www.isramart.com
Rules to curb emissions from US power plants could finally be proposed next year after being delayed twice during the course of this year.
The performance standards, which could also force large companies to invest in low-carbon technologies, are likely to be announced in 2012, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson says in a forthcoming TV interview seen by news agency Reuters.
"I can't tell you what the regulations say right now, but what we are planning to do is release them early next calendar year," she says.
The rules for power plants had first been expected in July, but were postponed by the EPA, which said it needed more time to consult with businesses, states and green groups. Another mooted deadline in September was also pushed back.
The news that the regulations should appear next year will come as a relief to many businesses and green campaigners who have been disheartened, not only by the previous delays but also by President Obama's decision to postpone a major rule on smog-forming pollutants until 2013.
The EPA has also come under sustained attack from Republicans determined to slash the agency's funding and axe a raft of environmental regulations.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: Mayor Boris urges London firms to stamp out waste
www.isramart.com
Mayor of London Boris Johnson has urged firms to boost their use of recycling and green energy technologies in an ambitious new waste management strategy that aims to save the capital £77m a year.
Johnson today launched a series of plans to tackle municipal and business waste, including a target to achieve 70 per cent reuse, recycling and composting of commercial and industrial waste by 2020.
The strategies set out how London could save £77m a year and create 1,260 jobs by boosting recycling and opting for green technologies, such as anaerobic digestion.
Other key targets include: no household waste going to landfill by 2025; and recycling or composting at least 45 per cent of London rubbish by 2015, rising to 60 per cent by 2031.
It also aims to reuse, recycle or compost 95 per cent of construction demolition and excavation waste by 2020, and cut London's greenhouse gas emissions through waste management by 545,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2015, rising to one million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2031.
The mayor wants to increase the use of energy from waste technology, aiming to process 40 per cent of London's municipal waste in this way, after recycling or composting targets are achieved, by 2031.
Launching the plan today at an event in London's Trafalgar Square, Johnson also asked businesses to pledge to minimise the amount of food sent to landfill, already agreed by Waitrose, the New Covent Garden Market, Cafe Spice, Wahaca, Innocent Drinks, and Abel and Cole.
Using a so-called "food waste pyramid" businesses would avoid buying surplus food, and redistribute any unwanted food to charities such as FareShare and FoodCycle. Thirdly, food unfit for human consumption is fed to livestock or disposed through composting and processes such as anaerobic digestion.
"Throwing away mountains of perfectly edible food is crazy at a time when Londoners are feeling the pinch," said Johnson.
"I urge businesses and Londoners to get on board to reduce waste and help save millions for the capital's economy. It is my vision to make London a zero-waste city, which is why I am working closely with London's boroughs with the aim of creating the capital's very first zero-waste ward to show the rest of the city how it can be done."
Rosie Boycott, chair of the London Food Board, said reducing food waste could have a significant impact on the capital's environment, by cutting emissions and reducing the amount of edible produce sent to landfill.
"The mayor has set out ambitious targets to cut waste, and if we are to achieve them we need businesses and residents in the capital to sign up to this pledge and work together to stamp out avoidable food waste," she said.
Mayor of London Boris Johnson has urged firms to boost their use of recycling and green energy technologies in an ambitious new waste management strategy that aims to save the capital £77m a year.
Johnson today launched a series of plans to tackle municipal and business waste, including a target to achieve 70 per cent reuse, recycling and composting of commercial and industrial waste by 2020.
The strategies set out how London could save £77m a year and create 1,260 jobs by boosting recycling and opting for green technologies, such as anaerobic digestion.
Other key targets include: no household waste going to landfill by 2025; and recycling or composting at least 45 per cent of London rubbish by 2015, rising to 60 per cent by 2031.
It also aims to reuse, recycle or compost 95 per cent of construction demolition and excavation waste by 2020, and cut London's greenhouse gas emissions through waste management by 545,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2015, rising to one million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2031.
The mayor wants to increase the use of energy from waste technology, aiming to process 40 per cent of London's municipal waste in this way, after recycling or composting targets are achieved, by 2031.
Launching the plan today at an event in London's Trafalgar Square, Johnson also asked businesses to pledge to minimise the amount of food sent to landfill, already agreed by Waitrose, the New Covent Garden Market, Cafe Spice, Wahaca, Innocent Drinks, and Abel and Cole.
Using a so-called "food waste pyramid" businesses would avoid buying surplus food, and redistribute any unwanted food to charities such as FareShare and FoodCycle. Thirdly, food unfit for human consumption is fed to livestock or disposed through composting and processes such as anaerobic digestion.
"Throwing away mountains of perfectly edible food is crazy at a time when Londoners are feeling the pinch," said Johnson.
"I urge businesses and Londoners to get on board to reduce waste and help save millions for the capital's economy. It is my vision to make London a zero-waste city, which is why I am working closely with London's boroughs with the aim of creating the capital's very first zero-waste ward to show the rest of the city how it can be done."
Rosie Boycott, chair of the London Food Board, said reducing food waste could have a significant impact on the capital's environment, by cutting emissions and reducing the amount of edible produce sent to landfill.
"The mayor has set out ambitious targets to cut waste, and if we are to achieve them we need businesses and residents in the capital to sign up to this pledge and work together to stamp out avoidable food waste," she said.
Isra-Mart srl: Global firms fail to account for looming water risk
www.isramart.com
The corporate response to climate change is significantly more advanced than efforts to address water-related risks, despite the fact that flooding and drought are likely to have a major near-term impact on many firms' operations.
That is the conclusion of a major new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which found that only 57 per cent of 190 listed companies have board-level water strategies in place. Moreover, 40 per cent of the Global 500 companies that were approached to provide information on their water management strategies by the investor-backed group failed to respond.
In contrast, the most recent CDP survey on carbon management strategies found that 94 per cent of companies now have board-level oversight of climate change related issues.
"Some of the largest multinational companies have experienced the detrimental effects that water can have on their bottom line," said CDP chief executive Paul Simpson. "We need to see more companies understand that water is a critical issue, requiring greater board-level attention than it currently receives. Those corporations that navigate the challenges effectively will be able to profit from the significant opportunities that result from a robust water strategy."
The survey found that 59 per cent of respondents had already identified water-related risks such as flooding, scarcity and reputational damage.
In addition, it revealed that many firms accept water-related risks will be experienced in the near term, with 64 per cent reporting risks to their direct operations, which they will have to face between now and 2016, and 66 per cent identifying similar risks impacting their supply chain over the same period.
Moreover, 38 per cent of respondents said that water-related issues such as flooding or scarcity had already had a negative impact on their business.
Nick Main, leader for global sustainability at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), which sponsored the CDP water disclosure project, said the survey revealed encouraging improvements in water management at many firms.
"It is promising to see that a growing number of companies are recognising the importance of having strategies that respond to the increasing risks and opportunities arising from dependencies on this increasingly vulnerable resource," he said. "There is a need for broader action by companies to address water stewardship, both at the enterprise and product levels."
The corporate response to climate change is significantly more advanced than efforts to address water-related risks, despite the fact that flooding and drought are likely to have a major near-term impact on many firms' operations.
That is the conclusion of a major new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which found that only 57 per cent of 190 listed companies have board-level water strategies in place. Moreover, 40 per cent of the Global 500 companies that were approached to provide information on their water management strategies by the investor-backed group failed to respond.
In contrast, the most recent CDP survey on carbon management strategies found that 94 per cent of companies now have board-level oversight of climate change related issues.
"Some of the largest multinational companies have experienced the detrimental effects that water can have on their bottom line," said CDP chief executive Paul Simpson. "We need to see more companies understand that water is a critical issue, requiring greater board-level attention than it currently receives. Those corporations that navigate the challenges effectively will be able to profit from the significant opportunities that result from a robust water strategy."
The survey found that 59 per cent of respondents had already identified water-related risks such as flooding, scarcity and reputational damage.
In addition, it revealed that many firms accept water-related risks will be experienced in the near term, with 64 per cent reporting risks to their direct operations, which they will have to face between now and 2016, and 66 per cent identifying similar risks impacting their supply chain over the same period.
Moreover, 38 per cent of respondents said that water-related issues such as flooding or scarcity had already had a negative impact on their business.
Nick Main, leader for global sustainability at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), which sponsored the CDP water disclosure project, said the survey revealed encouraging improvements in water management at many firms.
"It is promising to see that a growing number of companies are recognising the importance of having strategies that respond to the increasing risks and opportunities arising from dependencies on this increasingly vulnerable resource," he said. "There is a need for broader action by companies to address water stewardship, both at the enterprise and product levels."
Isra-Mart SRL: Green policy uncertainty sees UK slip down energy sustainability rankings
www.isramart.com
Uncertainty surrounding the government's electricity market reform (EMR) programme is detering low-carbon investment and damaging the UK's ability to develop a stable, affordable and environmentally sustainable energy system.
That is the conclusion of a major new report from the influential World Energy Council (WEC), which confirms the UK has slipped from 8th to 14th place in the latest Energy Sustainability Index – a fall of six places since last year.
The annual review of the energy investment climate in 92 countries is based on governments' approaches to tackling what the WEC describes as the "energy trilemma" of supply security, access to energy and environmental impact.
According to the index, the UK's performance relative to other countries has declined in all three areas in the past year, most notably dropping from 22nd to 58th in terms of energy security, behind countries such as Albania, Nigeria and Tanzania.
Speaking on the sidelines of the launch event for the index this morning, Joan MacNaughton, executive chair of WEC's policy assessment group, told BusinessGreen the UK's drop in the rankings was the result of a lack of diversity in power generation as well as regulatory uncertainty.
"The headline of the [EMR] proposals is known, but the detail of how they're going to work is not known," she said. "I think that detail needs to be filled in and the credibility of the execution of the policies needs to be built to encourage people to invest."
The flagship EMR package, which includes subsidies for green energy, a carbon floor price, and emissions standards for coal plants, was announced earlier this year as part of the government's strategy to invest £200bn in upgrading the UK's power sector.
However, it is unlikely to be finalised until late 2013, which, along with recent changes to feed-in tariffs and other energy policies, could further hamper the UK's position in the 2012 rankings, MacNaughton said.
"It will be interesting to see what happens next year, because there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment in UK policy," she told BusinessGreen. "I'll be interested to see whether that has been resolved in time for next year for the UK to at least hold its position in the index."
She also warned policymakers that further steps needed to be taken urgently to create an environment that would encourage the private sector to invest the £200bn in new low-carbon energy infrastructure that the government estimates is required over the next decade.
"Policymakers need to understand that companies must make a reasonable return [if they are to invest]," she said. "Of course they want to ensure there isn't anti-competitive behaviour or... price gouging, but for longer-term sustainability you have to acknowledge the legitimacy of companies making profits."
A Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) spokesman said the "key elements" of EMR would reach the statute books by spring 2013, so the first low-carbon projects can be supported under its provisions the following year. A technical update to the white paper is also due at the turn of this year.
"Our proposals to reform the electricity market will deliver the best deal for Britain and for consumers, helping get us off the hook of relying on imported oil and gas by creating a greener, cleaner and ultimately cheaper mix of electricity sources right here in the UK," he said.
"We are determined to nurture a new generation of power sources including renewables, new nuclear, and carbon capture and storage, bringing new jobs and creating new expertise in the UK workforce."
But the UK has a way to go to catch Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany and Canada, which WEC listed as the most successful at balancing the "energy trilemma".
However, Canada's strong performance is likely to anger green groups that have been highly critical of the country's continued support for carbon-intensive tar sands projects.
Bringing up the rear of the 92 countries rated was Mongolia, followed by Libya, Trinidad and Tobago, Senegal and Botswana. The US came in 16th, with emerging superpowers China and India at 32 and 71, respectively.
Interestingly, the Philippines, which has a substantially lower GDP than many nations ranked, also has a very balanced energy system, according to WEC.
"It shows you don't have to be a rich or resource-endowed country to address the energy trilemma," said Mark Robson, partner at consultants Oliver Wyman, which helped develop the rankings. "All nations through good policy have the opportunity to provide people with stable, affordable and environmentally friendly energy."
Uncertainty surrounding the government's electricity market reform (EMR) programme is detering low-carbon investment and damaging the UK's ability to develop a stable, affordable and environmentally sustainable energy system.
That is the conclusion of a major new report from the influential World Energy Council (WEC), which confirms the UK has slipped from 8th to 14th place in the latest Energy Sustainability Index – a fall of six places since last year.
The annual review of the energy investment climate in 92 countries is based on governments' approaches to tackling what the WEC describes as the "energy trilemma" of supply security, access to energy and environmental impact.
According to the index, the UK's performance relative to other countries has declined in all three areas in the past year, most notably dropping from 22nd to 58th in terms of energy security, behind countries such as Albania, Nigeria and Tanzania.
Speaking on the sidelines of the launch event for the index this morning, Joan MacNaughton, executive chair of WEC's policy assessment group, told BusinessGreen the UK's drop in the rankings was the result of a lack of diversity in power generation as well as regulatory uncertainty.
"The headline of the [EMR] proposals is known, but the detail of how they're going to work is not known," she said. "I think that detail needs to be filled in and the credibility of the execution of the policies needs to be built to encourage people to invest."
The flagship EMR package, which includes subsidies for green energy, a carbon floor price, and emissions standards for coal plants, was announced earlier this year as part of the government's strategy to invest £200bn in upgrading the UK's power sector.
However, it is unlikely to be finalised until late 2013, which, along with recent changes to feed-in tariffs and other energy policies, could further hamper the UK's position in the 2012 rankings, MacNaughton said.
"It will be interesting to see what happens next year, because there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment in UK policy," she told BusinessGreen. "I'll be interested to see whether that has been resolved in time for next year for the UK to at least hold its position in the index."
She also warned policymakers that further steps needed to be taken urgently to create an environment that would encourage the private sector to invest the £200bn in new low-carbon energy infrastructure that the government estimates is required over the next decade.
"Policymakers need to understand that companies must make a reasonable return [if they are to invest]," she said. "Of course they want to ensure there isn't anti-competitive behaviour or... price gouging, but for longer-term sustainability you have to acknowledge the legitimacy of companies making profits."
A Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) spokesman said the "key elements" of EMR would reach the statute books by spring 2013, so the first low-carbon projects can be supported under its provisions the following year. A technical update to the white paper is also due at the turn of this year.
"Our proposals to reform the electricity market will deliver the best deal for Britain and for consumers, helping get us off the hook of relying on imported oil and gas by creating a greener, cleaner and ultimately cheaper mix of electricity sources right here in the UK," he said.
"We are determined to nurture a new generation of power sources including renewables, new nuclear, and carbon capture and storage, bringing new jobs and creating new expertise in the UK workforce."
But the UK has a way to go to catch Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany and Canada, which WEC listed as the most successful at balancing the "energy trilemma".
However, Canada's strong performance is likely to anger green groups that have been highly critical of the country's continued support for carbon-intensive tar sands projects.
Bringing up the rear of the 92 countries rated was Mongolia, followed by Libya, Trinidad and Tobago, Senegal and Botswana. The US came in 16th, with emerging superpowers China and India at 32 and 71, respectively.
Interestingly, the Philippines, which has a substantially lower GDP than many nations ranked, also has a very balanced energy system, according to WEC.
"It shows you don't have to be a rich or resource-endowed country to address the energy trilemma," said Mark Robson, partner at consultants Oliver Wyman, which helped develop the rankings. "All nations through good policy have the opportunity to provide people with stable, affordable and environmentally friendly energy."
Isra-Mart srl: Global renewable energy investment to double over next 10 years
www.isramart.com
Global investment in renewable energy infrastructure will double over the next 10 years, soaring to $395bn a year by 2020, according to a major new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
The report, entitled Global Renewable Energy Market Outlook, also predicts that growth will be maintained throughout the 2020s, with annual investment in new capacity and retrofitting of existing infrastructure reaching $460bn by 2030.
Speaking to BusinessGreen, Guy Turner, director of commodity market research at BNEF, said that the surge in investment will prove a truly global phenomenon.
"One of the most startling statistics is that around 40 per cent of global power demand will come outside the EU, North America and the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India and China] countries," he said.
"There is going to be huge growth in markets such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America."
The report confirms that the short-term outlook for the European renewable energy market remains bearish as a result of the tough economic climate and the scaling back of government support mechanisms, which will result in China overtaking Europe as the lead market for renewable energy asset finance in 2014.
However, it predicts that there will be no major slowdown in project construction in North America, while emerging markets such as India and Africa will see investments grow by between 10 and 18 per cent a year through to 2020.
Turner said that the prospects for the sector after 2020 are even more encouraging as improvements in solar and wind energy technologies in particular should make renewable power cost competitive with fossil fuels.
"Once you get to post-2020 you start to get growth driven by raw economics rather than policies. Solar will continue to come down in price while better blades and energy storage will make onshore wind competitive at the same time as fossil fuel prices are likely to rise," he said.
"Then you will start to see a step change in renewable energy economics where it will make more sense for people to invest in clean energy."
These predictions are borne out in the report, which estimates that global solar energy capacity will rise from 51GW currently to 1,137GW in 2030, driven by $130bn a year of investment, while the wind energy sector will see investment increase from $82bn last year to $140bn in 2020 and $206bn in 2030.
However, despite the rapid growth, the report predicts that renewable energy including hydropower will account for only 15.7 per cent of global energy by 2030.
Turner warned that, while renewables will make a significant contribution to global electricity generation, the combination of rising energy demand and challenges transitioning to renewable powered transport and heat generation will make it difficult for renewables to account for a greater proportion of global energy output.
"With electricity generation we can move to lots of renewables, but electricity only accounts for 30 per cent of global energy," he said. "There are renewable options for heat and transport, but there are major challenges to rolling them out."
Global investment in renewable energy infrastructure will double over the next 10 years, soaring to $395bn a year by 2020, according to a major new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
The report, entitled Global Renewable Energy Market Outlook, also predicts that growth will be maintained throughout the 2020s, with annual investment in new capacity and retrofitting of existing infrastructure reaching $460bn by 2030.
Speaking to BusinessGreen, Guy Turner, director of commodity market research at BNEF, said that the surge in investment will prove a truly global phenomenon.
"One of the most startling statistics is that around 40 per cent of global power demand will come outside the EU, North America and the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India and China] countries," he said.
"There is going to be huge growth in markets such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America."
The report confirms that the short-term outlook for the European renewable energy market remains bearish as a result of the tough economic climate and the scaling back of government support mechanisms, which will result in China overtaking Europe as the lead market for renewable energy asset finance in 2014.
However, it predicts that there will be no major slowdown in project construction in North America, while emerging markets such as India and Africa will see investments grow by between 10 and 18 per cent a year through to 2020.
Turner said that the prospects for the sector after 2020 are even more encouraging as improvements in solar and wind energy technologies in particular should make renewable power cost competitive with fossil fuels.
"Once you get to post-2020 you start to get growth driven by raw economics rather than policies. Solar will continue to come down in price while better blades and energy storage will make onshore wind competitive at the same time as fossil fuel prices are likely to rise," he said.
"Then you will start to see a step change in renewable energy economics where it will make more sense for people to invest in clean energy."
These predictions are borne out in the report, which estimates that global solar energy capacity will rise from 51GW currently to 1,137GW in 2030, driven by $130bn a year of investment, while the wind energy sector will see investment increase from $82bn last year to $140bn in 2020 and $206bn in 2030.
However, despite the rapid growth, the report predicts that renewable energy including hydropower will account for only 15.7 per cent of global energy by 2030.
Turner warned that, while renewables will make a significant contribution to global electricity generation, the combination of rising energy demand and challenges transitioning to renewable powered transport and heat generation will make it difficult for renewables to account for a greater proportion of global energy output.
"With electricity generation we can move to lots of renewables, but electricity only accounts for 30 per cent of global energy," he said. "There are renewable options for heat and transport, but there are major challenges to rolling them out."
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: New initiatives to keep lid on emissions
www.isramart.com
New initiatives are in the pipeline to combat greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions in the transport sector. Given the "permanent and constant increase" in these emissions, "business as usual is not a realistic option," Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the European Parliament's Committee on Transport (TRAN), on 10 November in Brussels. Along with the inclusion of aviation in the EU's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS – see separate article), the European Commission plans to keep up pressure on the maritime sector. The commissioner spoke of an "unsustainable trend" of rising emissions in this sector. "We have to tackle this problem more ambitiously," she declared, announcing an impact assessment in 2012 in order to "see how to move forward".
New legislative proposals on CO 2 emissions in the road sector will also be presented next year. Hedegaard nevertheless finds that the automotive industry "is on the right track" since EU targets for emissions limits for new vehicles for 2015 are already being met in 2012 (between 2006 and 2010, emissions from new vehicles declined by an average of 20 g of CO 2 per km, much more than reductions in previous years). A "specific strategy" is being defined for emissions from heavy goods vehicles – 20% of road transport emissions, according to the Commission – which is set to be unveiled in 2013. Consultation of the sector is under way.
Transport is the second largest source of GHG emissions. The largest share of these emissions – 70% – comes from road transport.
New initiatives are in the pipeline to combat greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions in the transport sector. Given the "permanent and constant increase" in these emissions, "business as usual is not a realistic option," Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the European Parliament's Committee on Transport (TRAN), on 10 November in Brussels. Along with the inclusion of aviation in the EU's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS – see separate article), the European Commission plans to keep up pressure on the maritime sector. The commissioner spoke of an "unsustainable trend" of rising emissions in this sector. "We have to tackle this problem more ambitiously," she declared, announcing an impact assessment in 2012 in order to "see how to move forward".
New legislative proposals on CO 2 emissions in the road sector will also be presented next year. Hedegaard nevertheless finds that the automotive industry "is on the right track" since EU targets for emissions limits for new vehicles for 2015 are already being met in 2012 (between 2006 and 2010, emissions from new vehicles declined by an average of 20 g of CO 2 per km, much more than reductions in previous years). A "specific strategy" is being defined for emissions from heavy goods vehicles – 20% of road transport emissions, according to the Commission – which is set to be unveiled in 2013. Consultation of the sector is under way.
Transport is the second largest source of GHG emissions. The largest share of these emissions – 70% – comes from road transport.
Isra-Mart srl: El Al to become WheelTug launch customer
www.isramart.com
WheelTug has developed tech that temporarily turns aircraft into electric hybrids, helping to save fuel, cut emissions and help keep arrivals and departures on time.
And it might soon be found in El Al Israel Airlines‘ Boeing 737s.
WheelTug announced this week a tentative deal to install an electric motor into the Israeli carrier’s Boeing 737s that will eliminate the need to use engines or a tug for both pushing back from the gate and taxiing down the runway. WheelTug conducted numerous tests of the system in 2010 at the Prague airport.
The deal with the Israeli carrier comes as the company awaits certification of technology from both American and European regulators. The company expects to begin deliveries of certified production models by 2013.
The electric drive system, which uses high-performance electric motors, are installed in the nose gear wheels of an airplane. The motors are driven by electricity generated from the plane’s auxiliary power unit, which runs when the main engines are off to keep the lights on and the plane ventilated.
Most fuel is used while the aircraft is in flight. However, switching to electric power while pushing away from the gate and taxiing down the runway does provide some savings. According to the Gibraltar-based company, a typical 737 consumes between 17 and 25 pounds of fuel per minute — or between two and three gallons a minute — while idling.
The company said fuel savings of between one to two gallons per minute can be expected with the electric drive system. That translates to about $100 savings for a typical 25-minute round trip taxi time. There are other reductions as well from not using engines to push back from the gate and maintenance savings. In all, WheelTug estimates the total savings can be $405 per flight. It’s not much compared to an airliner’s overall fuel costs. But it can add up to more than $554,000 in savings per aircraft per year.
WheelTug has developed tech that temporarily turns aircraft into electric hybrids, helping to save fuel, cut emissions and help keep arrivals and departures on time.
And it might soon be found in El Al Israel Airlines‘ Boeing 737s.
WheelTug announced this week a tentative deal to install an electric motor into the Israeli carrier’s Boeing 737s that will eliminate the need to use engines or a tug for both pushing back from the gate and taxiing down the runway. WheelTug conducted numerous tests of the system in 2010 at the Prague airport.
The deal with the Israeli carrier comes as the company awaits certification of technology from both American and European regulators. The company expects to begin deliveries of certified production models by 2013.
The electric drive system, which uses high-performance electric motors, are installed in the nose gear wheels of an airplane. The motors are driven by electricity generated from the plane’s auxiliary power unit, which runs when the main engines are off to keep the lights on and the plane ventilated.
Most fuel is used while the aircraft is in flight. However, switching to electric power while pushing away from the gate and taxiing down the runway does provide some savings. According to the Gibraltar-based company, a typical 737 consumes between 17 and 25 pounds of fuel per minute — or between two and three gallons a minute — while idling.
The company said fuel savings of between one to two gallons per minute can be expected with the electric drive system. That translates to about $100 savings for a typical 25-minute round trip taxi time. There are other reductions as well from not using engines to push back from the gate and maintenance savings. In all, WheelTug estimates the total savings can be $405 per flight. It’s not much compared to an airliner’s overall fuel costs. But it can add up to more than $554,000 in savings per aircraft per year.
Isra-Mart srl: Government plans will price people off flights, warns regional airport
www.isramart.com
The owners of Liverpool airport have called on the Government to rethink its aviation policy, which they say will suppress demand for air travel from regional airports.
Peel Airports Limited warned that travel behaviour in the regions is price-led and said further increases in air tax would price a large proportion of passengers out of air travel.
In submitting their response to the Department for Transport's proposal for a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation, Peel Airports said it had failed to set out a clear policy that would grow the industry's contribution to both regional and national economies. Instead, they claimed the plan would constrain growth by suppressing demand for air travel.
"Such policies are in stark contrast to the Government's stated aims of the policy, which stated "......We want to explore how to create the right conditions for regional airports to flourish"," Peel said.
They said the the proposed policy framework failed to address the fact that UK aviation pays the highest taxes in the world, with further increases in air passenger duty (APD) planned next year, when airlines will also have to pay the cost of entering into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
"UK airports are now far less attractive options for airline business than many of their European competitors, whose own Governments abolished their equivalent of APD. Under these latest proposals, this lack of a 'level playing field' is set to continue," they said.
Peel warned that High Speed Rail, which is viewed by the Government as a substitution for domestic and short-haul flights, will only benefit a small number ofairports and those regions to be served by faster train services, at the expense of others.
Peel Airports also questioned the validity of passenger forecasts used in developing the Government's proposals which show only minimal growth over the next 20 years, claiming they failed to recognise a number of developments across the regions, which it believes will stimulate growth in air travel.
Chief executive Craig Richmond said:"We welcome the Government's review on future aviation policy, however we have one chance to get this right, otherwise regional airports and the regions they serve will have their economies damaged for the longterm.
"The Government has stated on numerous occasions in the past that it recognises the importance of aviation for economic growth and rebalancing of the UK economy. Sadly these latest proposals contradict the desire for aviation related growth and we are calling upon the Government to implement a long-sighted aviation policy."
The owners of Liverpool airport have called on the Government to rethink its aviation policy, which they say will suppress demand for air travel from regional airports.
Peel Airports Limited warned that travel behaviour in the regions is price-led and said further increases in air tax would price a large proportion of passengers out of air travel.
In submitting their response to the Department for Transport's proposal for a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation, Peel Airports said it had failed to set out a clear policy that would grow the industry's contribution to both regional and national economies. Instead, they claimed the plan would constrain growth by suppressing demand for air travel.
"Such policies are in stark contrast to the Government's stated aims of the policy, which stated "......We want to explore how to create the right conditions for regional airports to flourish"," Peel said.
They said the the proposed policy framework failed to address the fact that UK aviation pays the highest taxes in the world, with further increases in air passenger duty (APD) planned next year, when airlines will also have to pay the cost of entering into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
"UK airports are now far less attractive options for airline business than many of their European competitors, whose own Governments abolished their equivalent of APD. Under these latest proposals, this lack of a 'level playing field' is set to continue," they said.
Peel warned that High Speed Rail, which is viewed by the Government as a substitution for domestic and short-haul flights, will only benefit a small number ofairports and those regions to be served by faster train services, at the expense of others.
Peel Airports also questioned the validity of passenger forecasts used in developing the Government's proposals which show only minimal growth over the next 20 years, claiming they failed to recognise a number of developments across the regions, which it believes will stimulate growth in air travel.
Chief executive Craig Richmond said:"We welcome the Government's review on future aviation policy, however we have one chance to get this right, otherwise regional airports and the regions they serve will have their economies damaged for the longterm.
"The Government has stated on numerous occasions in the past that it recognises the importance of aviation for economic growth and rebalancing of the UK economy. Sadly these latest proposals contradict the desire for aviation related growth and we are calling upon the Government to implement a long-sighted aviation policy."
Isra-Mart srl: Carbon Plan May Weaken EU Airlines’ Position, Deutsche Bank Says
www.isramart.com
The European plan to impose carbon limits on aviation could undermine the competitiveness of the region’s airlines as they may not be able to shift to passengers all the related costs, Deutsche Bank Research said.
The EU, which wants to lead the battle against climate change, decided in 2008 to include flights to and from the region’s airports in its emission-trading system as of 2012 after airline discharges in Europe doubled over two decades. The plan is under fire from airlines and governments outside the bloc, who claim it breaches international law.
“Fundamentally, emissions trading is an appropriate instrument to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions in aviation,” Eric Heymann and Joachim Hartel, analysts at Deutsche Bank Research in Frankfurt, wrote in a report dated yesterday. “However, the international orientation of the sector means that if the EU goes it alone on this issue the result will be competitive distortions to the detriment of European carriers.”
Carriers including American Airlines Inc. and United Continental Inc. are already challenging the law in an EU court, and China’s airline association said earlier this year the European initiative may prompt trade conflict. The United Nations aviation body adopted last week a non-binding resolution at the urging of 26 nations, including India, Japan and Russia, calling for the exemption of non-EU airlines from the cap-and- trade program.
Not Giving Up
The EU is not planning to give up or amend its plans in face of international opposition, Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told a committee hearing in the European Parliament today. Her vow follows a non-binding opinion by an adviser to the EU court handling the U.S. airlines lawsuit that the bloc’s emissions measure is compatible with international law.
When international carriers join the system next year they will be given emission permits making up 85 percent of the industry cap and will have to buy the remaining 15 percent at auction. The free allocation will fall to 82 percent from 2013 to 2020. Since the annual limit for the aviation industry was based on 2004-2006 pollution and the sector’s emissions rose by around 15 percent through 2011, airlines will have to buy permits to cover 30 percent of their discharges, Deutsche Bank Research estimated.
Most Efficient
The European plan will favor most-efficient carriers, which are due to receive proportionally more cost-free allowances based on benchmarks published by the commission, the bloc’s regulatory arm, in September. Member states are obliged to calculate the number of permits for each aircraft operator that applied for them by Dec. 26.
All “commercial carriers with significant operations to or from Europe” have so far complied with deadlines set in the EU legislation even as the industry voices opposition to the plan, Hedegaard told the European Parliament’s transport committee.
While the EU’s favored choice is a global solution to cut greenhouse gases from aviation, Europe decided to act after more than a decade of international talks on the issue brought no international deal, she said. The bloc’s law offers a possibility of excluding incoming flights from a particular country if that nation implements equivalent measures to cut pollution from its air transport sector.
“I would just recommend we should stay calm, we should work with different partners, seek solutions,” she said. “Don’t believe that Jan. 1 is the clash date, it’s not.”
1.1 Billion Euros
The actual costs being faced by the airlines next year will be around 1.1 billion euros ($1.5 billion), assuming a carbon price of 15 euros, according to the Deutsche Bank Research report. EU allowances for December 2012 were 1.9 percent down at 10.11 euros today, losing 31 percent this year on oversupply concern and speculation that the European debt crisis may worsen.
“The financial burden on the airlines will depend on the extent to which the additional costs can be transferred to customers,” Deutsche Bank Research said. “Due to the fierce competition in the sector, airlines will probably have to bear part of the costs themselves. True, the additional burden is likely to be moderate at first, but it affects a sector that for structural reasons only generates low margins.”
Any increase in air fares related to the inclusion of airlines in the ETS will be “modest at most,” ranging from $1.40 to $8.60 per ticket each way on long-haul flights at current CO2 prices, according to the European Commission.
EU airline ticket prices will probably increase faster on intercontinental flights than those of foreign peers, and a potential consequence could be shifting of passenger flows from European hubs, such as London, Paris or Frankfurt, to non- European airports, Deutsche Bank said.
“In the near future, traffic flows will be diverted only little because of the integration of the aviation sector in emissions trading,” it said. “Nevertheless, non-European airlines and airports stand to benefit in intercontinental traffic. The growth of the sector will be curbed.”
The European plan to impose carbon limits on aviation could undermine the competitiveness of the region’s airlines as they may not be able to shift to passengers all the related costs, Deutsche Bank Research said.
The EU, which wants to lead the battle against climate change, decided in 2008 to include flights to and from the region’s airports in its emission-trading system as of 2012 after airline discharges in Europe doubled over two decades. The plan is under fire from airlines and governments outside the bloc, who claim it breaches international law.
“Fundamentally, emissions trading is an appropriate instrument to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions in aviation,” Eric Heymann and Joachim Hartel, analysts at Deutsche Bank Research in Frankfurt, wrote in a report dated yesterday. “However, the international orientation of the sector means that if the EU goes it alone on this issue the result will be competitive distortions to the detriment of European carriers.”
Carriers including American Airlines Inc. and United Continental Inc. are already challenging the law in an EU court, and China’s airline association said earlier this year the European initiative may prompt trade conflict. The United Nations aviation body adopted last week a non-binding resolution at the urging of 26 nations, including India, Japan and Russia, calling for the exemption of non-EU airlines from the cap-and- trade program.
Not Giving Up
The EU is not planning to give up or amend its plans in face of international opposition, Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told a committee hearing in the European Parliament today. Her vow follows a non-binding opinion by an adviser to the EU court handling the U.S. airlines lawsuit that the bloc’s emissions measure is compatible with international law.
When international carriers join the system next year they will be given emission permits making up 85 percent of the industry cap and will have to buy the remaining 15 percent at auction. The free allocation will fall to 82 percent from 2013 to 2020. Since the annual limit for the aviation industry was based on 2004-2006 pollution and the sector’s emissions rose by around 15 percent through 2011, airlines will have to buy permits to cover 30 percent of their discharges, Deutsche Bank Research estimated.
Most Efficient
The European plan will favor most-efficient carriers, which are due to receive proportionally more cost-free allowances based on benchmarks published by the commission, the bloc’s regulatory arm, in September. Member states are obliged to calculate the number of permits for each aircraft operator that applied for them by Dec. 26.
All “commercial carriers with significant operations to or from Europe” have so far complied with deadlines set in the EU legislation even as the industry voices opposition to the plan, Hedegaard told the European Parliament’s transport committee.
While the EU’s favored choice is a global solution to cut greenhouse gases from aviation, Europe decided to act after more than a decade of international talks on the issue brought no international deal, she said. The bloc’s law offers a possibility of excluding incoming flights from a particular country if that nation implements equivalent measures to cut pollution from its air transport sector.
“I would just recommend we should stay calm, we should work with different partners, seek solutions,” she said. “Don’t believe that Jan. 1 is the clash date, it’s not.”
1.1 Billion Euros
The actual costs being faced by the airlines next year will be around 1.1 billion euros ($1.5 billion), assuming a carbon price of 15 euros, according to the Deutsche Bank Research report. EU allowances for December 2012 were 1.9 percent down at 10.11 euros today, losing 31 percent this year on oversupply concern and speculation that the European debt crisis may worsen.
“The financial burden on the airlines will depend on the extent to which the additional costs can be transferred to customers,” Deutsche Bank Research said. “Due to the fierce competition in the sector, airlines will probably have to bear part of the costs themselves. True, the additional burden is likely to be moderate at first, but it affects a sector that for structural reasons only generates low margins.”
Any increase in air fares related to the inclusion of airlines in the ETS will be “modest at most,” ranging from $1.40 to $8.60 per ticket each way on long-haul flights at current CO2 prices, according to the European Commission.
EU airline ticket prices will probably increase faster on intercontinental flights than those of foreign peers, and a potential consequence could be shifting of passenger flows from European hubs, such as London, Paris or Frankfurt, to non- European airports, Deutsche Bank said.
“In the near future, traffic flows will be diverted only little because of the integration of the aviation sector in emissions trading,” it said. “Nevertheless, non-European airlines and airports stand to benefit in intercontinental traffic. The growth of the sector will be curbed.”
Isra-Mart srl: Chinese airlines to sue EU over emissions
www.isramart.com
Chinese airlines are preparing to take Brussels to court over its plan to charge carriers for carbon emissions, a Chinese industry official has said, and are also considering how they might retaliate against European airlines.
The hard line from the China Air Transport Association, which represents all major Chinese airlines, intensifies a dispute with the European Union that the head of Airbus has warned could turn into a trade war. It comes shortly before the EU’s January 1 start date for bringing the aviation sector into its emissions trading scheme.
Cai Haibo, deputy secretary-general with CATA, said it intended to make the legal challenge in Europe before the end of this year. “There is no way the emission charge can be justified. It violates the basic principles of international law and infringes on other nations’ sovereignty,” Mr Cai told the Financial Times.
He said Chinese representatives had expressed their objections directly to European regulators but been dismayed by the response. “Chinese airlines have been so good to Airbus [a subsidiary of the Franco-German EADS]. But the EU turns around and tries to take more of the airlines’ money. They are not happy.”
Europe’s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, expressed confidence any court would side with Brussels. “We are fully confident that our legislation is compliant with international law,” she said.
A Chinese suit, if filed, could differ from that launched by US airlines in the European Court of Justice, which questioned whether EU regulators were exceeding their jurisdiction by applying the emissions trading scheme to carriers outside their borders.
EU officials believe the Chinese would instead challenge the legality of the European policy under the Kyoto protocol, which makes a distinction between the efforts that developed and developing nations should have to make to address climate change. EU officials accept that principle but say it applies to governments and not to private companies such as air carriers.
The commission had been engaged in talks with Beijing to resolve the dispute under a clause in the ETS regulations that allows carriers from specific countries to be exempted if they can prove they are taking equivalent measures to limit their emissions. But those talks have broken down, the commission acknowledged.
Ms Hedegaard has argued that the extra cost of complying with the policy would amount to a €6 to €12 ($8.15 to $16.30) ticket price increase for a transatlantic flight.
But Chinese airlines estimate the EU tax would cost them Rmb17.6bn ($2.8bn) by 2020, adding roughly Rmb300 ($47.50) to each ticket for flights between China and Europe.
The EU commissioner’s determination to press ahead with the emissions policy also reflects frustration with what she believes has been years of foot-dragging by the industry through its UN umbrella group, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Last week, the ICAO adopted a working paper from the United States, China and other nations urging the EU to exclude non-European carriers from the scheme.
The official Xinhua news agency reported this week that China would impose “stricter limits” on EU airlines when they departed from or arrived at Chinese airports if Brussels went ahead with the carbon scheme. It did not specify what those limits might entail.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, told the EU this year it was “madness to risk retaliation” from China and other powerful countries. The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China has predicted that China will add nearly 5,000 commercial aircraft by 2030, making it far and away the biggest source of new aircraft demand in the world. Airbus has a nearly 50 per cent share of the Chinese market.
Chinese airlines are preparing to take Brussels to court over its plan to charge carriers for carbon emissions, a Chinese industry official has said, and are also considering how they might retaliate against European airlines.
The hard line from the China Air Transport Association, which represents all major Chinese airlines, intensifies a dispute with the European Union that the head of Airbus has warned could turn into a trade war. It comes shortly before the EU’s January 1 start date for bringing the aviation sector into its emissions trading scheme.
Cai Haibo, deputy secretary-general with CATA, said it intended to make the legal challenge in Europe before the end of this year. “There is no way the emission charge can be justified. It violates the basic principles of international law and infringes on other nations’ sovereignty,” Mr Cai told the Financial Times.
He said Chinese representatives had expressed their objections directly to European regulators but been dismayed by the response. “Chinese airlines have been so good to Airbus [a subsidiary of the Franco-German EADS]. But the EU turns around and tries to take more of the airlines’ money. They are not happy.”
Europe’s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, expressed confidence any court would side with Brussels. “We are fully confident that our legislation is compliant with international law,” she said.
A Chinese suit, if filed, could differ from that launched by US airlines in the European Court of Justice, which questioned whether EU regulators were exceeding their jurisdiction by applying the emissions trading scheme to carriers outside their borders.
EU officials believe the Chinese would instead challenge the legality of the European policy under the Kyoto protocol, which makes a distinction between the efforts that developed and developing nations should have to make to address climate change. EU officials accept that principle but say it applies to governments and not to private companies such as air carriers.
The commission had been engaged in talks with Beijing to resolve the dispute under a clause in the ETS regulations that allows carriers from specific countries to be exempted if they can prove they are taking equivalent measures to limit their emissions. But those talks have broken down, the commission acknowledged.
Ms Hedegaard has argued that the extra cost of complying with the policy would amount to a €6 to €12 ($8.15 to $16.30) ticket price increase for a transatlantic flight.
But Chinese airlines estimate the EU tax would cost them Rmb17.6bn ($2.8bn) by 2020, adding roughly Rmb300 ($47.50) to each ticket for flights between China and Europe.
The EU commissioner’s determination to press ahead with the emissions policy also reflects frustration with what she believes has been years of foot-dragging by the industry through its UN umbrella group, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Last week, the ICAO adopted a working paper from the United States, China and other nations urging the EU to exclude non-European carriers from the scheme.
The official Xinhua news agency reported this week that China would impose “stricter limits” on EU airlines when they departed from or arrived at Chinese airports if Brussels went ahead with the carbon scheme. It did not specify what those limits might entail.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, told the EU this year it was “madness to risk retaliation” from China and other powerful countries. The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China has predicted that China will add nearly 5,000 commercial aircraft by 2030, making it far and away the biggest source of new aircraft demand in the world. Airbus has a nearly 50 per cent share of the Chinese market.
Isra-Mart srl: The Canadian way on the environment
www.isramart.com
The federal government seems to be embracing the role of international wet blanket on the environment file.
Not only did Environment Minister Peter Kent vowed “not to cave” to international pressure to take on new climate change commitments at the Durban talks next month, but Foreign Minister John Baird recently took a few minutes to pour cold water (and here) on Australia’s carbon tax policy, saying neither Canada nor the U.S. would ever introduce an emissions trading scheme.
Baird, who was in Australia last month to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings was quoted in the newspaper The Australian as having “cast doubt on the fundamental analysis underpinning Australia’s carbon tax policy.” The policy has since become law.
According to The Australian, Stephen Harper’s government “won an absolute majority in the Canadian Parliament for the first time by advocating a policy of no-carbon tax and no ETS.” He also said it is unlikely the U.S. would introduce a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
The Australian said Baird’s comments were ”devastating” for Julia Gillard’s Labour government “because if the U.S. and Canada do not go down a market road for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it is impossible that anything remotely resembling a global market could emerge.” Even more devastating, said the newspaper, “is Mr. Baird’s judgment that carbon-trading schemes are inherently unreal and non-productive.”
Baird likened market mechanisms for dealing with greenhouse gases to a “pyramid marketing scheme. You don’t have to sell this dog food, you just have to get 10 of your friends to sell it and get the royalties from that.”
The federal government seems to be embracing the role of international wet blanket on the environment file.
Not only did Environment Minister Peter Kent vowed “not to cave” to international pressure to take on new climate change commitments at the Durban talks next month, but Foreign Minister John Baird recently took a few minutes to pour cold water (and here) on Australia’s carbon tax policy, saying neither Canada nor the U.S. would ever introduce an emissions trading scheme.
Baird, who was in Australia last month to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings was quoted in the newspaper The Australian as having “cast doubt on the fundamental analysis underpinning Australia’s carbon tax policy.” The policy has since become law.
According to The Australian, Stephen Harper’s government “won an absolute majority in the Canadian Parliament for the first time by advocating a policy of no-carbon tax and no ETS.” He also said it is unlikely the U.S. would introduce a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
The Australian said Baird’s comments were ”devastating” for Julia Gillard’s Labour government “because if the U.S. and Canada do not go down a market road for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it is impossible that anything remotely resembling a global market could emerge.” Even more devastating, said the newspaper, “is Mr. Baird’s judgment that carbon-trading schemes are inherently unreal and non-productive.”
Baird likened market mechanisms for dealing with greenhouse gases to a “pyramid marketing scheme. You don’t have to sell this dog food, you just have to get 10 of your friends to sell it and get the royalties from that.”
Isra-Mart srl: Coke's zero waste plans to deliver greener Olympic Games
www.isramart.com
Coke Zero could take on a whole new meaning next year, after Coca-Cola revealed plans to turn plastic discarded at the London 2012 Olympic Games into 80 million new drinks bottles.
The company announced the plan today as part of its commitment to help the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games achieve its target of sending zero waste to landfill, and to reuse, recycle or compost at least 70 per cent of all waste.
Estimates suggest that the initiative will see Coke recycle a fifth of the consumer waste produced at London 2012 venues.
Colourless polyethylene terephthalate plastic waste will be recycled at Continuum Recycling, Coca-Cola Enterprises' new joint venture recycling facility with ECO Plastics, which is expected to open in north Lincolnshire in 2012.
WWF 2012 spokesman Simon Lewis said that he hopes Coca-Cola's efforts will prompt consumers and other businesses to reduce the amount of waste they throw away.
"The strength of the Coca-Cola brand puts it in a unique position to trigger a significant shift in sustainable behaviour with the potential to leave a legacy of positive environmental change long after the Olympics have left town," he said. "I welcome this strategy for supporting the delivering of a sustainable Games."
Coke Zero could take on a whole new meaning next year, after Coca-Cola revealed plans to turn plastic discarded at the London 2012 Olympic Games into 80 million new drinks bottles.
The company announced the plan today as part of its commitment to help the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games achieve its target of sending zero waste to landfill, and to reuse, recycle or compost at least 70 per cent of all waste.
Estimates suggest that the initiative will see Coke recycle a fifth of the consumer waste produced at London 2012 venues.
Colourless polyethylene terephthalate plastic waste will be recycled at Continuum Recycling, Coca-Cola Enterprises' new joint venture recycling facility with ECO Plastics, which is expected to open in north Lincolnshire in 2012.
WWF 2012 spokesman Simon Lewis said that he hopes Coca-Cola's efforts will prompt consumers and other businesses to reduce the amount of waste they throw away.
"The strength of the Coca-Cola brand puts it in a unique position to trigger a significant shift in sustainable behaviour with the potential to leave a legacy of positive environmental change long after the Olympics have left town," he said. "I welcome this strategy for supporting the delivering of a sustainable Games."
Isra-Mart srl: BlackBerry maker hits bottom of green electronics rankings
www.isramart.com
Blackberry maker Research in Motion (RIM) has come bottom of a list of the world's greenest electronics firms. The Canadian-based mobile maker is featured for the first time in the quarterly Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics, published on Wednesday and ranking 15 top electronic companies by their environmental policies and the impact of their products.
According to the campaign group, RIM does not have a clean electricity plan or a target to increase use of renewable energy. Its products are energy inefficient, and it is a member of a trade association that has attacked stringent energy efficiency standards, Greenpeace says.
Although the report is not designed to be a product guide for consumers, it does allow for a comparison of the leading manufacturers of PCs, TVs and mobile phones.
"Right now, HP takes the top spot because it is scoring strongly by measuring and reducing carbon emissions from its supply chain, reducing its own emissions and advocating for strong climate legislation. However all companies we included in the guide have an opportunity to show more leadership in reducing their climate impact," said Greenpeace International campaigner Tom Dowdall.
Dell takes second position, making a dramatic improvement from its 10th position in the last guide. The computer manufacturer scores well for having the most ambitious climate target, with plans to reduce its emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, and a strong policy on sustainable paper sourcing. After three years at the top, Nokia has slipped from first place to third, mainly due to weaker performance on the energy criteria.
The guide, which assesses companies based on their public information only, was first started in August 2006. It was set out mainly to put pressure on manufacturers to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Greenpeace claims it has already prompted improvements - particularly noticeable for mobile phones and PCs, with less progress having been made on TVs.
In response to the progress, the environmental watch group added new criteria and challenged firms to reduce their carbon footprint in manufacturing, in their supply chain and through to the end-of-life phase of their products and to set ambitious goals for renewable energy use. The latest version of the guide also features new criteria for the sourcing of paper, conflict minerals and product life cycle.
A RIM spokeswoman told the Guardian: "We are continuing to improve our sustainability practices and have a number of initiatives underway."
A Nokia spokesman said: "We are still No1 compared to any other mobile and device manufacturer, we stick to our sustainability targets."
Blackberry maker Research in Motion (RIM) has come bottom of a list of the world's greenest electronics firms. The Canadian-based mobile maker is featured for the first time in the quarterly Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics, published on Wednesday and ranking 15 top electronic companies by their environmental policies and the impact of their products.
According to the campaign group, RIM does not have a clean electricity plan or a target to increase use of renewable energy. Its products are energy inefficient, and it is a member of a trade association that has attacked stringent energy efficiency standards, Greenpeace says.
Although the report is not designed to be a product guide for consumers, it does allow for a comparison of the leading manufacturers of PCs, TVs and mobile phones.
"Right now, HP takes the top spot because it is scoring strongly by measuring and reducing carbon emissions from its supply chain, reducing its own emissions and advocating for strong climate legislation. However all companies we included in the guide have an opportunity to show more leadership in reducing their climate impact," said Greenpeace International campaigner Tom Dowdall.
Dell takes second position, making a dramatic improvement from its 10th position in the last guide. The computer manufacturer scores well for having the most ambitious climate target, with plans to reduce its emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, and a strong policy on sustainable paper sourcing. After three years at the top, Nokia has slipped from first place to third, mainly due to weaker performance on the energy criteria.
The guide, which assesses companies based on their public information only, was first started in August 2006. It was set out mainly to put pressure on manufacturers to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Greenpeace claims it has already prompted improvements - particularly noticeable for mobile phones and PCs, with less progress having been made on TVs.
In response to the progress, the environmental watch group added new criteria and challenged firms to reduce their carbon footprint in manufacturing, in their supply chain and through to the end-of-life phase of their products and to set ambitious goals for renewable energy use. The latest version of the guide also features new criteria for the sourcing of paper, conflict minerals and product life cycle.
A RIM spokeswoman told the Guardian: "We are continuing to improve our sustainability practices and have a number of initiatives underway."
A Nokia spokesman said: "We are still No1 compared to any other mobile and device manufacturer, we stick to our sustainability targets."
Isra-Mart srl: Solar firms seek injunction against DECC over feed-in tariff cuts
www.isramart.com
A group of solar firms have today confirmed they will launch legal action against the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) over its controversial proposals to halve incentives for solar installations with just six weeks' notice.
The group, led by Solarcentury, said it is now seeking an interim injunction to stop the government imposing changes to the feed-in tariff scheme from 12 December, ahead of the completion of the formal consultation period on the proposed reforms.
The move follows an ultimatum earlier this week from Friends of the Earth, which warned climate minister Greg Barker that unless he ordered a rethink on the government's proposed cuts by 4pm tomorrow, the green NGO would also launch legal action.
The DECC review of solar feed-in tariffs, which was launched on 31 October, controversially proposes that all solar installations completed after 12 December will only be able to access the current level of incentives until next April, at which point tariff payments will be cut by 50 per cent to the new proposed rate.
The government insists the changes need to come into effect from next month in order to avoid a "gold rush" that would threaten to push the feed-in tariff scheme past its spending cap – a scenario that would result in increases in energy bills.
However, Solarcentury and its partners will argue that the pace of the cuts and the decision to change the scheme before the completion of the official consultation on 23 December is "illegal, irrational and unreasonable".
A spokeswoman for the company said the legal action would centre on the pace at which the government is trying to impose the cuts to incentives and will initially seek an injunction that stops any cuts to tariff levels being made until DECC has "completed a proper, legal review and followed the correct processes".
She added that the company had seen many large contracts cancelled over the past few days as a result of the pace of the proposed cuts, including several deals with housing associations and local authorities that were originally planned to be completed early next year ahead of the April 2012 date that had been the expected cut-off date for any changes to the feed-in tariff scheme.
Other firms are reporting that redundancies could be confirmed within the next month as a result of the changes.
Solarcentury chairman, Jeremy Leggett, said the company had been left with no choice but to resort to the courts.
"It is profoundly depressing that the greenest government ever has, after just 18 months, launched such an assault against a growing industry employing 25,000 people," he said. "I would much rather be helping to create many more Big Society jobs than taking the government to court, but sadly they leave us no choice. If they were to get away with this the consequences will go way beyond the wider PV sector. What low-carbon industry investor or company will be able to trust the prime minister, Mr Huhne and Mr Barker ever again?"
The other companies in the group seeking legal action are yet to go public, but Solarcentury predicted the coalition would grow as more solar firms seek to delay the proposed changes.
Pressure is mounting on the government to order a rethink, with Friends of the Earth's legal action looking almost inevitable, and a host of renewable energy firms and housing associations writing to Prime Minister David Cameron, calling for the proposed cuts to be restructured. A day of protests by the industry is also planned for Westminster on 22 November.
In addition, BusinessGreen has learned that a number of councils that are at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result of the changes are also considering legal action against DECC.
Solar industry representatives are scheduled to meet climate change minister Greg Barker later today to argue that the proposed cuts should be phased in more slowly and should be more modest in scale.
They are also expected to argue that the government's own impact assessment shows that delaying the proposed cuts until April next year would add just £1 a year to average energy bills in 2020, and seek clarification on how the government's proposed introduction of an energy efficiency standard for buildings installing solar panels will work.
However, DECC has consistently maintained it is committed to the current package of proposals and is believed to have taken detailed legal advice before launching the consultation.
Responding to the news, a DECC spokeswoman said: "We're consulting on proposed new tariffs for a reason - to protect consumers from footing the bill for excessive subsidies. This is a live consultation and it will be open for people to comment until 23 December. We can confirm that an application has been made for judicial review of certain aspects of the current consultation, which we shall be defending."
A group of solar firms have today confirmed they will launch legal action against the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) over its controversial proposals to halve incentives for solar installations with just six weeks' notice.
The group, led by Solarcentury, said it is now seeking an interim injunction to stop the government imposing changes to the feed-in tariff scheme from 12 December, ahead of the completion of the formal consultation period on the proposed reforms.
The move follows an ultimatum earlier this week from Friends of the Earth, which warned climate minister Greg Barker that unless he ordered a rethink on the government's proposed cuts by 4pm tomorrow, the green NGO would also launch legal action.
The DECC review of solar feed-in tariffs, which was launched on 31 October, controversially proposes that all solar installations completed after 12 December will only be able to access the current level of incentives until next April, at which point tariff payments will be cut by 50 per cent to the new proposed rate.
The government insists the changes need to come into effect from next month in order to avoid a "gold rush" that would threaten to push the feed-in tariff scheme past its spending cap – a scenario that would result in increases in energy bills.
However, Solarcentury and its partners will argue that the pace of the cuts and the decision to change the scheme before the completion of the official consultation on 23 December is "illegal, irrational and unreasonable".
A spokeswoman for the company said the legal action would centre on the pace at which the government is trying to impose the cuts to incentives and will initially seek an injunction that stops any cuts to tariff levels being made until DECC has "completed a proper, legal review and followed the correct processes".
She added that the company had seen many large contracts cancelled over the past few days as a result of the pace of the proposed cuts, including several deals with housing associations and local authorities that were originally planned to be completed early next year ahead of the April 2012 date that had been the expected cut-off date for any changes to the feed-in tariff scheme.
Other firms are reporting that redundancies could be confirmed within the next month as a result of the changes.
Solarcentury chairman, Jeremy Leggett, said the company had been left with no choice but to resort to the courts.
"It is profoundly depressing that the greenest government ever has, after just 18 months, launched such an assault against a growing industry employing 25,000 people," he said. "I would much rather be helping to create many more Big Society jobs than taking the government to court, but sadly they leave us no choice. If they were to get away with this the consequences will go way beyond the wider PV sector. What low-carbon industry investor or company will be able to trust the prime minister, Mr Huhne and Mr Barker ever again?"
The other companies in the group seeking legal action are yet to go public, but Solarcentury predicted the coalition would grow as more solar firms seek to delay the proposed changes.
Pressure is mounting on the government to order a rethink, with Friends of the Earth's legal action looking almost inevitable, and a host of renewable energy firms and housing associations writing to Prime Minister David Cameron, calling for the proposed cuts to be restructured. A day of protests by the industry is also planned for Westminster on 22 November.
In addition, BusinessGreen has learned that a number of councils that are at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result of the changes are also considering legal action against DECC.
Solar industry representatives are scheduled to meet climate change minister Greg Barker later today to argue that the proposed cuts should be phased in more slowly and should be more modest in scale.
They are also expected to argue that the government's own impact assessment shows that delaying the proposed cuts until April next year would add just £1 a year to average energy bills in 2020, and seek clarification on how the government's proposed introduction of an energy efficiency standard for buildings installing solar panels will work.
However, DECC has consistently maintained it is committed to the current package of proposals and is believed to have taken detailed legal advice before launching the consultation.
Responding to the news, a DECC spokeswoman said: "We're consulting on proposed new tariffs for a reason - to protect consumers from footing the bill for excessive subsidies. This is a live consultation and it will be open for people to comment until 23 December. We can confirm that an application has been made for judicial review of certain aspects of the current consultation, which we shall be defending."
Isra-Mart srl: China accused of 'climate blackmail' over HFC credits
www.isramart.com
China has threatened to release huge amounts of the potent greenhouse gas HFC-23 if the international community proceeds with plans to ban carbon credits generated by destroying the gas.
HFC-23 is a by-product of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22 which has a much greater warming effect than carbon dioxide and stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years.
The EU moved to exclude HFC-generated credits from its emissions trading scheme from 2013 amid fears that developers were deliberately manufacturing and then destroying the gases to generate credits that can be sold for 70 times the actual cost of destroying HFC-23.
The UN has also considered taking action and will discuss banning HFC projects from qualifying for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) offsetting scheme at a meeting of the CDM executive board a week before the Durban Summit later this month.
However, China has blocked similar moves to reform the CDM at previous meetings, and officials have indicated that they remain unwilling to give up on a practice thought to have generated revenues of $1.3bn for Chinese industrial firms in a move described by green campaigners today as "a shocking attempt to blackmail the international community".
According to the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Xie Fei, revenue management director at the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund, told the Carbon Forum Asia in Singapore last week that "if there is no trading of [HFC-23] credits, they will stop incinerating the gases" and instead vent them directly into the atmosphere.
Xie claimed that he spoke for "almost all the big Chinese producers of HFCs" which "cannot bear the cost" of destroying the gases and maintain that "they will lose competitiveness" if they are forced to do so without the compensation provided by the CDM scheme.
The EIA said that such claims are unjustified, and branded China's attempt to force countries to continue sponsoring the practice as "extortion". It also accused China of having no interest in emissions reduction beyond "profiting from a fatally flawed CDM system".
Clare Perry, senior campaigner at the EIA, said that the EU and UN have to stand firm and ban HFC credits from international emissions trading.
"HFC-23 CDM projects have cost European taxpayers untold millions, and allowed European industries to increase their emissions whilst subsidising chemical producers in China to produce yet more greenhouse gases," she said. "These dirty credits should be discontinued immediately."
China has threatened to release huge amounts of the potent greenhouse gas HFC-23 if the international community proceeds with plans to ban carbon credits generated by destroying the gas.
HFC-23 is a by-product of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22 which has a much greater warming effect than carbon dioxide and stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years.
The EU moved to exclude HFC-generated credits from its emissions trading scheme from 2013 amid fears that developers were deliberately manufacturing and then destroying the gases to generate credits that can be sold for 70 times the actual cost of destroying HFC-23.
The UN has also considered taking action and will discuss banning HFC projects from qualifying for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) offsetting scheme at a meeting of the CDM executive board a week before the Durban Summit later this month.
However, China has blocked similar moves to reform the CDM at previous meetings, and officials have indicated that they remain unwilling to give up on a practice thought to have generated revenues of $1.3bn for Chinese industrial firms in a move described by green campaigners today as "a shocking attempt to blackmail the international community".
According to the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Xie Fei, revenue management director at the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund, told the Carbon Forum Asia in Singapore last week that "if there is no trading of [HFC-23] credits, they will stop incinerating the gases" and instead vent them directly into the atmosphere.
Xie claimed that he spoke for "almost all the big Chinese producers of HFCs" which "cannot bear the cost" of destroying the gases and maintain that "they will lose competitiveness" if they are forced to do so without the compensation provided by the CDM scheme.
The EIA said that such claims are unjustified, and branded China's attempt to force countries to continue sponsoring the practice as "extortion". It also accused China of having no interest in emissions reduction beyond "profiting from a fatally flawed CDM system".
Clare Perry, senior campaigner at the EIA, said that the EU and UN have to stand firm and ban HFC credits from international emissions trading.
"HFC-23 CDM projects have cost European taxpayers untold millions, and allowed European industries to increase their emissions whilst subsidising chemical producers in China to produce yet more greenhouse gases," she said. "These dirty credits should be discontinued immediately."
Isra-Mart srl: Solar drags Siemens' renewables division into fourth-quarter loss
www.isramart.com
Siemens' renewable energy division has reported a fourth-quarter loss, after writing off €231m (£197m) in its solar power business.
The German engineering giant today reported its fourth-quarter results for 2011, revealing its Renewable Energy division made a €154m loss, compared with a €97m profit during the same quarter last year.
The loss was caused by €231m in charges against its solar business, including a €128m goodwill write down based on the decision by a number of governments to reduce financial support for solar installations and delays to projects.
However, Peter Löscher, president and chief executive of Siemens, said the company remained optimistic about the long-term future for solar energy.
"Our expectations have not yet been met in the area of solar thermal power because regulatory conditions have deteriorated and projects have been delayed," Löscher told reporters.
"In the fourth quarter we wrote off €231m. However, the progress being made in the first Desertec project shows this market does have a future."
Siemens has been pushing into the solar market for a number of years, after acquiring Isreal's Solel Solar for $418m in 2009 and purchasing a stake in Italy-based Archimede Solar Energy.
In contrast to the write downs for the solar business, Siemens' wind power operations reported strong growth, including the company's first order for a Chinese offshore wind farm.
Löscher hailed the contract as a major milestone in the company's plans to grow in what has become the world's largest wind energy market.
The wind power division maintained its earnings contribution year on year, with two large contract wins for Danish and German offshore wind farms and several large orders for onshore wind farms from other countries.
Overall the renewables division fourth-quarter revenue came in 18 per cent higher than last year, while new orders were up 67 per cent from the prior-year period, including a substantially higher volume from major orders.
Siemens' total sectors profit reached €2.166bn in the fourth quarter, of which its energy division contributed €631m. Total sectors profit was €791m in the same period a year earlier.
Siemens' renewable energy division has reported a fourth-quarter loss, after writing off €231m (£197m) in its solar power business.
The German engineering giant today reported its fourth-quarter results for 2011, revealing its Renewable Energy division made a €154m loss, compared with a €97m profit during the same quarter last year.
The loss was caused by €231m in charges against its solar business, including a €128m goodwill write down based on the decision by a number of governments to reduce financial support for solar installations and delays to projects.
However, Peter Löscher, president and chief executive of Siemens, said the company remained optimistic about the long-term future for solar energy.
"Our expectations have not yet been met in the area of solar thermal power because regulatory conditions have deteriorated and projects have been delayed," Löscher told reporters.
"In the fourth quarter we wrote off €231m. However, the progress being made in the first Desertec project shows this market does have a future."
Siemens has been pushing into the solar market for a number of years, after acquiring Isreal's Solel Solar for $418m in 2009 and purchasing a stake in Italy-based Archimede Solar Energy.
In contrast to the write downs for the solar business, Siemens' wind power operations reported strong growth, including the company's first order for a Chinese offshore wind farm.
Löscher hailed the contract as a major milestone in the company's plans to grow in what has become the world's largest wind energy market.
The wind power division maintained its earnings contribution year on year, with two large contract wins for Danish and German offshore wind farms and several large orders for onshore wind farms from other countries.
Overall the renewables division fourth-quarter revenue came in 18 per cent higher than last year, while new orders were up 67 per cent from the prior-year period, including a substantially higher volume from major orders.
Siemens' total sectors profit reached €2.166bn in the fourth quarter, of which its energy division contributed €631m. Total sectors profit was €791m in the same period a year earlier.
Isra-Mart srl: Solar industry 'despondent' as Barker rules out immediate delay to feed-in tariff cuts
www.isramart.com
Climate minister Greg Barker has today all but ruled out any delay to the proposed changes to solar feed-in tariff incentives due to come into effect from 12 December, arguing he cannot legally change the proposals until the official consultation exercise is complete.
Barker today met with representatives from the solar industry to discuss the government's controversial plan to halve the level of incentives available to solar installations and bring the changes into effect from next month – a move that, according to the solar industry, will result in widespread job losses and possible bankruptcies.
BusinessGreen understands representatives from across the solar industry argued that while the scale of the proposed cuts would damage their growth prospects, it is the pace of the proposed changes that will cause the greatest damage to the sector.
One industry source said Barker faced a "lot of flak" over the government's decision to effectively pre-empt the results of the consultation and propose that all installations completed after 12 December will only receive the current level of feed-in tariffs until April next year, at which point they will see the incentives they receive halved.
"There was a lot of talk of people being made redundant just before Christmas, the risk of unscrupulous dealers not giving back deposits on projects that cannot be completed before 12 December, and stranded assets where firms have ordered panels they will now struggle to sell," said the source. "There was an unbreaking consensus among the firms that the 12 December date is going to be very, very difficult."
The government is now facing at least two separate legal actions challenging the legality of the proposals and seeking an interim injunction to force the government to delay any changes to the incentive regime until after the official consultation exercise is completed.
But Barker insisted that because the consultation was now underway he could not legally make any changes to the proposals until after the exercise was completed and ministers had taken time to consider the responses.
The stance means that while ministers could, as a result of the consultation, change the 12 December cut-off date for installations to receive the higher rate of feed-in tariffs, they would not be able to announce such a move until mid January at the earliest.
"It is absolutely farcical," said one industry insider. "The 12 December date could technically be changed because it is subject to consultation, but we would not find out until January, by which point it will be too late because no one is going to take the risk of going through with a project when they know they could be left with the reduced tariff rate... People are pretty despondent."
Barker apparently stressed that all the proposals were still subject to consultation, but left the industry with the clear impression that significant changes remain unlikely.
Tweeting following the two-hour meeting, Howard Johns of the Solar Trade Association revealed Barker had warned that if current levels of feed-in tariffs were retained until April as originally planned, the scheme's entire budget would be gone. "We have to take demand away," he was quoted as saying.
A separate source told BusinessGreen that Barker had repeatedly stated that any changes to the proposed cuts to incentives, or the date they will be introduced, would have to ensure the scheme remains within the current spending cap.
Arguments that the feed-in tariff spending cap could be raised by transferring funds from other energy bill levy funded schemes were put forward by the industry, but Barker said such an approach would only gain traction if the industry could demonstrate it represents good value for money compared with other forms of renewables.
The meeting appears to leave legal action as the only avenue left available to solar firms as they attempt to force the government to delay the introduction of the changes and give the industry more time to adapt to the reduced feed-in tariff rates.
However, insiders said the meeting did deliver a number of positive developments.
Barker again said he was fully committed to developing a sustainable solar industry in the UK, and reiterated he wanted to work with the sector to develop a clear and stable degression mechanism as part of the second consultation on reforms to the feed-in tariff scheme, which is due to be launched before the end of the year.
Tweeting after the meeting he said: "Constructive meeting with solar stakeholders. Budget under huge strain but genuinely keen to engage industry + consumers on proposals."
He also told industry representatives that he wanted to meet with them again next month and in January to discuss the issues raised by the consultation exercises.
The industry was also given the opportunity to voice concerns that while government proposals to introduce energy efficiency standards for any building fitting solar panels were welcome in principle, they would have to be well managed to ensure they do not block large numbers of potential installations.
One industry source said the sector would continue its campaign for a rethink on the pace and scale of the proposed cuts, and continue to argue that only a modest increase in the scheme's spending cap is required to minimise the disruption caused by the cuts.
He added that the industry would now also begin work on submissions to the consultation that aim to set out a clear "flight path" detailing how incentives can be reduced over time to support the sustainable and cost-effective development of the industry.
Climate minister Greg Barker has today all but ruled out any delay to the proposed changes to solar feed-in tariff incentives due to come into effect from 12 December, arguing he cannot legally change the proposals until the official consultation exercise is complete.
Barker today met with representatives from the solar industry to discuss the government's controversial plan to halve the level of incentives available to solar installations and bring the changes into effect from next month – a move that, according to the solar industry, will result in widespread job losses and possible bankruptcies.
BusinessGreen understands representatives from across the solar industry argued that while the scale of the proposed cuts would damage their growth prospects, it is the pace of the proposed changes that will cause the greatest damage to the sector.
One industry source said Barker faced a "lot of flak" over the government's decision to effectively pre-empt the results of the consultation and propose that all installations completed after 12 December will only receive the current level of feed-in tariffs until April next year, at which point they will see the incentives they receive halved.
"There was a lot of talk of people being made redundant just before Christmas, the risk of unscrupulous dealers not giving back deposits on projects that cannot be completed before 12 December, and stranded assets where firms have ordered panels they will now struggle to sell," said the source. "There was an unbreaking consensus among the firms that the 12 December date is going to be very, very difficult."
The government is now facing at least two separate legal actions challenging the legality of the proposals and seeking an interim injunction to force the government to delay any changes to the incentive regime until after the official consultation exercise is completed.
But Barker insisted that because the consultation was now underway he could not legally make any changes to the proposals until after the exercise was completed and ministers had taken time to consider the responses.
The stance means that while ministers could, as a result of the consultation, change the 12 December cut-off date for installations to receive the higher rate of feed-in tariffs, they would not be able to announce such a move until mid January at the earliest.
"It is absolutely farcical," said one industry insider. "The 12 December date could technically be changed because it is subject to consultation, but we would not find out until January, by which point it will be too late because no one is going to take the risk of going through with a project when they know they could be left with the reduced tariff rate... People are pretty despondent."
Barker apparently stressed that all the proposals were still subject to consultation, but left the industry with the clear impression that significant changes remain unlikely.
Tweeting following the two-hour meeting, Howard Johns of the Solar Trade Association revealed Barker had warned that if current levels of feed-in tariffs were retained until April as originally planned, the scheme's entire budget would be gone. "We have to take demand away," he was quoted as saying.
A separate source told BusinessGreen that Barker had repeatedly stated that any changes to the proposed cuts to incentives, or the date they will be introduced, would have to ensure the scheme remains within the current spending cap.
Arguments that the feed-in tariff spending cap could be raised by transferring funds from other energy bill levy funded schemes were put forward by the industry, but Barker said such an approach would only gain traction if the industry could demonstrate it represents good value for money compared with other forms of renewables.
The meeting appears to leave legal action as the only avenue left available to solar firms as they attempt to force the government to delay the introduction of the changes and give the industry more time to adapt to the reduced feed-in tariff rates.
However, insiders said the meeting did deliver a number of positive developments.
Barker again said he was fully committed to developing a sustainable solar industry in the UK, and reiterated he wanted to work with the sector to develop a clear and stable degression mechanism as part of the second consultation on reforms to the feed-in tariff scheme, which is due to be launched before the end of the year.
Tweeting after the meeting he said: "Constructive meeting with solar stakeholders. Budget under huge strain but genuinely keen to engage industry + consumers on proposals."
He also told industry representatives that he wanted to meet with them again next month and in January to discuss the issues raised by the consultation exercises.
The industry was also given the opportunity to voice concerns that while government proposals to introduce energy efficiency standards for any building fitting solar panels were welcome in principle, they would have to be well managed to ensure they do not block large numbers of potential installations.
One industry source said the sector would continue its campaign for a rethink on the pace and scale of the proposed cuts, and continue to argue that only a modest increase in the scheme's spending cap is required to minimise the disruption caused by the cuts.
He added that the industry would now also begin work on submissions to the consultation that aim to set out a clear "flight path" detailing how incentives can be reduced over time to support the sustainable and cost-effective development of the industry.
Isra-Mart srl: EU finance ministers confirm €7.2bn climate financing
www.isramart.com
EU finance ministers yesterday pledged €7.2bn in short-term funding to help developing countries tackle the effects of climate change, but were quickly accused by green campaigners of "re-labelling" development aid.
A statement outlining the conclusions of the latest meeting of finance ministers showed EU states had provided €4.68bn in 2010 and 2011 towards the $30bn "fast-start" climate fund agreed at the 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen.
"Despite the severe economic downturn and strong fiscal constraints in Europe, we have mobilised €2.34bn also in 2011," said Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate action commissioner, in an emailed statement.
"This figure shows Europe's clear commitment to support actions for reducing emissions and adapting to climate change in developing countries. And after the first year of funding, it's very encouraging to see tangible results in a number of developing countries."
But NGO's claimed that rather than meeting its climate finance commitments, the EU has simply diverted large amounts of existing development funds to climate projects.
"On first sight it looks like European governments have done well on meeting their commitments to help poor countries cope with immediate climate change impacts," said Lies Craeynest, Oxfam's EU climate change policy advisor. "But they have done this mainly by re-labelling development aid as climate finance."
The fast-start finance is intended to fill a funding gap before the proposed $100bn Green Climate Fund kicks in from 2020.
But developing countries are concerned the fund will be scaled back unless public money is used, as they do not feel the private sector can be relied upon to provide funds for aspects such as climate adaptation where there is little prospect of profit.
Oxfam and WWF have proposed a levy on shipping emissions or a tax on financial transactions would be better able to supply funds for adaptation and would be easier to regulate.
Craeynest said: "Major reports by Bill Gates, the World Bank and IMF stress that both a Financial Transaction Tax and a fair carbon price on shipping are technically feasible and would raise billions of fresh money to deal with the growing challenges of climate change in poor countries, whilst also tackling emissions from ships and sorting out the financial crisis."
However, Bloomberg New Energy Finance among others has claimed raising funds from private sources will be easier than from cash-strapped governments.
Climate funding is likely to be one of the key areas of negotiation at the upcoming UN climate summit in Durban with an influential working group scheduled to present a package of proposals on how to raise the promised $100bn a year of funding from 2020 onwards.
The latest statement from the EU came as the International Energy Agency released a major new report warning that with global greenhouse gas emissions rising to record levels the world only has a few years left to take action to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.
EU finance ministers yesterday pledged €7.2bn in short-term funding to help developing countries tackle the effects of climate change, but were quickly accused by green campaigners of "re-labelling" development aid.
A statement outlining the conclusions of the latest meeting of finance ministers showed EU states had provided €4.68bn in 2010 and 2011 towards the $30bn "fast-start" climate fund agreed at the 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen.
"Despite the severe economic downturn and strong fiscal constraints in Europe, we have mobilised €2.34bn also in 2011," said Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate action commissioner, in an emailed statement.
"This figure shows Europe's clear commitment to support actions for reducing emissions and adapting to climate change in developing countries. And after the first year of funding, it's very encouraging to see tangible results in a number of developing countries."
But NGO's claimed that rather than meeting its climate finance commitments, the EU has simply diverted large amounts of existing development funds to climate projects.
"On first sight it looks like European governments have done well on meeting their commitments to help poor countries cope with immediate climate change impacts," said Lies Craeynest, Oxfam's EU climate change policy advisor. "But they have done this mainly by re-labelling development aid as climate finance."
The fast-start finance is intended to fill a funding gap before the proposed $100bn Green Climate Fund kicks in from 2020.
But developing countries are concerned the fund will be scaled back unless public money is used, as they do not feel the private sector can be relied upon to provide funds for aspects such as climate adaptation where there is little prospect of profit.
Oxfam and WWF have proposed a levy on shipping emissions or a tax on financial transactions would be better able to supply funds for adaptation and would be easier to regulate.
Craeynest said: "Major reports by Bill Gates, the World Bank and IMF stress that both a Financial Transaction Tax and a fair carbon price on shipping are technically feasible and would raise billions of fresh money to deal with the growing challenges of climate change in poor countries, whilst also tackling emissions from ships and sorting out the financial crisis."
However, Bloomberg New Energy Finance among others has claimed raising funds from private sources will be easier than from cash-strapped governments.
Climate funding is likely to be one of the key areas of negotiation at the upcoming UN climate summit in Durban with an influential working group scheduled to present a package of proposals on how to raise the promised $100bn a year of funding from 2020 onwards.
The latest statement from the EU came as the International Energy Agency released a major new report warning that with global greenhouse gas emissions rising to record levels the world only has a few years left to take action to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Isra-Mart srl: Councils could save £15bn by sharing buildings, says Eric Pickles
www.isramart.com
Local councils and frontline services, such as health visitors and fire fighters, will today be urged to share buildings in an attempt to cut carbon and shave up to £15bn off public sector spending.
A report by the cross-parliamentary Westminster Sustainable Business Forum will show co-location of services raises productivity of a workforce by up to £8bn a year, as result of better communication, enhanced efficiency, and integrated building services.
The £8bn productivity boost is on top of a £7bn saving in property costs identified in an earlier report by the Forum, resulting in total potential savings of £15bn.
Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles will launch the report today, urging civil servants "to be ruthless in the pursuit of good value - and utterly unforgiving of bureaucracy".
"The best councils are doing everything in their power to make taxpayers' money go further. Cutting out waste, sharing back offices and redesigning services," he will say.
"This report clearly shows how it is possible to deliver real savings and other benefits. The expertise is there, the experience is there. Time to get on and do it".
However, Conservative MP Matthew Hancock, who chairs the committee, said a major shift in mindset across the public sector will be needed to achieve the promised savings.
He told BusinessGreen that the public sector must no longer "hoard" buildings as an asset, but view them as a cost which should be reduced.
"Once that change of mindset has been made then a lot of the benefits should unlock themselves," he said.
He also admitted that there was a security risk of co-locating public services - a concern which needed to be addressed if greater sharing of buildings is to take place.
However, despite these challenges, the report shows a number of cases where co-location has been a success.
For example, shared services across Hampshire were found to save up to £324m, reducing both operational costs and carbon by up 50 per cent.
"When I began interviewing people a year ago, this was viewed as a radical idea, but now its becoming to become widespread thinking," added Hancock. "This prize is obtainable."
Local councils and frontline services, such as health visitors and fire fighters, will today be urged to share buildings in an attempt to cut carbon and shave up to £15bn off public sector spending.
A report by the cross-parliamentary Westminster Sustainable Business Forum will show co-location of services raises productivity of a workforce by up to £8bn a year, as result of better communication, enhanced efficiency, and integrated building services.
The £8bn productivity boost is on top of a £7bn saving in property costs identified in an earlier report by the Forum, resulting in total potential savings of £15bn.
Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles will launch the report today, urging civil servants "to be ruthless in the pursuit of good value - and utterly unforgiving of bureaucracy".
"The best councils are doing everything in their power to make taxpayers' money go further. Cutting out waste, sharing back offices and redesigning services," he will say.
"This report clearly shows how it is possible to deliver real savings and other benefits. The expertise is there, the experience is there. Time to get on and do it".
However, Conservative MP Matthew Hancock, who chairs the committee, said a major shift in mindset across the public sector will be needed to achieve the promised savings.
He told BusinessGreen that the public sector must no longer "hoard" buildings as an asset, but view them as a cost which should be reduced.
"Once that change of mindset has been made then a lot of the benefits should unlock themselves," he said.
He also admitted that there was a security risk of co-locating public services - a concern which needed to be addressed if greater sharing of buildings is to take place.
However, despite these challenges, the report shows a number of cases where co-location has been a success.
For example, shared services across Hampshire were found to save up to £324m, reducing both operational costs and carbon by up 50 per cent.
"When I began interviewing people a year ago, this was viewed as a radical idea, but now its becoming to become widespread thinking," added Hancock. "This prize is obtainable."
Isra-Mart srl: Green leaders urge Cameron to intervene in solar subsidy fiasco
www.isramart.com
A coalition of 51 solar power firms, housing associations and politicians have written to Prime Minister David Cameron urging him to intervene to block government plans to halve feed-in tariff incentives for photovoltaic installations, with effect from next month.
The open letter, dated 1 November, emerged as the latest part of a mounting campaign opposing the consultation launched by the government last week, which proposes reducing the incentive for solar photovoltaic installations with more than 4kW of capacity, from 43p/kWh to 21p/kWh.
Controversially, the reduced incentives would come into effect from next April and apply to all solar installations completed after 12 December, giving the solar industry just six weeks to prepare for the changes.
Signatories of the letter include Juliet Davenport, founder of Good Energy, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and Stephen Howlett, the chief executive of Peabody, one of the largest and oldest housing associations in London.
It calls for more moderate cuts to those proposed in the consultation and the removal of an £856m cap on the feed-in tariff (FIT) budget imposed by the Treasury.
"We urge you to request the chancellor of the exchequer revisit the spending constraints his department has placed on a scheme which makes no contribution to reducing the government deficit and is funded by energy companies, and to give special consideration to the contribution it has made to the UK's social housing sector," concludes the letter.
It also calls on Cameron to recognise the way in which solar energy is benefiting social housing schemes. The 18 social landlords who signed the letter are responsible for a total of 316,000 homes around the UK.
The government's proposals mean that aggregated solar schemes face a further 20 per cent cut to incentives on top of the 50 per cent already planned for small-scale installations, taking the tariff down to 16.8p/kWh.
"At a time of great economic uncertainty, FIT installations are one of the very few things that social landlords can do to support their tenants," the letter states. "However, the proposed level of these reductions will, quite simply, render new projects financially unviable.
"For the vast majority of social landlords, the risks of projects will be too big and the return on investment too small."
In a separate open letter to the prime minister released on Friday, Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, issued a heartfelt plea to Cameron to stand by his earlier commitments to support the development of the UK's solar industry.
The letter recalls Cameron's decision to host media events at Solarcentury's headquarters and draw on the company's assistance to develop its position on green issues.
"In the early months of your premiership... I was very proud to be able to accompany you to India and genuinely welcomed prospects for the 'greenest government ever'," Leggett writes. "Eighteen months after the election, this company has done everything asked of it by your government. We have invested, innovated, researched, exported, manufactured, supported Big Society projects and created jobs winning a Queens Award for Enterprise only last year. But today, surveying the wreckage caused to my company by Monday's DECC announcement, I have to ask you prime minister, where did it all go wrong?
"The immediate impact of DECC's unlawful decision on Monday for my own company and the industry is that bad news is hitting us from almost every quarter."
The letter draws on the government's own impact assessment to argue that the cost to energy bill payers of giving solar firms sufficient time to prepare for the proposed cuts would amount to about £1 a year.
"Prime minister, an entire industry is being destroyed inside six weeks for the sake of saving households a sum of money roughly equivalent to purchasing one copy of the Daily Mail per year," the letter states. "The Impact Assessment published yesterday reveals the cost of delaying the 12 December deadline to a date consistent with Energy Act procedures can be measured in pennies rather than pounds on average annual household energy bills."
It concludes by urging the prime minister to "intervene personally on this issue to safeguard the livelihoods of 25,000 solar staff, and to reduce the number of bankruptcies that are set to engulf the industry as a direct result of this decision".
A spokesman for Number 10 failed to respond to BusinessGreen's enquiries as to whether Cameron would address calls for a u-turn on the cuts to feed-in tariffs.
He also side-stepped a call to intervene in the cuts, when asked to do so by Labour MP Alan Whitehead in Parliament last week.
A coalition of 51 solar power firms, housing associations and politicians have written to Prime Minister David Cameron urging him to intervene to block government plans to halve feed-in tariff incentives for photovoltaic installations, with effect from next month.
The open letter, dated 1 November, emerged as the latest part of a mounting campaign opposing the consultation launched by the government last week, which proposes reducing the incentive for solar photovoltaic installations with more than 4kW of capacity, from 43p/kWh to 21p/kWh.
Controversially, the reduced incentives would come into effect from next April and apply to all solar installations completed after 12 December, giving the solar industry just six weeks to prepare for the changes.
Signatories of the letter include Juliet Davenport, founder of Good Energy, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and Stephen Howlett, the chief executive of Peabody, one of the largest and oldest housing associations in London.
It calls for more moderate cuts to those proposed in the consultation and the removal of an £856m cap on the feed-in tariff (FIT) budget imposed by the Treasury.
"We urge you to request the chancellor of the exchequer revisit the spending constraints his department has placed on a scheme which makes no contribution to reducing the government deficit and is funded by energy companies, and to give special consideration to the contribution it has made to the UK's social housing sector," concludes the letter.
It also calls on Cameron to recognise the way in which solar energy is benefiting social housing schemes. The 18 social landlords who signed the letter are responsible for a total of 316,000 homes around the UK.
The government's proposals mean that aggregated solar schemes face a further 20 per cent cut to incentives on top of the 50 per cent already planned for small-scale installations, taking the tariff down to 16.8p/kWh.
"At a time of great economic uncertainty, FIT installations are one of the very few things that social landlords can do to support their tenants," the letter states. "However, the proposed level of these reductions will, quite simply, render new projects financially unviable.
"For the vast majority of social landlords, the risks of projects will be too big and the return on investment too small."
In a separate open letter to the prime minister released on Friday, Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, issued a heartfelt plea to Cameron to stand by his earlier commitments to support the development of the UK's solar industry.
The letter recalls Cameron's decision to host media events at Solarcentury's headquarters and draw on the company's assistance to develop its position on green issues.
"In the early months of your premiership... I was very proud to be able to accompany you to India and genuinely welcomed prospects for the 'greenest government ever'," Leggett writes. "Eighteen months after the election, this company has done everything asked of it by your government. We have invested, innovated, researched, exported, manufactured, supported Big Society projects and created jobs winning a Queens Award for Enterprise only last year. But today, surveying the wreckage caused to my company by Monday's DECC announcement, I have to ask you prime minister, where did it all go wrong?
"The immediate impact of DECC's unlawful decision on Monday for my own company and the industry is that bad news is hitting us from almost every quarter."
The letter draws on the government's own impact assessment to argue that the cost to energy bill payers of giving solar firms sufficient time to prepare for the proposed cuts would amount to about £1 a year.
"Prime minister, an entire industry is being destroyed inside six weeks for the sake of saving households a sum of money roughly equivalent to purchasing one copy of the Daily Mail per year," the letter states. "The Impact Assessment published yesterday reveals the cost of delaying the 12 December deadline to a date consistent with Energy Act procedures can be measured in pennies rather than pounds on average annual household energy bills."
It concludes by urging the prime minister to "intervene personally on this issue to safeguard the livelihoods of 25,000 solar staff, and to reduce the number of bankruptcies that are set to engulf the industry as a direct result of this decision".
A spokesman for Number 10 failed to respond to BusinessGreen's enquiries as to whether Cameron would address calls for a u-turn on the cuts to feed-in tariffs.
He also side-stepped a call to intervene in the cuts, when asked to do so by Labour MP Alan Whitehead in Parliament last week.
Isra-Mart srl: Global carbon intensity on the rise for first time in a decade
www.isramart.com
Global emissions output is now outpacing economic growth, meaning that the world's carbon intensity has increased for the first time since 2000.
A PwC report to be published today will say that while carbon emissions fell along with the recession-inspired dip in industrial output the trend was reversed in 2010.
Last year, global GDP increased 5.1 per cent but emissions grew 5.8 per cent, resulting in a 0.6 per cent rise in carbon intensity, the figure that reflects the level of emissions per unit pf production.
The combination of strong growth in the emerging economies of China, Brazil and South Korea, unusually cold winters in the northern hemisphere, a drop in the price of coal relative to gas, and a slowdown in renewable energy deployment was credited with driving the increase in emissions.
The report calculates that global carbon intensity now needs to reduce by 4.8 per cent a year, over twice the rate required in 2000, if temperatures are to be kept below the 2º C increase most scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
PwC also said the UK will need sweeping reforms to generate the annual cuts in emissions of 5.6 per cent that are required if it is to stay within its carbon budget, noting that the necessary emission reductions equate to turning off power to the entire UK for a third of the year, every year, until 2020.
The consultancy explained that reaching the government's low carbon targets will require the Big Six utility companies to triple capital expenditure to a cumulative £199bn by the end of the decade.
However, the report reveals the UK is by no means alone in currently under-spending on green infrastructure, highlighting how Germany, often regarded as a low carbon pioneer, will still require €20bn (£17bn) a year of additional investment to meet its 2050 targets.
The report comes just days after the US Department of Energy announced a six per cent increase in global greenhouse gas emissions last year, and will further crank up pressure on global leaders scheduled to meet in Durban later this month for the UN's annual climate change summit.
Leo Johnson, a partner in PwC's sustainability and climate change practice, warned that the report's findings paint a stark picture.
"We are at the limits of what is achievable in terms of carbon reduction, when you consider the growth cycles predicted for developed and developing nations, versus what is required in terms of carbon reduction to stay within the 2º C scenario," he said.
"The G20 economies have moved from travelling too slowly in the right direction, to travelling in the wrong direction."
Jonathan Grant, a director at PwC, maintained that policies need to be put into place to decouple growth from carbon intensity, as decarbonising will be even more expensive in the future despite the current hysteria over rising energy bills.
"Achieving the rates of carbon productivity needed requires a revolution in the way the world produces and uses energy," he said.
"Married to that, and in the midst of a global financial crisis, we need a transformation in financing to achieve the transition at the scale and speed needed.
"Delaying action to break the link between high carbon and economic growth means that the reductions required in future are steeper, and will be more costly, threatening even greater consumer impacts in the future."
Global emissions output is now outpacing economic growth, meaning that the world's carbon intensity has increased for the first time since 2000.
A PwC report to be published today will say that while carbon emissions fell along with the recession-inspired dip in industrial output the trend was reversed in 2010.
Last year, global GDP increased 5.1 per cent but emissions grew 5.8 per cent, resulting in a 0.6 per cent rise in carbon intensity, the figure that reflects the level of emissions per unit pf production.
The combination of strong growth in the emerging economies of China, Brazil and South Korea, unusually cold winters in the northern hemisphere, a drop in the price of coal relative to gas, and a slowdown in renewable energy deployment was credited with driving the increase in emissions.
The report calculates that global carbon intensity now needs to reduce by 4.8 per cent a year, over twice the rate required in 2000, if temperatures are to be kept below the 2º C increase most scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
PwC also said the UK will need sweeping reforms to generate the annual cuts in emissions of 5.6 per cent that are required if it is to stay within its carbon budget, noting that the necessary emission reductions equate to turning off power to the entire UK for a third of the year, every year, until 2020.
The consultancy explained that reaching the government's low carbon targets will require the Big Six utility companies to triple capital expenditure to a cumulative £199bn by the end of the decade.
However, the report reveals the UK is by no means alone in currently under-spending on green infrastructure, highlighting how Germany, often regarded as a low carbon pioneer, will still require €20bn (£17bn) a year of additional investment to meet its 2050 targets.
The report comes just days after the US Department of Energy announced a six per cent increase in global greenhouse gas emissions last year, and will further crank up pressure on global leaders scheduled to meet in Durban later this month for the UN's annual climate change summit.
Leo Johnson, a partner in PwC's sustainability and climate change practice, warned that the report's findings paint a stark picture.
"We are at the limits of what is achievable in terms of carbon reduction, when you consider the growth cycles predicted for developed and developing nations, versus what is required in terms of carbon reduction to stay within the 2º C scenario," he said.
"The G20 economies have moved from travelling too slowly in the right direction, to travelling in the wrong direction."
Jonathan Grant, a director at PwC, maintained that policies need to be put into place to decouple growth from carbon intensity, as decarbonising will be even more expensive in the future despite the current hysteria over rising energy bills.
"Achieving the rates of carbon productivity needed requires a revolution in the way the world produces and uses energy," he said.
"Married to that, and in the midst of a global financial crisis, we need a transformation in financing to achieve the transition at the scale and speed needed.
"Delaying action to break the link between high carbon and economic growth means that the reductions required in future are steeper, and will be more costly, threatening even greater consumer impacts in the future."
Isra-Mart srl: UK firms lead the pack in responsible reporting
www.isramart.com
UK firms are leading the global pack when it comes to reporting on environmental and social corporate responsibility (CR) activities, according to a major new survey from accountancy firm KMPG.
Published today, KPMG's International Survey of CR Reporting 2011 (PDF) examined data from 3,400 companies worldwide, including the Global Fortune 250 and the largest 100 companies in 34 countries and 15 industry sectors.
UK firms were found to be leading the way, with every one of its top 100 companies reporting CR initiatives.
The performance just edged Japan into second place with 99 per cent of its largest companies reporting on CR efforts.
Globally, 64 per cent of the largest 100 companies in each country reported on environmental and social performance, representing an increase of 11 per cent since KMPG's 2008 survey.
The lowest ranked countries were New Zealand and Chile, both with 27 per cent of companies producing CR reports, followed by India with 20 per cent and Israel in last place with 18 per cent.
Vincent Neate, who leads KPMG's UK Climate Change and Sustainability practice, said the figures confirm that CR reporting is moving up the corporate agenda, noting that nine per cent more UK firms reported on CR issues in 2011 than 2008, despite the economic downturn.
"This report bears out the view that one of the effects of the volatility and tough trading conditions of recent years has been to make companies keener to measure, evaluate and articulate their activities around sustainability and social responsibility," he said.
"As well as enhancing the value of their brands, it can show that they are investing time and money wisely."
Among the Global Fortune 250, 95 per cent of firms were found to be reporting on CR issues, a 14 per cent increase on the 2008 findings.
"Further weight is thrown behind the assertion that CR initiatives have moved from a moral to a critical business imperative through the finding that almost half of the Global Fortune 250 companies report gaining financial value from CR," added Neate.
UK firms are leading the global pack when it comes to reporting on environmental and social corporate responsibility (CR) activities, according to a major new survey from accountancy firm KMPG.
Published today, KPMG's International Survey of CR Reporting 2011 (PDF) examined data from 3,400 companies worldwide, including the Global Fortune 250 and the largest 100 companies in 34 countries and 15 industry sectors.
UK firms were found to be leading the way, with every one of its top 100 companies reporting CR initiatives.
The performance just edged Japan into second place with 99 per cent of its largest companies reporting on CR efforts.
Globally, 64 per cent of the largest 100 companies in each country reported on environmental and social performance, representing an increase of 11 per cent since KMPG's 2008 survey.
The lowest ranked countries were New Zealand and Chile, both with 27 per cent of companies producing CR reports, followed by India with 20 per cent and Israel in last place with 18 per cent.
Vincent Neate, who leads KPMG's UK Climate Change and Sustainability practice, said the figures confirm that CR reporting is moving up the corporate agenda, noting that nine per cent more UK firms reported on CR issues in 2011 than 2008, despite the economic downturn.
"This report bears out the view that one of the effects of the volatility and tough trading conditions of recent years has been to make companies keener to measure, evaluate and articulate their activities around sustainability and social responsibility," he said.
"As well as enhancing the value of their brands, it can show that they are investing time and money wisely."
Among the Global Fortune 250, 95 per cent of firms were found to be reporting on CR issues, a 14 per cent increase on the 2008 findings.
"Further weight is thrown behind the assertion that CR initiatives have moved from a moral to a critical business imperative through the finding that almost half of the Global Fortune 250 companies report gaining financial value from CR," added Neate.
Isra-Mart srl: "Historic week" for US aviation as United launches first biofuel-powered service
www.isramart.com
The first commercial biofuel-powered flight in the United States is set to take place later today, according to reports.
United Airlines, the world's largest air carrier, will pilot the service between Houston, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois, in a Boeing 737-800, according to news agency Reuters, which cited algae-based biofuel maker Solazyme as its source.
But hot on United's heels is Alaska Airlines, which today announced it will fly 75 commercial passenger flights powered by biofuel starting on Wednesday.
Today's maiden flight links the former base of Continental Airlines with the global HQ of United, which took over Continental last year.
It will reportedly use Solazyme's Solajet branded fuel, a blend of 60 per cent petroleum-based jet fuel and 40 per cent biofuel.
The San Francisco-based company manufactures Solajet by breaking down agricultural waste into algal oil that can then be tailored to produce a jet fuel, which it claims has full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 93 per cent lower than standard diesel.
By contrast, Alaska Airlines and its sister company carrier Horizon Air will pilot two flights from Seattle to Washington D.C. and Portland, Oregon, using a 20 per cent blend of sustainable biofuel made from used cooking oil.
The technology has been developed by Dutch firm SkyNRG, which already supplies biofuel blends to Finnair, Thomson airways and KLM.
Further selected flights between the cities will continue to use the fuel over the next few weeks, Alaska Airlines said. It estimates it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 10 per cent, or 134 metric tons, the equivalent of taking 26 cars off the road for a year.
It added that if the company powered all of its flights with a 20 per cent biofuel blend for one year, the annual emissions savings would equate to taking nearly 64,000 cars off the road or providing electricity to 28,000 homes.
"This is a historic week for US aviation," Alaska Air Group Chairman and chief executive Bill Ayer said in a statement. "Commercial airplanes are equipped and ready for biofuels. They will enable us to fly cleaner, foster job growth in a new industry, and can insulate airlines from the volatile price swings of conventional fuel to help make air travel more economical.
"What we need is an adequate, affordable and sustainable supply. To the biofuels industry, we say: If you build it, we will buy it."
The green aviation fuel market is likely to become more lucrative as oil prices continue to rise and the costs of complying the EU's emission trading scheme, which airlines estimate could be up to €10bn by 2020, start to bite.
Solazyme, backed by Morgan Stanley and Chevron among others, and SkyNRG, already have rivals in the form of Finnish refiners Neste Oil, whose biojet fuel has been trialled by Lufthansa, and Solena, which is building a plant producing waste-derived fuel in London after signing a deal with BA last year.
However, environmental groups remain deeply concerned over the sustainability of jet biofuels, with experts warning that without major breakthroughs in the development of such fuels it is unlikely that suppliers will be able to produce the fuel in sufficient quantity to meet demand.
The first commercial biofuel-powered flight in the United States is set to take place later today, according to reports.
United Airlines, the world's largest air carrier, will pilot the service between Houston, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois, in a Boeing 737-800, according to news agency Reuters, which cited algae-based biofuel maker Solazyme as its source.
But hot on United's heels is Alaska Airlines, which today announced it will fly 75 commercial passenger flights powered by biofuel starting on Wednesday.
Today's maiden flight links the former base of Continental Airlines with the global HQ of United, which took over Continental last year.
It will reportedly use Solazyme's Solajet branded fuel, a blend of 60 per cent petroleum-based jet fuel and 40 per cent biofuel.
The San Francisco-based company manufactures Solajet by breaking down agricultural waste into algal oil that can then be tailored to produce a jet fuel, which it claims has full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 93 per cent lower than standard diesel.
By contrast, Alaska Airlines and its sister company carrier Horizon Air will pilot two flights from Seattle to Washington D.C. and Portland, Oregon, using a 20 per cent blend of sustainable biofuel made from used cooking oil.
The technology has been developed by Dutch firm SkyNRG, which already supplies biofuel blends to Finnair, Thomson airways and KLM.
Further selected flights between the cities will continue to use the fuel over the next few weeks, Alaska Airlines said. It estimates it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 10 per cent, or 134 metric tons, the equivalent of taking 26 cars off the road for a year.
It added that if the company powered all of its flights with a 20 per cent biofuel blend for one year, the annual emissions savings would equate to taking nearly 64,000 cars off the road or providing electricity to 28,000 homes.
"This is a historic week for US aviation," Alaska Air Group Chairman and chief executive Bill Ayer said in a statement. "Commercial airplanes are equipped and ready for biofuels. They will enable us to fly cleaner, foster job growth in a new industry, and can insulate airlines from the volatile price swings of conventional fuel to help make air travel more economical.
"What we need is an adequate, affordable and sustainable supply. To the biofuels industry, we say: If you build it, we will buy it."
The green aviation fuel market is likely to become more lucrative as oil prices continue to rise and the costs of complying the EU's emission trading scheme, which airlines estimate could be up to €10bn by 2020, start to bite.
Solazyme, backed by Morgan Stanley and Chevron among others, and SkyNRG, already have rivals in the form of Finnish refiners Neste Oil, whose biojet fuel has been trialled by Lufthansa, and Solena, which is building a plant producing waste-derived fuel in London after signing a deal with BA last year.
However, environmental groups remain deeply concerned over the sustainability of jet biofuels, with experts warning that without major breakthroughs in the development of such fuels it is unlikely that suppliers will be able to produce the fuel in sufficient quantity to meet demand.
Isra-Mart srl: NER300 sale to proceed, despite plunging carbon prices
www.isramart.com
The EU has insisted that falling carbon prices will not affect the planned sale of 300 million emission allowances set aside to fund renewable energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects across Europe.
Between €4bn and €5bn was expected to be raised for the NER300 fund when the sale was announced in February last year. But since then the fluctuating price of carbon has dipped significantly, hitting record lows in August, before again falling during the autumn on the back of the Eurozone debt crisis.
EU allowances are currently sitting at about €9.50, which would mean the sale of the reserved allowances would only raise about €2.85bn if sold at today's market prices.
Some commentators had suggested postponing the sale until prices recovered to maximise the funds available, while last month the European Investment Bank (EIB) said that while sales of the credits may start this year they could run beyond the end of the original 2012 deadline for completing the sell-off.
But speaking to reporters in Brussels today, Jos Delbeke, director general for climate at the European Commission, ruled out any delay.
"Can we linger out? I'm afraid we can't," he said. "We have to spend the money by 2015. If we lingered out we'd miss the opportunity to move ahead with clean technologies."
He added that the EIB had been instructed that the commission "won't tolerate any slippage in the timetable".
"It's better to be on time than take six or 12 months and not be sure if the price is going to improve," he said.
The NER300 is intended to cover half the construction costs of eight CCS projects with over 250MW capacity and 34 renewables projects, including wind energy, marine energy and technologies to convert plant waste into biofuels, biogas or electricity.
The UK put forward 12 projects for consideration in May, including ScottishPower's Longannet CCS project, which has since dropped out of the UK government's funding competition, and Clipper Wind's high-profile Britannia project to build a 10MW offshore turbine, which was shelved in August.
The NER300 fund will provide a major boost to a large number of cutting-edge low-carbon projects, but concerns remain that if the Eurozone crisis worsens the price of carbon could fall, further limiting the available funds for new projects.
The EU has insisted that falling carbon prices will not affect the planned sale of 300 million emission allowances set aside to fund renewable energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects across Europe.
Between €4bn and €5bn was expected to be raised for the NER300 fund when the sale was announced in February last year. But since then the fluctuating price of carbon has dipped significantly, hitting record lows in August, before again falling during the autumn on the back of the Eurozone debt crisis.
EU allowances are currently sitting at about €9.50, which would mean the sale of the reserved allowances would only raise about €2.85bn if sold at today's market prices.
Some commentators had suggested postponing the sale until prices recovered to maximise the funds available, while last month the European Investment Bank (EIB) said that while sales of the credits may start this year they could run beyond the end of the original 2012 deadline for completing the sell-off.
But speaking to reporters in Brussels today, Jos Delbeke, director general for climate at the European Commission, ruled out any delay.
"Can we linger out? I'm afraid we can't," he said. "We have to spend the money by 2015. If we lingered out we'd miss the opportunity to move ahead with clean technologies."
He added that the EIB had been instructed that the commission "won't tolerate any slippage in the timetable".
"It's better to be on time than take six or 12 months and not be sure if the price is going to improve," he said.
The NER300 is intended to cover half the construction costs of eight CCS projects with over 250MW capacity and 34 renewables projects, including wind energy, marine energy and technologies to convert plant waste into biofuels, biogas or electricity.
The UK put forward 12 projects for consideration in May, including ScottishPower's Longannet CCS project, which has since dropped out of the UK government's funding competition, and Clipper Wind's high-profile Britannia project to build a 10MW offshore turbine, which was shelved in August.
The NER300 fund will provide a major boost to a large number of cutting-edge low-carbon projects, but concerns remain that if the Eurozone crisis worsens the price of carbon could fall, further limiting the available funds for new projects.
Isra-Mart srl: Rio +20 Summit postponed to avoid Queen's diamond jubilee
www.isramart.com
The Brazilian government has reportedly postponed the Rio +20 Earth Summit by two weeks to avoid a clash with the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations that threatened to leave 54 Commonwealth Leaders facing a tough decision on which event to attend.
According to reports, the crucial three day summit, which marks the 20th anniversary of the first Rio Earth Summit and is being widely touted as the last chance to deliver a breakthrough in moribund international climate change negotiations, will now take place between 20-22 June rather than 4-6 June.
The meeting's official website still states that it will take place on 4-6 June, but according to reports in the Guardian Brazilian officials told their counterparts at last week's G20 Summit in Cannes that the date would be moved.
European governments are understood to already be planning to work to the new dates.
Fears had been mounting that the diary clash would result in several of the world's most powerful leaders avoiding the summit, with Downing Street confirming last month that British Prime Minister David Cameron would not attend.
However, in what is likely to be a controversial move Downing Street again confirmed today that the Prime Minister still had no plans to attend the Rio +20 summit, despite calls from green groups and a cross party committee of MPs for him to do so.
The UK is expected to represented by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman instead.
Speaking following the launch of a report from the environmental audit committee of MPs last month chairwoman Joan Walley said the onus was on Cameron to attend the summit.
"The prime minister should lead by example," she said. "He could make a big difference by demonstrating his commitment to Rio+20 and letting other world leaders know that he will personally be attending."
Cameron's non-attendance will fuel concerns that other world leaders could similarly avoid the summit, after seeing their attempts to broker an international agreement to tackle climate change fail at 2009's Copenhagen Summit.
Most notably, Barack Obama will be under political pressure not to attend during an election year.
In related news, Labour today sought to step up pressure on David Cameron over his apparent reluctance to maintain his earlier commitment to environmental issues with the launch of a new campaign designed to push action on climate change change up the political agenda.
The Prime Minister has famously failed to give a single significant speech on environmental issues since taking office, despite his high profile commitment to green policies while in opposition.
Launching the Climate Change Pledge campaign, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Caroline Flint urged people to sign up to the new pledge, adding that the opposition would challenge the government to take more ambitous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"In opposition David Cameron was telling us to 'vote blue and go green'," she said. "Now he's in government we don't hear anything from him about climate change or the green economy.
"The Government should be acting to build a low carbon economy, pushing for an agreement on long term sources of climate finance at the Durban conference and pushing for a second period of the Kyoto Protocol as a route towards a global agreement on cutting carbon emissions."
The Brazilian government has reportedly postponed the Rio +20 Earth Summit by two weeks to avoid a clash with the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations that threatened to leave 54 Commonwealth Leaders facing a tough decision on which event to attend.
According to reports, the crucial three day summit, which marks the 20th anniversary of the first Rio Earth Summit and is being widely touted as the last chance to deliver a breakthrough in moribund international climate change negotiations, will now take place between 20-22 June rather than 4-6 June.
The meeting's official website still states that it will take place on 4-6 June, but according to reports in the Guardian Brazilian officials told their counterparts at last week's G20 Summit in Cannes that the date would be moved.
European governments are understood to already be planning to work to the new dates.
Fears had been mounting that the diary clash would result in several of the world's most powerful leaders avoiding the summit, with Downing Street confirming last month that British Prime Minister David Cameron would not attend.
However, in what is likely to be a controversial move Downing Street again confirmed today that the Prime Minister still had no plans to attend the Rio +20 summit, despite calls from green groups and a cross party committee of MPs for him to do so.
The UK is expected to represented by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman instead.
Speaking following the launch of a report from the environmental audit committee of MPs last month chairwoman Joan Walley said the onus was on Cameron to attend the summit.
"The prime minister should lead by example," she said. "He could make a big difference by demonstrating his commitment to Rio+20 and letting other world leaders know that he will personally be attending."
Cameron's non-attendance will fuel concerns that other world leaders could similarly avoid the summit, after seeing their attempts to broker an international agreement to tackle climate change fail at 2009's Copenhagen Summit.
Most notably, Barack Obama will be under political pressure not to attend during an election year.
In related news, Labour today sought to step up pressure on David Cameron over his apparent reluctance to maintain his earlier commitment to environmental issues with the launch of a new campaign designed to push action on climate change change up the political agenda.
The Prime Minister has famously failed to give a single significant speech on environmental issues since taking office, despite his high profile commitment to green policies while in opposition.
Launching the Climate Change Pledge campaign, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Caroline Flint urged people to sign up to the new pledge, adding that the opposition would challenge the government to take more ambitous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"In opposition David Cameron was telling us to 'vote blue and go green'," she said. "Now he's in government we don't hear anything from him about climate change or the green economy.
"The Government should be acting to build a low carbon economy, pushing for an agreement on long term sources of climate finance at the Durban conference and pushing for a second period of the Kyoto Protocol as a route towards a global agreement on cutting carbon emissions."
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Isra-Mart srl:EU Faces Global Oopposition to ETS
www.isramart.com
The European Union has vowed to impose carbon emissions caps on flights in and out of the region’s airports starting next year. This comes in the face of opposition from non-EU countries, including the US and Russia, and a formal complaint was filed on Wednesday. The US, Russia, China and 23 other countries urged that non-EU carriers be exempt from the scheme at a meeting of the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO) governing council.
The dispute highlights the challenge of creating a global deal to put a price on CO2 emissions, only four weeks before the UN summit on post-2012 climate-protection regulations. This follows the US House of Representatives approving a bill that will ban the nation’s airlines from participating in the scheme.
The EU is aiming to lead the battle against climate change and decided in 2008 that the aviation industry should be part of its cap-and-trade programme after emissions in Europe doubled over 20 years. US-based airlines are challenging the legislation in an EU court, and the carrier association of China had predicted that the scheme could prompt conflict.
The opposing nations say that the legislation will infringe a ‘cardinal principle of state sovereignty’ by founding its charges on the distance flown by every flight. This means calculations will include airspace outside of the EU, which will violate a 1944 pact that allows every nation exclusive authority over its skies. It will also discriminate against countries further away from Europe than others.
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is the cornerstone of the plan set out by the EU to reduce greenhouse gases, which are blamed for global warming. Pollution limits are already imposed on over 11,000 power companies and manufacturers, leading to a cap in 2020 that will reduce discharges to 21% below 2005 levels.
The law that extends to airlines offers an option of excluding incoming flights from a certain nation if that country imposes equivalent measures that will reduce pollution from its air transport sector. Due to the rule, airlines are slated to lose €1.2 billion next year. Carriers that don’t comply with the regulation will face fines of €100 per missing permit, or 10 times their current value.
European Commission climate spokesman Isaac Valero-Ladron said that they aren’t going to modify the plan to extend the ETS to all airlines entering or leaving the region. EU top climate action official Connie Hedegaard says that it’s disappointing that the ICAO talks are again focusing on what States shouldn’t do, rather than what they should do, to curb increasing aviation emissions. Unfortunately, the organisation has missed the opportunity to tell the world when it will provide a viable international solution.
The European Union has vowed to impose carbon emissions caps on flights in and out of the region’s airports starting next year. This comes in the face of opposition from non-EU countries, including the US and Russia, and a formal complaint was filed on Wednesday. The US, Russia, China and 23 other countries urged that non-EU carriers be exempt from the scheme at a meeting of the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO) governing council.
The dispute highlights the challenge of creating a global deal to put a price on CO2 emissions, only four weeks before the UN summit on post-2012 climate-protection regulations. This follows the US House of Representatives approving a bill that will ban the nation’s airlines from participating in the scheme.
The EU is aiming to lead the battle against climate change and decided in 2008 that the aviation industry should be part of its cap-and-trade programme after emissions in Europe doubled over 20 years. US-based airlines are challenging the legislation in an EU court, and the carrier association of China had predicted that the scheme could prompt conflict.
The opposing nations say that the legislation will infringe a ‘cardinal principle of state sovereignty’ by founding its charges on the distance flown by every flight. This means calculations will include airspace outside of the EU, which will violate a 1944 pact that allows every nation exclusive authority over its skies. It will also discriminate against countries further away from Europe than others.
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is the cornerstone of the plan set out by the EU to reduce greenhouse gases, which are blamed for global warming. Pollution limits are already imposed on over 11,000 power companies and manufacturers, leading to a cap in 2020 that will reduce discharges to 21% below 2005 levels.
The law that extends to airlines offers an option of excluding incoming flights from a certain nation if that country imposes equivalent measures that will reduce pollution from its air transport sector. Due to the rule, airlines are slated to lose €1.2 billion next year. Carriers that don’t comply with the regulation will face fines of €100 per missing permit, or 10 times their current value.
European Commission climate spokesman Isaac Valero-Ladron said that they aren’t going to modify the plan to extend the ETS to all airlines entering or leaving the region. EU top climate action official Connie Hedegaard says that it’s disappointing that the ICAO talks are again focusing on what States shouldn’t do, rather than what they should do, to curb increasing aviation emissions. Unfortunately, the organisation has missed the opportunity to tell the world when it will provide a viable international solution.
Isra-Mart srl: 26 Nations Defy Europe on Airline Emissions
www.isramart.com
China, the United States and 24 other nations backed a declaration on Wednesday urging that their airlines be exempted from the European Union’s Emissions Trading System.
The move at the International Civil Aviation Organization, an arm of the United Nations, is another challenge to environmental leadership by the European Union, which has failed in its efforts to get some of the biggest polluters in the developed world to adopt crucial parts of its agenda for tackling climate change.
The declaration said the European directive was “inconsistent with applicable international law” and that the signatory nations would work together to oppose it.
The declaration is not binding, but it does represent a shot across the bow, as it could lead to a formal dispute procedure through the international aviation organization.
Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner for climate action, defended the European emissions plan and faulted the other countries for failing to address the greenhouse gas issue. “Unfortunately, I.C.A.O. has missed again today the opportunity to tell the world when it will table a viable global solution,” she said.
Pamela Campos, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund who attended the meeting in Montreal, said the declaration was no more than “a political expression of a group of countries that their airlines aren’t happy about having to comply with pollution controls.”
She said that any “formal legal action would have to follow very different procedures that were not considered today.”
European Union officials have emphasized that some of the countries that supported the declaration on Wednesday had backed earlier conclusions by the aviation organization that emissions trading could be developed regionally before expanding to a global system.
China, the United States and 24 other nations backed a declaration on Wednesday urging that their airlines be exempted from the European Union’s Emissions Trading System.
The move at the International Civil Aviation Organization, an arm of the United Nations, is another challenge to environmental leadership by the European Union, which has failed in its efforts to get some of the biggest polluters in the developed world to adopt crucial parts of its agenda for tackling climate change.
The declaration said the European directive was “inconsistent with applicable international law” and that the signatory nations would work together to oppose it.
The declaration is not binding, but it does represent a shot across the bow, as it could lead to a formal dispute procedure through the international aviation organization.
Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner for climate action, defended the European emissions plan and faulted the other countries for failing to address the greenhouse gas issue. “Unfortunately, I.C.A.O. has missed again today the opportunity to tell the world when it will table a viable global solution,” she said.
Pamela Campos, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund who attended the meeting in Montreal, said the declaration was no more than “a political expression of a group of countries that their airlines aren’t happy about having to comply with pollution controls.”
She said that any “formal legal action would have to follow very different procedures that were not considered today.”
European Union officials have emphasized that some of the countries that supported the declaration on Wednesday had backed earlier conclusions by the aviation organization that emissions trading could be developed regionally before expanding to a global system.
Isra-Mart srl: World's top airports rally against ETS
www.isramart.com
Members of the Airports Council International (ACI) are urging the International Civil Aviation Organisation to intervene over the proposed EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
From January, all airlines crossing EU airspace will be expected to join the ETS and will need to buy permits for any carbon emissions they produce over a certain limit.
ACI said yesterday that its 580 members “recognised the risk to trade posed by the ETS” and were extremely concerned about the potential negative affects on international air transport.
“The ICAO is the international authority in matters involving civil aviation and we believe it should intervene and resolve this conflict before the scheme is implemented”, said the ACI’s Director General, Angela Gittens.
Members of the Airports Council International (ACI) are urging the International Civil Aviation Organisation to intervene over the proposed EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
From January, all airlines crossing EU airspace will be expected to join the ETS and will need to buy permits for any carbon emissions they produce over a certain limit.
ACI said yesterday that its 580 members “recognised the risk to trade posed by the ETS” and were extremely concerned about the potential negative affects on international air transport.
“The ICAO is the international authority in matters involving civil aviation and we believe it should intervene and resolve this conflict before the scheme is implemented”, said the ACI’s Director General, Angela Gittens.
Isra-Mart srl: The view from Chinese airspace
www.isramart.com
From 2012, the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) will set carbon quotas for airlines flying into or out of the trading bloc. Airlines exceeding their quota will need to buy extra emission permits. China’s airlines have consistently opposed the move and threatened to take the matter to court.
Is the EU move legal? Does it breach the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities set out in the Kyoto Protocol? chinadialogue’s Meng Si asked three Chinese experts for their views: Jiang Kejun, head of the Energy Research Institute at the National Reform and Development Commission, China’s top economic planner; Yang Fuqiang, senior adviser on climate, energy and environment for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s China Program; and Luo Rui, senior consultant at ICF International, a consultancy specialising in energy, environment and transport.
For a view on the row from Europe, read “Battle of the skies” by Oxford University aviation expert Christian Carey here .
Meng Si: What’s your view on Chinese threats to sue the European Union over the inclusion of aviation in the ETS?
Jiang Kejun: It’s natural that China’s airlines will object to paying charges, but I don’t think there’s any need for China to make too much of a fuss. The inclusion of aviation in the ETS will have a greater impact on European airlines, as they have more European routes. Also, there are advantages for China. First, the higher costs for European airlines will result in a relative increase in the competitiveness of Chinese firms. Second, it will promote low-carbon development for China’s airlines. China’s late-starter advantage means its firms are very likely to lead others in emissions reductions – there’s no need to be particularly concerned.
Yang Fuqiang: China has failed to pay enough attention to the way this has developed. The European Union has been working on the inclusion of aviation within the ETS for years, and they informed other nations and asked for feedback well in advance – but nobody thought there was any rush and didn’t pay too much attention. Now the EU has actually passed the legislation and everyone’s apparently been caught unawares. China’s in the same boat, but it’s too late now.
Another thing is that the EU has been working on this for years – it’s legally sound, and China won’t win any court cases. So China’s opposition is merely political. And flights between China and the EU are more important to China than to Europe, so the EU has the stronger negotiating position.
Luo Rui: Aviation emissions should be a focus of concern, but enforcing an emissions policy in the face of widespread opposition may affect international climate talks and disrupt genuine cooperation.
International industry associations such as the International Air Transport Association have already produced roadmaps for emissions reduction, but the EU’s unilateral, regional measures mean this is no longer a simple climate change matter – it has become a trade issue. China has every right to make its opinions clear. Of course, the EU’s own airlines may believe that including overseas firms is fairer, for the sake of their own competitiveness.
There’s nothing wrong with the ETS itself – the problem is that it’s not a global system. Steve Ridgway, Chairman of the Association of European Airlines, said in Brussels in September that the ETS will result in annual costs of 3.1 billion euros [US$4.3 billion] for European airlines – 1.1 billion euros [US$1.5 billion] of which will go to EU governments. This has been opposed by airlines and some industry associations. The ETS rules that the length of flights landing in the EU will be calculated from the last non-EU point of landing. So if you fly from Beijing to Paris, you are judged to have flown that whole distance. But if you fly from Beijing to Dubai, then to Norway, then to Paris, then only the Norway to Paris leg is used. That’s a focus of debate, as there’s a loophole there.
Developing nations will also worry that this model will be extended to other sectors, wrecking the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Meng Si: If this system goes into effect, what impact will it have on China?
Jiang Kejun: In terms of response to climate change, I think it’ll have a positive effect. Chinese airlines need to look to the future and become low-carbon if they are to be more competitive. Their passengers come from all over the world and, in particular, European consumers will tend to choose environmentally friendly airlines. If the airlines fight this too much, they’ll spoil their image and that won’t help future growth. I think China’s consumers can stand the extra costs, it won’t affect the market.
Yang Fuqiang: Chinese airlines have said this will result in 800 million yuan [US$126 million] of increased costs a year. That’s a huge number, but divide it across passengers and it’s not that much, under 100 yuan [US$15.7] extra per ticket. The EU looked at this when they were designing the system and believe that the costs are bearable.
But it should be stressed that, from China’s standpoint, this is not fair. Developing nations will suffer more, which breaches the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
This affair should sound a warning bell for China’s climate negotiators. China’s airlines have sent representatives to negotiations on aviation emissions, but sometimes they turn up, sometimes they don’t – often they’re just seeing what’s going on, rather than putting forward their own proposals. Then when things get started, it’s too late and there’s little they can do about it. Even if the ongoing discussions go well for China, I guess the airlines are still looking at extra costs of 200 to 300 million yuan.
Luo Rui: Needing to buy emission permits will increase costs for airlines, but those costs are related to the price of carbon, and ultimately might not be as high as the 800 million yuan figure that’s been mentioned. Currently buying carbon credits costs 3% of fuel costs, and if the price of carbon increases it still shouldn’t be more than 10%. I don’t think initially there’ll be very much increase in costs, but by around 2014 to 2016, expected increases in the cost of carbon may make things much more expensive.
Different companies will have different abilities to absorb those costs, so it’s hard to say how much will be passed onto consumers. China’s aviation sector is expected to expand rapidly and it’s unlikely the number of flights to the EU will decrease – but environmental costs will become more important when routes are being chosen.
Meng Si: How could a compromise be reached?
Jiang Kejun: It’s hard to say whether or not the Chinese airlines will be able to change the rules through legal action. Personally, I don’t think they’ll gain anything. The lesson here for the European Union is that there was a lack of communication early on. China being suddenly informed like that – that’s hard to accept in Asian culture.
Yang Fuqiang: I think China and the EU should sit down for constructive talks rather than just work against each other. Both sides should seek a solution though high-level government talks. After all, the EU has no desire to see deadlock with China.
The EU should offer a grace period for developing-nation airlines, during which these charges will not be collected. That would be in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The length of the grace periods should be set in accordance with the ability of different nations to make emission cuts.
China’s aviation industry wasn’t included in the emission-reduction and energy-saving plans of the 11th Five-Year Plan, and the targets now set for the industry in the 12th Five-Year Plan aren’t very ambitious. If airlines had made improvements during the 11th Five-Year Plan, they could argue more convincingly with the EU. China should join with developing nations and argue for the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to be applied, rather than opposing the move along the same lines as the United States [north American airlines have sued the EU on the grounds that its aviation ETS plans violate international law].
Luo Rui: In September, the EU publicised a proposal for allocation of free quotas, with charges to be reduced or waved in exchange for measures to reduce emissions, such as using biofuel or new materials. Currently, China is trying to gather as many bargaining chips as possible in the hope that the EU will recognise the industry’s undertakings on emissions reduction and thus reduce its costs. At the same time, I think the industry should be preparing, working out emissions data and making sure it is ready for the worst-case scenario.
From 2012, the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) will set carbon quotas for airlines flying into or out of the trading bloc. Airlines exceeding their quota will need to buy extra emission permits. China’s airlines have consistently opposed the move and threatened to take the matter to court.
Is the EU move legal? Does it breach the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities set out in the Kyoto Protocol? chinadialogue’s Meng Si asked three Chinese experts for their views: Jiang Kejun, head of the Energy Research Institute at the National Reform and Development Commission, China’s top economic planner; Yang Fuqiang, senior adviser on climate, energy and environment for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s China Program; and Luo Rui, senior consultant at ICF International, a consultancy specialising in energy, environment and transport.
For a view on the row from Europe, read “Battle of the skies” by Oxford University aviation expert Christian Carey here .
Meng Si: What’s your view on Chinese threats to sue the European Union over the inclusion of aviation in the ETS?
Jiang Kejun: It’s natural that China’s airlines will object to paying charges, but I don’t think there’s any need for China to make too much of a fuss. The inclusion of aviation in the ETS will have a greater impact on European airlines, as they have more European routes. Also, there are advantages for China. First, the higher costs for European airlines will result in a relative increase in the competitiveness of Chinese firms. Second, it will promote low-carbon development for China’s airlines. China’s late-starter advantage means its firms are very likely to lead others in emissions reductions – there’s no need to be particularly concerned.
Yang Fuqiang: China has failed to pay enough attention to the way this has developed. The European Union has been working on the inclusion of aviation within the ETS for years, and they informed other nations and asked for feedback well in advance – but nobody thought there was any rush and didn’t pay too much attention. Now the EU has actually passed the legislation and everyone’s apparently been caught unawares. China’s in the same boat, but it’s too late now.
Another thing is that the EU has been working on this for years – it’s legally sound, and China won’t win any court cases. So China’s opposition is merely political. And flights between China and the EU are more important to China than to Europe, so the EU has the stronger negotiating position.
Luo Rui: Aviation emissions should be a focus of concern, but enforcing an emissions policy in the face of widespread opposition may affect international climate talks and disrupt genuine cooperation.
International industry associations such as the International Air Transport Association have already produced roadmaps for emissions reduction, but the EU’s unilateral, regional measures mean this is no longer a simple climate change matter – it has become a trade issue. China has every right to make its opinions clear. Of course, the EU’s own airlines may believe that including overseas firms is fairer, for the sake of their own competitiveness.
There’s nothing wrong with the ETS itself – the problem is that it’s not a global system. Steve Ridgway, Chairman of the Association of European Airlines, said in Brussels in September that the ETS will result in annual costs of 3.1 billion euros [US$4.3 billion] for European airlines – 1.1 billion euros [US$1.5 billion] of which will go to EU governments. This has been opposed by airlines and some industry associations. The ETS rules that the length of flights landing in the EU will be calculated from the last non-EU point of landing. So if you fly from Beijing to Paris, you are judged to have flown that whole distance. But if you fly from Beijing to Dubai, then to Norway, then to Paris, then only the Norway to Paris leg is used. That’s a focus of debate, as there’s a loophole there.
Developing nations will also worry that this model will be extended to other sectors, wrecking the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Meng Si: If this system goes into effect, what impact will it have on China?
Jiang Kejun: In terms of response to climate change, I think it’ll have a positive effect. Chinese airlines need to look to the future and become low-carbon if they are to be more competitive. Their passengers come from all over the world and, in particular, European consumers will tend to choose environmentally friendly airlines. If the airlines fight this too much, they’ll spoil their image and that won’t help future growth. I think China’s consumers can stand the extra costs, it won’t affect the market.
Yang Fuqiang: Chinese airlines have said this will result in 800 million yuan [US$126 million] of increased costs a year. That’s a huge number, but divide it across passengers and it’s not that much, under 100 yuan [US$15.7] extra per ticket. The EU looked at this when they were designing the system and believe that the costs are bearable.
But it should be stressed that, from China’s standpoint, this is not fair. Developing nations will suffer more, which breaches the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
This affair should sound a warning bell for China’s climate negotiators. China’s airlines have sent representatives to negotiations on aviation emissions, but sometimes they turn up, sometimes they don’t – often they’re just seeing what’s going on, rather than putting forward their own proposals. Then when things get started, it’s too late and there’s little they can do about it. Even if the ongoing discussions go well for China, I guess the airlines are still looking at extra costs of 200 to 300 million yuan.
Luo Rui: Needing to buy emission permits will increase costs for airlines, but those costs are related to the price of carbon, and ultimately might not be as high as the 800 million yuan figure that’s been mentioned. Currently buying carbon credits costs 3% of fuel costs, and if the price of carbon increases it still shouldn’t be more than 10%. I don’t think initially there’ll be very much increase in costs, but by around 2014 to 2016, expected increases in the cost of carbon may make things much more expensive.
Different companies will have different abilities to absorb those costs, so it’s hard to say how much will be passed onto consumers. China’s aviation sector is expected to expand rapidly and it’s unlikely the number of flights to the EU will decrease – but environmental costs will become more important when routes are being chosen.
Meng Si: How could a compromise be reached?
Jiang Kejun: It’s hard to say whether or not the Chinese airlines will be able to change the rules through legal action. Personally, I don’t think they’ll gain anything. The lesson here for the European Union is that there was a lack of communication early on. China being suddenly informed like that – that’s hard to accept in Asian culture.
Yang Fuqiang: I think China and the EU should sit down for constructive talks rather than just work against each other. Both sides should seek a solution though high-level government talks. After all, the EU has no desire to see deadlock with China.
The EU should offer a grace period for developing-nation airlines, during which these charges will not be collected. That would be in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The length of the grace periods should be set in accordance with the ability of different nations to make emission cuts.
China’s aviation industry wasn’t included in the emission-reduction and energy-saving plans of the 11th Five-Year Plan, and the targets now set for the industry in the 12th Five-Year Plan aren’t very ambitious. If airlines had made improvements during the 11th Five-Year Plan, they could argue more convincingly with the EU. China should join with developing nations and argue for the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to be applied, rather than opposing the move along the same lines as the United States [north American airlines have sued the EU on the grounds that its aviation ETS plans violate international law].
Luo Rui: In September, the EU publicised a proposal for allocation of free quotas, with charges to be reduced or waved in exchange for measures to reduce emissions, such as using biofuel or new materials. Currently, China is trying to gather as many bargaining chips as possible in the hope that the EU will recognise the industry’s undertakings on emissions reduction and thus reduce its costs. At the same time, I think the industry should be preparing, working out emissions data and making sure it is ready for the worst-case scenario.
Isra-Mart srl: IATA calling for an innovative approach to airline-airport cooperation
www.isramart.com
Marrakech – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) called for innovation and a renewed agenda of cooperation in the relationship between airports and airlines. “We need a common and forward-looking agenda that builds on past successes and puts innovation at the heart of our common issues. Airports and airlines share a common interest in making aviation safer, more secure, user-friendly, operationally efficient and environmentally responsible. Combined, these are our common license to grow,” said Tony Tyler, IATA’s Director General and CEO.
Tyler’s remarks came in a keynote address to the world’s airports at the Airports Council International (ACI) World Annual General Assembly in Marrakech, Morocco. Tyler highlighted six areas where airports and airlines can enhance cooperation to innovate and deliver value: safety, security, improving the customer experience, infrastructure investments, environment and charges.
Safety: “Safety is our top priority and requires a team effort. We are already doing good and important work together in critical areas such as runway safety. Addressing ground safety and reducing the $4 billon cost of ground damage is another area. ACI contributed to building the IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO) which has become the global standard. Seattle Tacoma and Amsterdam Schiphol now mandate ISAGO as a requirement for all ground operators at their airports. I urge others to do the same. If we are serious about safety—and we are—there is no reason not to,” said Tyler. There are 128 ISAGO registrations covering 83 ground service providers at 104 airports, with 25 airports having indicated their support of ISAGO.
Tyler also called for cooperation between IATA and ACI in promoting the IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM). IGOM will be launched in 2012 to globally harmonize ground operations and will become a tool to address deficiencies in safety and efficiency, particularly in rapidly developing markets.
Security: IATA is promoting a dialogue among industry and government stakeholders on a Checkpoint of the Future (CoF) that takes a risk-based approach with the aim of allowing passengers to move through security without stopping, unpacking or removing outerwear. “Airport security is effective but it needs a major re-think to meet growing passenger numbers and calls for less intrusive processes. Convenient and effective security will make air travel a more compelling product. And the less time travelers spend queuing, the more time they will have for airport shopping, eating and entertainment,” said Tyler. Tyler also noted the cooperation with ACI on Secure Freight, which will secure the supply chain based on global standards and best practices.
Improving the Customer Experience: “Airlines and airports worked together to improve efficiency and passenger convenience through IATA’s Simplifying the Business program, starting with e-ticketing, common use self-service (CUSS) kiosks and bar coded boarding passes. These are three enablers that give us an enormous opportunity to innovate the passenger experience even further through Fast Travel,” said Tyler. Fast Travel is a suite of self-service options to add further efficiency to the travel experience from check-in to baggage retrieval that has been implemented in airline-airport partnerships including SAS and Copenhagen Airport, the first to implement all five Fast Travel projects.
Tyler urged airlines and airports to work more closely on baggage delivery accuracy to support airlines as they unbundle their product, including baggage charges. IATA’s Baggage Improvement Program helped Air New Zealand and Auckland International Airport reduce baggage mishandling by 75%.
Tyler also called for more airport partnerships to promote e-freight. Implementing e-freight will lower costs across the supply chain, improve efficiency, reliability, accuracy and security, and has the potential to contribute to shortening process cycles by up to 24 hours.
Environment: Airports and airlines are united with air navigation service providers and manufacturers to tackle aviation’s carbon emissions. To achieve the industry’s commitments to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5% annually to 2020, cap net emissions from 2020 and cut net emissions in half by 2050 (compared to 2005), Tyler called for innovative cooperative approaches. “I encourage airports around the world to team-up with airlines. Some airports—Madrid-Barajas, Detroit and Stockholm-Arlanda have allocated land to grow source crops for sustainable biofuels. Zurich Airport has mandated the used of fixed ground power. These are all important moves to improve our environmental performance,” said Tyler.
Infrastructure Investments: “Building infrastructure to handle growth is a challenge best handled in close cooperation between airports and airlines. This includes working together in the airport master planning to ensure that investments are being made that match the needs of airlines,” said Tyler. He pointed to London’s Heathrow Airport where an ongoing dialogue between the airport operator and the airlines is helping, among other things, to promote capacity expansion, optimize existing capacity, take advantage of developing technology, mitigate noise and emissions, enhance surface access and improve operational resilience. “There are robust discussions on price, affordability and service standards, but what is important is to have an open and honest dialogue on our common future and a rolling capital expenditures (CAPEX) plan to accommodate aviation’s dynamic nature,” said Tyler.
Cost-Efficiency: Tyler also reiterated the importance of cost efficient, affordable airports with charges in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) principles. “Airlines and airports are in a business relationship. And it is a tough business. Airlines are expected to make a margin of 1.2% this year and 0.8% in 2012. Airports will be under similar pressure. In fact, regardless of the economic situation, there is a natural tension in the supplier-customer relationship between airports and airlines. But let’s keep focused on the fact that airlines and airports both need to be financially sound financial partners that are able to plan and grow our businesses together,” said Tyler. Tyler proposed innovation in four aspects of the ongoing discussion on airport charges:
Airline engagement in major capital expenditure development
More transparent and meaningful consultation processes
Longer-term charges agreements which include service level agreements
Development of innovative concepts for risk sharing
ACI
IATA congratulated ACI on 20 years of industry leadership. “ACI—the collective voice of the world’s airports—has played a critical role in developing global aviation. And I am confident it will continue to do so, I hope in even greater partnership with IATA and the airlines. With openness to innovation and a common understanding of the issues and the potential, I am convinced that together we can direct the future of a sustainable aviation industry that is an even more successful driver of national and global economies,” said Tyler.
Marrakech – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) called for innovation and a renewed agenda of cooperation in the relationship between airports and airlines. “We need a common and forward-looking agenda that builds on past successes and puts innovation at the heart of our common issues. Airports and airlines share a common interest in making aviation safer, more secure, user-friendly, operationally efficient and environmentally responsible. Combined, these are our common license to grow,” said Tony Tyler, IATA’s Director General and CEO.
Tyler’s remarks came in a keynote address to the world’s airports at the Airports Council International (ACI) World Annual General Assembly in Marrakech, Morocco. Tyler highlighted six areas where airports and airlines can enhance cooperation to innovate and deliver value: safety, security, improving the customer experience, infrastructure investments, environment and charges.
Safety: “Safety is our top priority and requires a team effort. We are already doing good and important work together in critical areas such as runway safety. Addressing ground safety and reducing the $4 billon cost of ground damage is another area. ACI contributed to building the IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO) which has become the global standard. Seattle Tacoma and Amsterdam Schiphol now mandate ISAGO as a requirement for all ground operators at their airports. I urge others to do the same. If we are serious about safety—and we are—there is no reason not to,” said Tyler. There are 128 ISAGO registrations covering 83 ground service providers at 104 airports, with 25 airports having indicated their support of ISAGO.
Tyler also called for cooperation between IATA and ACI in promoting the IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM). IGOM will be launched in 2012 to globally harmonize ground operations and will become a tool to address deficiencies in safety and efficiency, particularly in rapidly developing markets.
Security: IATA is promoting a dialogue among industry and government stakeholders on a Checkpoint of the Future (CoF) that takes a risk-based approach with the aim of allowing passengers to move through security without stopping, unpacking or removing outerwear. “Airport security is effective but it needs a major re-think to meet growing passenger numbers and calls for less intrusive processes. Convenient and effective security will make air travel a more compelling product. And the less time travelers spend queuing, the more time they will have for airport shopping, eating and entertainment,” said Tyler. Tyler also noted the cooperation with ACI on Secure Freight, which will secure the supply chain based on global standards and best practices.
Improving the Customer Experience: “Airlines and airports worked together to improve efficiency and passenger convenience through IATA’s Simplifying the Business program, starting with e-ticketing, common use self-service (CUSS) kiosks and bar coded boarding passes. These are three enablers that give us an enormous opportunity to innovate the passenger experience even further through Fast Travel,” said Tyler. Fast Travel is a suite of self-service options to add further efficiency to the travel experience from check-in to baggage retrieval that has been implemented in airline-airport partnerships including SAS and Copenhagen Airport, the first to implement all five Fast Travel projects.
Tyler urged airlines and airports to work more closely on baggage delivery accuracy to support airlines as they unbundle their product, including baggage charges. IATA’s Baggage Improvement Program helped Air New Zealand and Auckland International Airport reduce baggage mishandling by 75%.
Tyler also called for more airport partnerships to promote e-freight. Implementing e-freight will lower costs across the supply chain, improve efficiency, reliability, accuracy and security, and has the potential to contribute to shortening process cycles by up to 24 hours.
Environment: Airports and airlines are united with air navigation service providers and manufacturers to tackle aviation’s carbon emissions. To achieve the industry’s commitments to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5% annually to 2020, cap net emissions from 2020 and cut net emissions in half by 2050 (compared to 2005), Tyler called for innovative cooperative approaches. “I encourage airports around the world to team-up with airlines. Some airports—Madrid-Barajas, Detroit and Stockholm-Arlanda have allocated land to grow source crops for sustainable biofuels. Zurich Airport has mandated the used of fixed ground power. These are all important moves to improve our environmental performance,” said Tyler.
Infrastructure Investments: “Building infrastructure to handle growth is a challenge best handled in close cooperation between airports and airlines. This includes working together in the airport master planning to ensure that investments are being made that match the needs of airlines,” said Tyler. He pointed to London’s Heathrow Airport where an ongoing dialogue between the airport operator and the airlines is helping, among other things, to promote capacity expansion, optimize existing capacity, take advantage of developing technology, mitigate noise and emissions, enhance surface access and improve operational resilience. “There are robust discussions on price, affordability and service standards, but what is important is to have an open and honest dialogue on our common future and a rolling capital expenditures (CAPEX) plan to accommodate aviation’s dynamic nature,” said Tyler.
Cost-Efficiency: Tyler also reiterated the importance of cost efficient, affordable airports with charges in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) principles. “Airlines and airports are in a business relationship. And it is a tough business. Airlines are expected to make a margin of 1.2% this year and 0.8% in 2012. Airports will be under similar pressure. In fact, regardless of the economic situation, there is a natural tension in the supplier-customer relationship between airports and airlines. But let’s keep focused on the fact that airlines and airports both need to be financially sound financial partners that are able to plan and grow our businesses together,” said Tyler. Tyler proposed innovation in four aspects of the ongoing discussion on airport charges:
Airline engagement in major capital expenditure development
More transparent and meaningful consultation processes
Longer-term charges agreements which include service level agreements
Development of innovative concepts for risk sharing
ACI
IATA congratulated ACI on 20 years of industry leadership. “ACI—the collective voice of the world’s airports—has played a critical role in developing global aviation. And I am confident it will continue to do so, I hope in even greater partnership with IATA and the airlines. With openness to innovation and a common understanding of the issues and the potential, I am convinced that together we can direct the future of a sustainable aviation industry that is an even more successful driver of national and global economies,” said Tyler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
