approach is two-pronged. First of all, there is the European Union directive on Energy Performance of Buildings, which states that all new buildings must consume nearly zero energy from 2020 onwards. Germany of course must follow this regulation as well. In addition, Germany has put in place new incentive programs to support the renovation of buildings. In addition to using the auction revenue from the European Emissions Trading Scheme (Europe’s “cap-and-trade” system) for renovation programs, Germany has also put in place special tax reductions for the renovation of buildings. Together 3.4 billion euros will go towards a lower energy consuming, modernized building sector in Germany.
Second, carbon free energy in all sectors
In order to achieve the long-term decarbonisation target, all sectors must transform their fuel basis to carbon-free energies. In the power sector, the focus is on renewable energies, linked with the ambitious targets noted above. For some sectors, electricity and district heating will play a significant role if produced by renewable or low-carbon energy sources.
In the interim period new highly efficient and flexible gas power plants will likely be built as back-up power. New coal fired power plants are highly unlikely. With the significant increase of renewable energies and fact that there will be full auctioning of emission allowances under the European Union Emissions trading Scheme, the economics just don’t add up.
Given the significant role of electricity for the decarbonization for many sectors, the fast and early transition of the power sector to renewable energies is a key pillar of the transition of the energy system. As noted above, the new renewables targets are being implemented with regular revisions.
In the transport sector, Germany must implement the EU auto efficiency standards. In addition, Germany has put in place a strong innovation program for electric mobility with the goal to have one million electric cars on the market by 2020 and six million by 2030. There are currently 42 million traditional cars on the road.
Third, strategic focus on the long-term goals
As noted above, policy is focused on reducing emissions in the sectors with long-living capital stocks, e.g. buildings and power plants. These sectors structure energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions for long periods of time.
However, one must ensure that the infrastructure for such a transition is in place. Therefore, Germany has started a new legal process to develop the “target grid 2050” which includes all infrastructure roll out and adjustments needed for a renewable-energy dominated electricity system.
This planning process creates the basis for regulators to license related investments and thus provides certainty around the future of the grid. Special efforts will be made to adjust and roll-out the necessary infrastructure, including the transmission networks which will transport wind power from the northern parts of the country to the South, smart distribution networks which can manage large shares of electric cars and power production from decentralized sources as well as sufficient storage options to deal with large shares of variable power sources.
A lesson for other countries?
This package of proposals forms the basis for Germany’s confidence that it can phase out one source of energy and phase in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The combination of a mix of policies (emissions trading, standards, regulations, incentives) with planning and investments in the longer-term infrastructure is the pathway Germany has chosen.
While this mix will not necessarily be the same in every country, other countries can learn from the different pieces of the German package to transition to an economically strong, low carbon economy.
Isra-Mart srl: EU Emissions Trading Scheme Puts U.S. Airline Industry Jobs at Risk
www.isra-mart.com
The Airline Pilots Association’s expressed concerns in a statement Tuesday to the U.S. House of Representatives on the European Union’s Emission’s Trading Scheme (ETS).
Captain Lee Moak, President of The Airline Pilots Association, spoke on behalf of 53,000 pilot members who fly for 39 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. The President put it quite simply in stating “The EU ETS is a Job Killer.”
He referred to the EU ETS as “no more than a thinly disguised tax on commercial aviation, the proceeds of which may well accrue to the treasuries of foreign governments instead of being used in a meaningful way to reduce GHG emissions.” Moak added, “It is our strong contention that the industry already pays more than its fair share of taxes.”
The industry’s non-income tax burden has grown from $3.7 billion in 1993 to approximately $17 billion now, reports the ATA.
The Federal Aviation Administration is a vital part of the nation’s economy. The numbers speak for themselves as aviation generates $1.3 trillion in economic activity each year, is responsible for more than 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product and employs 11 million people.
Imposed EU ETS taxes will cost more American jobs, at a time in which job creation is critical to the nation.
“The airlines simply cannot afford any new taxes and we must do all that we can to keep from losing any more jobs in this industy,” said Moak.
The Airline Pilots Association’s expressed concerns in a statement Tuesday to the U.S. House of Representatives on the European Union’s Emission’s Trading Scheme (ETS).
Captain Lee Moak, President of The Airline Pilots Association, spoke on behalf of 53,000 pilot members who fly for 39 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. The President put it quite simply in stating “The EU ETS is a Job Killer.”
He referred to the EU ETS as “no more than a thinly disguised tax on commercial aviation, the proceeds of which may well accrue to the treasuries of foreign governments instead of being used in a meaningful way to reduce GHG emissions.” Moak added, “It is our strong contention that the industry already pays more than its fair share of taxes.”
The industry’s non-income tax burden has grown from $3.7 billion in 1993 to approximately $17 billion now, reports the ATA.
The Federal Aviation Administration is a vital part of the nation’s economy. The numbers speak for themselves as aviation generates $1.3 trillion in economic activity each year, is responsible for more than 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product and employs 11 million people.
Imposed EU ETS taxes will cost more American jobs, at a time in which job creation is critical to the nation.
“The airlines simply cannot afford any new taxes and we must do all that we can to keep from losing any more jobs in this industy,” said Moak.
Isra-Mart srl: Govt puts out draft of carbon legislation
www.isra-mart.com
The Government has issued for public comment draft legislation for its proposed carbon tax, but the Opposition says Prime Minister Julia Gillard does not want to talk to Australians about it.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet issued the legislation yesterday saying the public and interest groups had a month to review it and submit opinions about Labor's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The minister said he hoped to introduce the legislation to Parliament in September and have it passed before the end of the year.
He said of the suite of 14 Bills that can be viewed on the Climate Change Department's website, the central Bill was the Clean Energy Bill 2011.
It will bring in a three-year fixed carbon price from July next year before moving to an emissions trading scheme.
''This Bill establishes the carbon pricing mechanism and deals with assistance being provided to support jobs and competitiveness in our economy as well as maintain our energy security,'' Mr Combet said.
The Government is still drafting legislation detailing household compensation from the new scheme, but from next week will begin direct mailing information brochures about the carbon tax to all Australian homes.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that despite Ms Gillard's promise to wear out her shoe leather explaining the new tax to Australians, she had in fact kept a low profile this week.
''Twice in the last 24 hours I've been at community forums to talk about the tax and while my colleagues and I are still out and about arguing the case in the community, the Prime Minister is hiding in her office, refusing to talk to the Australian people,'' he said.
''Not only did she not wear out the shoe leather, she didn't even wear the shoes in. At the first sign of a blister she's back in her office hiding from the public because she knows that the more she talks about this tax the less people like it.''
The Bills also seek to set up the Clean Energy Regulator to administer the carbon price and the Climate Change Authority that will advise the Government on future policy directions.
Assistance measures for emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries, as well as the carbon farming initiative, are also covered in the Bills.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's Tony Mohr described the draft legislation as historic.
''ACF will be watching this legislation like a hawk as it goes through Parliament to make sure the environmentally important elements of the scheme are preserved,'' he said.
''We fully expect the big polluters to make a last ditch attempt to water down the environmental effectiveness of the legislation. Australia's elected representatives must stand firm against vested interests.''
More legislation will be introduced next year dealing with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
The Government has issued for public comment draft legislation for its proposed carbon tax, but the Opposition says Prime Minister Julia Gillard does not want to talk to Australians about it.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet issued the legislation yesterday saying the public and interest groups had a month to review it and submit opinions about Labor's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The minister said he hoped to introduce the legislation to Parliament in September and have it passed before the end of the year.
He said of the suite of 14 Bills that can be viewed on the Climate Change Department's website, the central Bill was the Clean Energy Bill 2011.
It will bring in a three-year fixed carbon price from July next year before moving to an emissions trading scheme.
''This Bill establishes the carbon pricing mechanism and deals with assistance being provided to support jobs and competitiveness in our economy as well as maintain our energy security,'' Mr Combet said.
The Government is still drafting legislation detailing household compensation from the new scheme, but from next week will begin direct mailing information brochures about the carbon tax to all Australian homes.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that despite Ms Gillard's promise to wear out her shoe leather explaining the new tax to Australians, she had in fact kept a low profile this week.
''Twice in the last 24 hours I've been at community forums to talk about the tax and while my colleagues and I are still out and about arguing the case in the community, the Prime Minister is hiding in her office, refusing to talk to the Australian people,'' he said.
''Not only did she not wear out the shoe leather, she didn't even wear the shoes in. At the first sign of a blister she's back in her office hiding from the public because she knows that the more she talks about this tax the less people like it.''
The Bills also seek to set up the Clean Energy Regulator to administer the carbon price and the Climate Change Authority that will advise the Government on future policy directions.
Assistance measures for emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries, as well as the carbon farming initiative, are also covered in the Bills.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's Tony Mohr described the draft legislation as historic.
''ACF will be watching this legislation like a hawk as it goes through Parliament to make sure the environmentally important elements of the scheme are preserved,'' he said.
''We fully expect the big polluters to make a last ditch attempt to water down the environmental effectiveness of the legislation. Australia's elected representatives must stand firm against vested interests.''
More legislation will be introduced next year dealing with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Isra-Mart srl: GTMC attacks APD in transport submission
www.isra-mart.com
The Guild of Travel Management Companies has again called for the abolition of Air Passenger Duty once the European Union Emission Trading Scheme is established and for the short-term ring fencing of APD monies for transport projects.
The GTMC made the call in its response to the Labour Party's request for ideas for its transport policy review, entitled "Britain's Better Connected".
The GTMC has also called for the regulation of one-day rail pricing, which it claims is punitive to the business traveller, and the ceasing of rail operators using car parking pricing to secure additional revenue to offset ticket price caps. It also wants a focus on a nationwide high speed rail strategy.
In order to keep the UK competitive, the GTMC has called for an increase in air capacity in the south east and at key regional airports.
The Guild of Travel Management Companies has again called for the abolition of Air Passenger Duty once the European Union Emission Trading Scheme is established and for the short-term ring fencing of APD monies for transport projects.
The GTMC made the call in its response to the Labour Party's request for ideas for its transport policy review, entitled "Britain's Better Connected".
The GTMC has also called for the regulation of one-day rail pricing, which it claims is punitive to the business traveller, and the ceasing of rail operators using car parking pricing to secure additional revenue to offset ticket price caps. It also wants a focus on a nationwide high speed rail strategy.
In order to keep the UK competitive, the GTMC has called for an increase in air capacity in the south east and at key regional airports.
Isra-Mart srl: Number of Aviation Allowances Under EU ETS Published
www.isra-mart.com
In another development on Emissions Trading, the European Commission has recently published the number of aviation allowances under the scheme, including those to be allocated free of charge, those to be auctioned and the number of allowances in the special reserve for every year to 2020.
The total quantity of aviation allowances to be allocated for aviation (the cap) in 2012 will be equal to 97% of the EEA-wide historical aviation emissions. For each subsequent year in the period during 2013-2020 this percentage will be reduced to 95%.
The Directive 2008/101/EC determined that in 2012, 85% of the allowances will be given for free to aircraft operators and 15% of the allowances will be allocated by auctioning. In the trading period of 2013-2020, 82% of the allowances will be given for free to aircraft operators, 15% of the CO2 allowances will be allocated by auctioning and the remaining 3% will remain in a special reserve for later distribution to fast growing airlines and new entrants into the market.
The EC publication of the figures for the aviation allowances can be found in its decision which is available on the EC website.
A brief summary of the figures published is:
* Total number of aviation allowances (the cap 97%) for 2012 is 212,892,053
* Total number of aviation allowances for each year from 2013 (the cap 95%) is 208,502,526
* Total number of allowances to be auctioned in 2012 (15%) is 31,933,808
* Total number of allowances to be auctioned in subsequent years (15% per year) is 31,275,379
* Total number of allowances for special reserve applicable each year from 2013 is 50,040,608
* Total number of allowances to be allocated free of charge in 2012 is 180,958,245
* Total number of allowances to be allocated free of charge for 2013 onwards is 170,972,071
By 30 September the EC will publish the benchmarks used to allocate allowances free of charge to aircraft operators. By the end of the year (31 Dec 2011) a further publication will be made determining the number of allowances that each operator will receive for free.
Should members require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Lorna Reader, Manager Industry Affairs.
In another development on Emissions Trading, the European Commission has recently published the number of aviation allowances under the scheme, including those to be allocated free of charge, those to be auctioned and the number of allowances in the special reserve for every year to 2020.
The total quantity of aviation allowances to be allocated for aviation (the cap) in 2012 will be equal to 97% of the EEA-wide historical aviation emissions. For each subsequent year in the period during 2013-2020 this percentage will be reduced to 95%.
The Directive 2008/101/EC determined that in 2012, 85% of the allowances will be given for free to aircraft operators and 15% of the allowances will be allocated by auctioning. In the trading period of 2013-2020, 82% of the allowances will be given for free to aircraft operators, 15% of the CO2 allowances will be allocated by auctioning and the remaining 3% will remain in a special reserve for later distribution to fast growing airlines and new entrants into the market.
The EC publication of the figures for the aviation allowances can be found in its decision which is available on the EC website.
A brief summary of the figures published is:
* Total number of aviation allowances (the cap 97%) for 2012 is 212,892,053
* Total number of aviation allowances for each year from 2013 (the cap 95%) is 208,502,526
* Total number of allowances to be auctioned in 2012 (15%) is 31,933,808
* Total number of allowances to be auctioned in subsequent years (15% per year) is 31,275,379
* Total number of allowances for special reserve applicable each year from 2013 is 50,040,608
* Total number of allowances to be allocated free of charge in 2012 is 180,958,245
* Total number of allowances to be allocated free of charge for 2013 onwards is 170,972,071
By 30 September the EC will publish the benchmarks used to allocate allowances free of charge to aircraft operators. By the end of the year (31 Dec 2011) a further publication will be made determining the number of allowances that each operator will receive for free.
Should members require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Lorna Reader, Manager Industry Affairs.
Isra-Mart srl: PM's ghost has come back to haunt
www.isra-mart.com
THE ghost of "Real Julia" has returned to haunt the Prime Minister, who continues to struggle with her credibility.
If we cast our minds back to last year's election campaign, the response to the "Real Julia" announcement was that the public wondered whether they had only seen a "Fake Julia" up to that time.
This is the crux of Julia Gillard's struggle for authority.
This week, the Australian Financial Review claimed, as it now seems wrongly, that when she was deputy prime minister Gillard wrote a formal paper to a cabinet committee, entitled The Bipartisan Solution, in which she argued against a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. Yet this potentially explosive revelation only served to muddy the waters regarding Gillard and her attitude to the carbon tax.
The reality is that the Australian people cannot be sure that Gillard honestly believes her own statements and there is the deep suspicion that her sole motivation is to derive short-term political benefit. Take for example the triumphant tone of the original joint press conference announcing the carbon tax with Greens leader Bob Brown sharing equal billing in the Prime Minister's courtyard.
This was not a sombre occasion announcing a complex policy that was anticipated to be a difficult decision. The fact that the carbon tax debate has proven to be so negative is more a testament to Gillard's flawed political judgment and poor communication skills than evidence of policy courage.
There are dire consequences for Labor if the belief becomes entrenched, and it may already be so, that the Prime Minister is not telling the entire truth about the impacts of her carbon tax.
In response to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's repeated claims about job losses in the coal mining sector, the Prime Minister has resorted to saying that coal mining has a "bright future" and that mining jobs are safe. This claim is laughable because the entire basis of a carbon tax is to make coal more expensive and to make competing technologies more affordable.
As the carbon tax increases over time, the ultimate outcome is that coal is eventually replaced by cleaner technologies. There is no other way for the government to meet its target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050.
The Prime Minister understands this, yet continues to make the deliberately misleading claim that coal jobs are safe.
Labor's partner in this crusade, the Greens, have argued at length for an end to mining coal - not only for domestic use, but also for export.
A recent analysis by RMIT economists Sinclair Davidson and Ashton De Silva of Greens' policies towards the coal industry shows that if implemented, 200,000 jobs would be lost and $29 billion would be taken out of the economy.
Gillard has yet to explain the implications of Ross Garnaut's warning in his March 2011 paper that the federal government will need to provide what he termed "targeted structural adjustment assistance for any regions that are vulnerable to large-scale loss of livelihood as a result of the implementation of a carbon price".
If coal industry jobs are secure, according to Gillard, the government needs urgently to clarify which regions are vulnerable to mass job losses.
The truth is that Garnaut must have been referring to employment in carbon-intensive industries and there are few industries more carbon-intensive than coal mining and energy.
Gillard also continues to infer that China is reducing its emissions, in order to support her claim that Australia needs to act so as not to be left behind. Once again, the Prime Minister makes these statements fully aware they are simply untrue.
China is undergoing an accelerated version of the industrial revolution experienced in Western nations over the past 200 years or so. And while its economy has grown enormously in recent years, it remains a nation struggling to support a vast and relatively poor population.
China's GDP was estimated last year at just over $7000 a person, compared to the GDP of the US of $47,000 a person and Australia at more than $41,000 a person.
As Chinese representatives stated at the Copenhagen climate change conference, Western nations have based their economic development on carbon emissions produced over many years, while China's increase in emissions has occurred more rapidly, but over a relatively shorter timeframe.
China can also argue strongly that a significant proportion of its growth in emissions is due to consumer demand in other countries.
Gillard has also used the European Emissions Trading System as an example of other nations taking action on climate change. But this scheme was subject to an enormous ongoing fraud that cost European Union taxpayers an estimated $6 billion, and has also proven ineffective in reducing global emissions.
A 2010 report by researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington found that emissions in developed countries have effectively been outsourced to other countries, as manufacturing relocated. One of the researchers, Steven Davis, explains: "Just like the electricity that you use in your home probably causes CO2 emissions at a coal-burning power plant somewhere else, we found that the products imported by the developed countries of western Europe, Japan, and the US cause substantial emissions in other countries, especially China." This undermines another claim of the Labor government that emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries can be adequately compensated.
The EU scheme has been criticised for being overly generous towards many of its industries and is regarded as having a much lesser impact than Gillard's proposed carbon tax, yet it continues to export its emissions to China.
Arguably the greatest impact in Australia will be on small business manufacturing, which receives no compensation under Labor's policy.
Small business manufacturers face the double whammy of the increasing value of the Australian dollar and a carbon tax. Many are reporting that the carbon tax will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and will put thousands of Australian jobs at risk.
Yet another issue undermining her credibility is that Gillard has sought the high moral ground in this debate with claims of environmental Armageddon for Kakadu and the Barrier Reef without a carbon tax.
Her policy shows that Australia's emissions will continue to rise under her carbon tax, which is why she refuses to detail the impact of her policy on the climate or on global temperatures.
There are good reasons for reducing global emissions and the world debated those reasons at Copenhagen in late 2009.
Political leaders across the world should be honest with their voting public and tell them that, in the absence of a binding global agreement, individual actions of nations, particularly smaller nations, are meaningless.
Australia should be part of any global agreement that is reached and we should take every reasonable step to protect the environment.
THE ghost of "Real Julia" has returned to haunt the Prime Minister, who continues to struggle with her credibility.
If we cast our minds back to last year's election campaign, the response to the "Real Julia" announcement was that the public wondered whether they had only seen a "Fake Julia" up to that time.
This is the crux of Julia Gillard's struggle for authority.
This week, the Australian Financial Review claimed, as it now seems wrongly, that when she was deputy prime minister Gillard wrote a formal paper to a cabinet committee, entitled The Bipartisan Solution, in which she argued against a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. Yet this potentially explosive revelation only served to muddy the waters regarding Gillard and her attitude to the carbon tax.
The reality is that the Australian people cannot be sure that Gillard honestly believes her own statements and there is the deep suspicion that her sole motivation is to derive short-term political benefit. Take for example the triumphant tone of the original joint press conference announcing the carbon tax with Greens leader Bob Brown sharing equal billing in the Prime Minister's courtyard.
This was not a sombre occasion announcing a complex policy that was anticipated to be a difficult decision. The fact that the carbon tax debate has proven to be so negative is more a testament to Gillard's flawed political judgment and poor communication skills than evidence of policy courage.
There are dire consequences for Labor if the belief becomes entrenched, and it may already be so, that the Prime Minister is not telling the entire truth about the impacts of her carbon tax.
In response to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's repeated claims about job losses in the coal mining sector, the Prime Minister has resorted to saying that coal mining has a "bright future" and that mining jobs are safe. This claim is laughable because the entire basis of a carbon tax is to make coal more expensive and to make competing technologies more affordable.
As the carbon tax increases over time, the ultimate outcome is that coal is eventually replaced by cleaner technologies. There is no other way for the government to meet its target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050.
The Prime Minister understands this, yet continues to make the deliberately misleading claim that coal jobs are safe.
Labor's partner in this crusade, the Greens, have argued at length for an end to mining coal - not only for domestic use, but also for export.
A recent analysis by RMIT economists Sinclair Davidson and Ashton De Silva of Greens' policies towards the coal industry shows that if implemented, 200,000 jobs would be lost and $29 billion would be taken out of the economy.
Gillard has yet to explain the implications of Ross Garnaut's warning in his March 2011 paper that the federal government will need to provide what he termed "targeted structural adjustment assistance for any regions that are vulnerable to large-scale loss of livelihood as a result of the implementation of a carbon price".
If coal industry jobs are secure, according to Gillard, the government needs urgently to clarify which regions are vulnerable to mass job losses.
The truth is that Garnaut must have been referring to employment in carbon-intensive industries and there are few industries more carbon-intensive than coal mining and energy.
Gillard also continues to infer that China is reducing its emissions, in order to support her claim that Australia needs to act so as not to be left behind. Once again, the Prime Minister makes these statements fully aware they are simply untrue.
China is undergoing an accelerated version of the industrial revolution experienced in Western nations over the past 200 years or so. And while its economy has grown enormously in recent years, it remains a nation struggling to support a vast and relatively poor population.
China's GDP was estimated last year at just over $7000 a person, compared to the GDP of the US of $47,000 a person and Australia at more than $41,000 a person.
As Chinese representatives stated at the Copenhagen climate change conference, Western nations have based their economic development on carbon emissions produced over many years, while China's increase in emissions has occurred more rapidly, but over a relatively shorter timeframe.
China can also argue strongly that a significant proportion of its growth in emissions is due to consumer demand in other countries.
Gillard has also used the European Emissions Trading System as an example of other nations taking action on climate change. But this scheme was subject to an enormous ongoing fraud that cost European Union taxpayers an estimated $6 billion, and has also proven ineffective in reducing global emissions.
A 2010 report by researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington found that emissions in developed countries have effectively been outsourced to other countries, as manufacturing relocated. One of the researchers, Steven Davis, explains: "Just like the electricity that you use in your home probably causes CO2 emissions at a coal-burning power plant somewhere else, we found that the products imported by the developed countries of western Europe, Japan, and the US cause substantial emissions in other countries, especially China." This undermines another claim of the Labor government that emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries can be adequately compensated.
The EU scheme has been criticised for being overly generous towards many of its industries and is regarded as having a much lesser impact than Gillard's proposed carbon tax, yet it continues to export its emissions to China.
Arguably the greatest impact in Australia will be on small business manufacturing, which receives no compensation under Labor's policy.
Small business manufacturers face the double whammy of the increasing value of the Australian dollar and a carbon tax. Many are reporting that the carbon tax will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and will put thousands of Australian jobs at risk.
Yet another issue undermining her credibility is that Gillard has sought the high moral ground in this debate with claims of environmental Armageddon for Kakadu and the Barrier Reef without a carbon tax.
Her policy shows that Australia's emissions will continue to rise under her carbon tax, which is why she refuses to detail the impact of her policy on the climate or on global temperatures.
There are good reasons for reducing global emissions and the world debated those reasons at Copenhagen in late 2009.
Political leaders across the world should be honest with their voting public and tell them that, in the absence of a binding global agreement, individual actions of nations, particularly smaller nations, are meaningless.
Australia should be part of any global agreement that is reached and we should take every reasonable step to protect the environment.
Isra-Mart srl: Julia Gillard defends tough gas cop
www.isra-mart.com
JULIA Gillard has launched a passionate defence of the government's planned regulatory regime for the carbon tax, saying she makes "no apology for having tough powers to stop any rip-offs".
After The Australian reported yesterday that the Clean Energy Regulator would be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel people to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records, Tony Abbott attacked it as "draconian".
The Prime Minister defended the regime. "I don't want to see Australian families ripped off and so we will have a tough cop on the beat, with tough powers to go after any businesses that are thinking of ripping people off," Ms Gillard said.
Fraud or attempts to thwart the scheme can be punished by up to 10 years in jail or fines of up to $1.1 million for corporations.
Ms Gillard went on the offensive as government sources suggested the Opposition Leader's attack on Labor's planned regulatory regime contradicted his arguments two weeks ago that a "dependable carbon cop" was needed to ensure the integrity of emissions permits bought overseas.
Mr Abbott also said during the same July 1 address that the emissions trading system "would require the most intensive third-party policing because it wouldn't automatically be policed by parties to the trade. And without such policing, an emissions trading scheme could offer the appearance of achieving lowest-cost abatement without much actual abatement occurring at all."
Mr Abbott told the Nine Network yesterday if there was no carbon tax "you don't need the carbon cop.
"I mean, this is a draconian new policy force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance."
Ms Gillard said it was "remarkable" that Mr Abbott would criticise powers "to make sure Australian families don't get ripped off".
"The penalties are absolutely right, no one should do the wrong thing and if people do the wrong thing then they should feel the full force of the law, including high fines and penalties, that's appropriate if people try any rip-offs," she said.
The political row flared as Mr Abbott was again forced to play down any tensions on climate change between him and former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Asked on Sky News on Thursday night whether putting a price on carbon was better than the Coalition's direct action policy, Mr Turnbull had said that direct action was the Coalition's policy.
But Mr Abbott said Mr Turnbull "very well understands the Coalition's direct action policy and he supports it because that's a condition of being in the shadow cabinet".
Mr Abbott said it was not Mr Turnbull's job to talk about a "whole range of policies, it's his job to talk about communications policy, he's doing a very good job".
But late yesterday Mr Turnbull insisted he was "beyond gagging" and would continue to speak on matters outside his portfolio.
JULIA Gillard has launched a passionate defence of the government's planned regulatory regime for the carbon tax, saying she makes "no apology for having tough powers to stop any rip-offs".
After The Australian reported yesterday that the Clean Energy Regulator would be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel people to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records, Tony Abbott attacked it as "draconian".
The Prime Minister defended the regime. "I don't want to see Australian families ripped off and so we will have a tough cop on the beat, with tough powers to go after any businesses that are thinking of ripping people off," Ms Gillard said.
Fraud or attempts to thwart the scheme can be punished by up to 10 years in jail or fines of up to $1.1 million for corporations.
Ms Gillard went on the offensive as government sources suggested the Opposition Leader's attack on Labor's planned regulatory regime contradicted his arguments two weeks ago that a "dependable carbon cop" was needed to ensure the integrity of emissions permits bought overseas.
Mr Abbott also said during the same July 1 address that the emissions trading system "would require the most intensive third-party policing because it wouldn't automatically be policed by parties to the trade. And without such policing, an emissions trading scheme could offer the appearance of achieving lowest-cost abatement without much actual abatement occurring at all."
Mr Abbott told the Nine Network yesterday if there was no carbon tax "you don't need the carbon cop.
"I mean, this is a draconian new policy force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance."
Ms Gillard said it was "remarkable" that Mr Abbott would criticise powers "to make sure Australian families don't get ripped off".
"The penalties are absolutely right, no one should do the wrong thing and if people do the wrong thing then they should feel the full force of the law, including high fines and penalties, that's appropriate if people try any rip-offs," she said.
The political row flared as Mr Abbott was again forced to play down any tensions on climate change between him and former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Asked on Sky News on Thursday night whether putting a price on carbon was better than the Coalition's direct action policy, Mr Turnbull had said that direct action was the Coalition's policy.
But Mr Abbott said Mr Turnbull "very well understands the Coalition's direct action policy and he supports it because that's a condition of being in the shadow cabinet".
Mr Abbott said it was not Mr Turnbull's job to talk about a "whole range of policies, it's his job to talk about communications policy, he's doing a very good job".
But late yesterday Mr Turnbull insisted he was "beyond gagging" and would continue to speak on matters outside his portfolio.
Isra-Mart srl: Why Gillard needs a new mandate from the people
www.isra-mart.com
THE genius of Western civilisation is its constant self-questioning. Self-questioning, though, is not the same as self-doubt. It's a determination to build on acknowledged strengths. This enthusiasm to improve on success is an aspect of our culture's capacity to be liberal and conservative at the same time.
The difference between one side of our politics and the other is not that one supports change and the other does not but the different sorts of changesand range of values that each side promotes. Politicians differ in the extent to which they prefer opportunity over equality, diversity over unity or innovation over conservation, but there's considerable common ground and acceptance of the rule that you should treat others as you would have them treat you.
The shift from feudalism to capitalism, from autocracy to democracy, hasn't been smooth, but a tradition of give and take and a preference for practical solutions has minimised upheaval. Change has been less traumatic where government has been by consent. The requirement to negotiate change has made it more sustainable.
Thirty years ago, Australians had a sense that too much economic conformism was sapping prosperity. We fretted we might be the first generation to give our children lower prospects of success than those we'd inherited. The Centre for Independent Studies helped create the intellectual climate that fostered the reforms that made ours, for a time, the world's miracle economy.
First under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, then under John Howard and Peter Costello, we deregulated financial markets, floated the dollar, reduced tariffs, privatised government assets, gave workers more freedom of contract, established Reserve Bank independence and began reforming the welfare system. Under Howard, real wages rose by more than 20 per cent, there were more than two million new jobs, and real net wealth per person more than doubled.
Even so, many of these reforms were endured rather than embraced. Although privatisation and close-to-zero tariffs have been uncontentious for almost a generation, the airwaves are still filled with angst against foreign products and greedy business people. The lesson is few philosophical arguments are ever finally won. Keating once said good policy is good politics, but leaders who can't make a case for their reforms don't win elections.
The GST was a sustainable reform because the public came to understand the old indirect tax system was inefficient. The GST was never popular but was at least a replacement tax and was accompanied by overall tax cuts.
Howard promised there would "never, ever" be a GST before the 1996 election but changed his mind. As a consequence, he sought a new mandate at the 1998 election. He didn't say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Howard's subsequent win confirmed people's readiness to accept tough but necessary reforms provided they hadn't been treated like mugs.
By contrast, Work Choices turned out to be unsustainable because it passed through a parliament that had no mandate for it.
Work Choices didn't fail because it was bad policy. It failed because it had never been put properly to the people so that it could form part of an election mandate. In our eagerness not to waste control of the Senate, the former government forgot consent of the people matters as much as the support of parliament.
Julia Gillard is likening her carbon tax to the reforms of the Hawke-Keating government but, in economic terms, it's not reform. To count as economic reform, change should increase freedom and reduce costs. Gillard portrays her carbon tax cum emissions trading scheme as a market mechanism even though it is a money tree for government. It is, after all, an odd kind of market that depends on the non-delivery of an invisible product to no one.
In the past 15 years, without a carbon tax, Australia has reduced its emissions intensity by almost 50 per cent as enterprises take steps to cut their power and fuel bills. Trucking company Linfox has reduced its emissions by 35 per cent since 2007 through educating its drivers to go easy on the accelerator and putting more skylights in its depots. Waste business Visy has developed negative emissions power generation by burning non-recyclable waste that would otherwise give off greater emissions in landfills. Farmers are storing carbon in soil.
None of this required an additional price signal. The Coalition's direct action plan should boost the conservation and innovation that's already taking place.
When change is needed, it's a good principle to change only as much as is necessary to bring about the required improvement. The fact a decision is unpopular doesn't make it brave; it may just mean it's stupid.
Governments don't need to take every significant change to the people at an election. Even so, if the case can't be made, the change can't be justified. Governments shouldn't dissemble before an election on the grounds the people can't be trusted. Even when both sides of politics agree changes are needed, leaders must take the public with them.
If the PM thinks the carbon tax is good for Australia, she should have taken it to the last election. If she's only come to that conclusion after listening to the Greens , she should seek a mandate for it at the next election. Governments can change their mind but on a tax to transform the way everyone lives and works, they can't reverse their position without a mandate.
The reforms of the previous two governments addressed the problems of those times. Today's reforms need to address the problems of these times. Then, we needed a stronger economy. Now, we still need a stronger economy but we need a stronger society too. Bodies such as the CIS and the Institute of Public Affairs have acknowledged this through the priority they give to social and cultural issues, as much as economic ones. It would be a mistake, though, for people committed to economic reform to assume the argument is self-evident.
A cohesive society needs a strong economy to sustain it. More than ever, though, would-be reformers have to show how proposed changes will strengthen the social fabric rather than simply conform to economic theory.
The Coalition will go to the next election as the party of reform -- reform that can appeal to voters as well as policy experts.
THE genius of Western civilisation is its constant self-questioning. Self-questioning, though, is not the same as self-doubt. It's a determination to build on acknowledged strengths. This enthusiasm to improve on success is an aspect of our culture's capacity to be liberal and conservative at the same time.
The difference between one side of our politics and the other is not that one supports change and the other does not but the different sorts of changesand range of values that each side promotes. Politicians differ in the extent to which they prefer opportunity over equality, diversity over unity or innovation over conservation, but there's considerable common ground and acceptance of the rule that you should treat others as you would have them treat you.
The shift from feudalism to capitalism, from autocracy to democracy, hasn't been smooth, but a tradition of give and take and a preference for practical solutions has minimised upheaval. Change has been less traumatic where government has been by consent. The requirement to negotiate change has made it more sustainable.
Thirty years ago, Australians had a sense that too much economic conformism was sapping prosperity. We fretted we might be the first generation to give our children lower prospects of success than those we'd inherited. The Centre for Independent Studies helped create the intellectual climate that fostered the reforms that made ours, for a time, the world's miracle economy.
First under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, then under John Howard and Peter Costello, we deregulated financial markets, floated the dollar, reduced tariffs, privatised government assets, gave workers more freedom of contract, established Reserve Bank independence and began reforming the welfare system. Under Howard, real wages rose by more than 20 per cent, there were more than two million new jobs, and real net wealth per person more than doubled.
Even so, many of these reforms were endured rather than embraced. Although privatisation and close-to-zero tariffs have been uncontentious for almost a generation, the airwaves are still filled with angst against foreign products and greedy business people. The lesson is few philosophical arguments are ever finally won. Keating once said good policy is good politics, but leaders who can't make a case for their reforms don't win elections.
The GST was a sustainable reform because the public came to understand the old indirect tax system was inefficient. The GST was never popular but was at least a replacement tax and was accompanied by overall tax cuts.
Howard promised there would "never, ever" be a GST before the 1996 election but changed his mind. As a consequence, he sought a new mandate at the 1998 election. He didn't say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Howard's subsequent win confirmed people's readiness to accept tough but necessary reforms provided they hadn't been treated like mugs.
By contrast, Work Choices turned out to be unsustainable because it passed through a parliament that had no mandate for it.
Work Choices didn't fail because it was bad policy. It failed because it had never been put properly to the people so that it could form part of an election mandate. In our eagerness not to waste control of the Senate, the former government forgot consent of the people matters as much as the support of parliament.
Julia Gillard is likening her carbon tax to the reforms of the Hawke-Keating government but, in economic terms, it's not reform. To count as economic reform, change should increase freedom and reduce costs. Gillard portrays her carbon tax cum emissions trading scheme as a market mechanism even though it is a money tree for government. It is, after all, an odd kind of market that depends on the non-delivery of an invisible product to no one.
In the past 15 years, without a carbon tax, Australia has reduced its emissions intensity by almost 50 per cent as enterprises take steps to cut their power and fuel bills. Trucking company Linfox has reduced its emissions by 35 per cent since 2007 through educating its drivers to go easy on the accelerator and putting more skylights in its depots. Waste business Visy has developed negative emissions power generation by burning non-recyclable waste that would otherwise give off greater emissions in landfills. Farmers are storing carbon in soil.
None of this required an additional price signal. The Coalition's direct action plan should boost the conservation and innovation that's already taking place.
When change is needed, it's a good principle to change only as much as is necessary to bring about the required improvement. The fact a decision is unpopular doesn't make it brave; it may just mean it's stupid.
Governments don't need to take every significant change to the people at an election. Even so, if the case can't be made, the change can't be justified. Governments shouldn't dissemble before an election on the grounds the people can't be trusted. Even when both sides of politics agree changes are needed, leaders must take the public with them.
If the PM thinks the carbon tax is good for Australia, she should have taken it to the last election. If she's only come to that conclusion after listening to the Greens , she should seek a mandate for it at the next election. Governments can change their mind but on a tax to transform the way everyone lives and works, they can't reverse their position without a mandate.
The reforms of the previous two governments addressed the problems of those times. Today's reforms need to address the problems of these times. Then, we needed a stronger economy. Now, we still need a stronger economy but we need a stronger society too. Bodies such as the CIS and the Institute of Public Affairs have acknowledged this through the priority they give to social and cultural issues, as much as economic ones. It would be a mistake, though, for people committed to economic reform to assume the argument is self-evident.
A cohesive society needs a strong economy to sustain it. More than ever, though, would-be reformers have to show how proposed changes will strengthen the social fabric rather than simply conform to economic theory.
The Coalition will go to the next election as the party of reform -- reform that can appeal to voters as well as policy experts.
Isra-Mart srl: GTMC calls on Labour to oppose APD and support airport expansion
www.isra-mart.com
Air Passenger Duty should not continue once aviation enters the European Union’s Emission’s Trading Scheme in 2012, the Guild of Travel Management Companies (GTMC) has told Labour.
The GTMC also believes that if APD were to be continued, it should not be increased.
The association has formally responded to Labour’s call for opinions on its future policy for transport with a seven-page document.
The submission outlines the importance of business travel to the UK economy, and how it can best be served.
The GTMC stated that business travellers re starting to rect to the high levels of taxation in the UK by spurning UK airports and using European hubs where viable.
“It is important that continued APD does not further skew the competitive advantage to European competitors,” it said.
As well as opposing aviation tax, the GTMC has called on Labour to support airport expansion in the UK, in particular in Greater London.
The association has also stated its opposition to a Thames Estuary airport, saying it is not viable in the current economic and fiscal climate, and questioning where the required funding for such a project would be found.
It added: “Furthermore we recognise that the policy in some quarters is being used as a political distraction from taking tough decisions on expansion at Stansted and Heathrow.”
On rail travel, the GTMC outlined its position in favour of the development of a high speed network, to include a direct link with Heathrow.
Anne Godfrey, the GTMC’s CEO, said the association’s response was drawn up “at the specific request” of the Labour Party.
“It illustrates the major issues facing the UK business traveller when going about their business,” she said.
“We particularly call upon the political parties to work together on areas such as airport capacity, High Speed rail and taxation in order to keep the UK competitive”.
Other nations in Europe are becoming more competitive in their transport infrastructure and taxation strategies, added Godfrey.
“We are already starting to see hubs in Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid benefit from the UK’s short sighted policies,” she said.
“UK Plc may not get another opportunity to level the playing field and move ahead and the GTMC for one intends to be the voice of British business and the business traveller -reminding and lobbying law makers and legislators on the need for a comprehensive, cross party, strategic transport and taxation strategy.”
Labour’s consultation process will draw to a close from the end of July, after which the opposition party will outline its transport policy for the UK.
Air Passenger Duty should not continue once aviation enters the European Union’s Emission’s Trading Scheme in 2012, the Guild of Travel Management Companies (GTMC) has told Labour.
The GTMC also believes that if APD were to be continued, it should not be increased.
The association has formally responded to Labour’s call for opinions on its future policy for transport with a seven-page document.
The submission outlines the importance of business travel to the UK economy, and how it can best be served.
The GTMC stated that business travellers re starting to rect to the high levels of taxation in the UK by spurning UK airports and using European hubs where viable.
“It is important that continued APD does not further skew the competitive advantage to European competitors,” it said.
As well as opposing aviation tax, the GTMC has called on Labour to support airport expansion in the UK, in particular in Greater London.
The association has also stated its opposition to a Thames Estuary airport, saying it is not viable in the current economic and fiscal climate, and questioning where the required funding for such a project would be found.
It added: “Furthermore we recognise that the policy in some quarters is being used as a political distraction from taking tough decisions on expansion at Stansted and Heathrow.”
On rail travel, the GTMC outlined its position in favour of the development of a high speed network, to include a direct link with Heathrow.
Anne Godfrey, the GTMC’s CEO, said the association’s response was drawn up “at the specific request” of the Labour Party.
“It illustrates the major issues facing the UK business traveller when going about their business,” she said.
“We particularly call upon the political parties to work together on areas such as airport capacity, High Speed rail and taxation in order to keep the UK competitive”.
Other nations in Europe are becoming more competitive in their transport infrastructure and taxation strategies, added Godfrey.
“We are already starting to see hubs in Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid benefit from the UK’s short sighted policies,” she said.
“UK Plc may not get another opportunity to level the playing field and move ahead and the GTMC for one intends to be the voice of British business and the business traveller -reminding and lobbying law makers and legislators on the need for a comprehensive, cross party, strategic transport and taxation strategy.”
Labour’s consultation process will draw to a close from the end of July, after which the opposition party will outline its transport policy for the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
