Blogactiv energy w/out EBS

MEPs OK law on cutting sulphur content in shipping fuels

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:37:47 +0000

The European Parliament has approved legislation to slash sulphur levels in shipping fuels, a move environmentalists say will help prevent thousands of deaths linked to maritime pollution.

The new law puts the European Union in line with the upper limit of 0.5% sulphur content in fuels set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and will apply in principle to all EU seas by 2020. The previous limit was 3.5%.

Parliament approved the measure by an overwhelming vote yesterday (11 September).

As part of the new law, an even sterner limit of 0.1% sulphur content will be imposed by 2015 for ships within so-called sulphur emissions control areas (SECAs) in the Baltic and North seas, and the English Channel.

Finnish MEP Satu Hassi (Greens), who wrote the environment committee’s report on the issue, told EurActiv the “uncertainties are now gone” for what the EU is doing to reduce pollution from shipping.

“Tightened rules will have a big improvement in protecting health,” she said.

Sulphur dioxide (SO2), emitted when sulphur-containing fuels are burned, is a principle cause of acid rain, which damages plants and corrodes roofs, cars and historical landmarks.

Hassi said so-called “secondary small particles” from sulphur emissions have been linked to lung and cardiovascular problems. She said anyone suffering from these conditions “should be very happy” with the new law.

Hassi said the next step will be for the upper limit of 0.1%, currently only applicable to the SECA regions, to be implemented across the EU.

Industry wary of fuels sea-change

Patrick Verhoeven, secretary-general of the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), a shipping industrial group, told EurActiv the new legislation was “probably the best political compromise”, but that he would be looking into how shipping companies cope with the change.

Verhoeven expressed his satisfaction with the compromise, compared to an original Parliament proposal, which he said was “more radical.”

“The process [for SECA regions] was triggered by a Baltic commission. It is a bit premature to have 0.1% for all of the EU”, he said.

Verhoeven also expressed concerns over the availability of low sulphur fuels and that the legislation could encourage a modal shift back to road transport if shipping fuel prices rise too high.

He said, however, that rising prices could be mitigated by the growing market for low sulphur fuels, but he doubted the efficacy of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a ready-made replacement.

“The problem is the perception of LNG as an alternative source, in terms of safety. Safety precautions taken for that are huge.”

Safeguards to keep shipping afloat

Under the legislation, shipping companies that use exhaust-gas cleaning systems, or “scrubbers”, will be able to use fuels with higher sulphur content as long as SO2 emissions stay under the agreed limit.

Verhoeven said some ESPO ports had already installed such scrubber equipment and LNG bunkering stations.

EU member states will be able to offer shipping companies state aid for such equipment, a change the European Commission views as an “investment cost.” However, governments will not be allowed to issue state aid for higher quality fuel with a lower sulphur content.

Hassi dismissed what she termed the “very loud public discussions” in Finland, Sweden and Estonia over the potential costs to the shipping industry, saying the “economic benefits from improved health will be far bigger than costs from emissions reductions.”

She said cost benefit analyses suggest the net economic value will be “at least double”, if SO2 emissions are curbed, adding: “More reasonable cost analyses estimate a benefit of ten times”.

China keen to avoid EU's CO2 market problems

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:45:06 +0000

China is considering price control mechanisms and tightly regulated markets for its emissions trading schemes (ETS) in a bid to avoid the price volatility and scandals that have hit Europe's ETS, as surveys show the country has reached European per-capita emission levels.

The schemes will aim to halt the nation's spiralling greenhouse gas emissions, while the international carbon market is reeling from huge over-supply and record low prices.

European permits have lost 80% of their value since mid-2008 and 50% in the last 12 months, spurring claims that the carbon market is becoming irrelevant in the EU's efforts to cut emissions.

The Beijing municipal government, which will host one of China's seven pilot schemes from 2013 or 2014, plans to implement minimum and maximum prices in the capital's CO2 market, a move it hopes will prevent the same market volatility as the EU ETS.

"China will consider introducing both a price ceiling and a price floor to prevent the dramatic price fluctuation seen in the EU ETS," said Chen Jianpeng of the State Council's Development Research Centre, which is involved in studying the impact of a future Chinese ETS.

China, which accounts for almost one-third of global CO2 emissions, plans to use the experiences from its pilot schemes to set up a national CO2 market later this decade.

Restrictions

Volatility is just one of many challenges the EU market has faced since its launch in 2005.

Tax evasion, theft of permits and re-usage of credits have also damaged the reputation of the world's biggest carbon market.

China, which is generally sceptical about financial markets, is planning to keep its CO2 scheme under tight control.

Emissions trading will take place on government-approved exchanges, and recently announced regulations by the State Council means only spot trading with a five-day delay on delivery will be allowed.

Some observers said it would be beneficial to keep the market simple, at least initially, as Chinese compliance traders lack experience in emissions markets.

"The market is not ready to have carbon derivatives, green bonds and green funds in the pilot phase," said Shi Minjun, deputy director at the China Academy of Science's Research Centre on Fictitious Economy and Data Science.

'European' carbon levels

The news of a Chinese carbon trading scheme follows an 18 July statement by the European Commission's joint research centre that average CO2 emissions in China increased by 9% to 7.2 tonnes per capita last year.

The country is now within the range of six to 19 tonnes per capita emissions of the "major industrialised countries", the statement read.

By contrast, European Union CO2 levels dropped by 3% to 7.5 tonnes per capita.

In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations, China argues that it should judged as a developing country - and have less stringent emissions reductions target as part of the 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities' principle enshrined in the original Kyoto agreement.

China has also used that principle as justification for its airlines' non-compliance with the EU ETS.

The EU must come together on the green climate fund

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:19:25 +0000

Lives and livelihoods in vulnerable countries hang in the balance while rich countries bicker over who will disburse climate cash, argues Wendel Trio of Climate Action Network Europe.

Wendel Trio is the director of Climate Action Network Europe, a Brussels-based NGO network working on climate and energy issues.

"Recent media reports on the EU’s inability to find candidates for the Green Climate Fund points to a bigger problem with the politics of climate finance that is, sadly, not unique to the European Union.

On 10 April, the UN announced that the first meeting of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) would not take place later this month, as scheduled, because countries couldn’t agree who would sit on the board. As of the 31 March deadline, out of a total of 48 spots (including alternates), only four nominations for the board had been submitted.

The GCF, which is intended to provide cash to help developing countries adapt to climate change and cut emissions, was launched at December’s UN climate conference in Durban. Now, because of the hullaballoo over board membership, the inaugural meeting has been rescheduled for 31 May.

It’s clear that a place on the GCF board is seen as a coveted position. It is sadly ironic that countries are jockeying so madly to secure a spot on the board of a fund that is thus far sitting virtually empty.

Instead of bickering over the composition of the board, developed countries should be putting their efforts and energy into finding the $100 billion annually that has been promised for desperately needed climate funding in developing countries.

In particular, the EU should be tuning in to the needs of the countries with which it formed a newfound and successful coalition in Durban: the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). These groups represent the countries that are now suffering from the effects of climate change and stand to gain the most vitally needed help from the GCF.

A few EU member states, including Germany and Denmark, have already contributed cash to help the GCF get started. We now need to see all member states making contributions, not just to get the fund started but also to fill it.

April represents a critical time for the EU’s work on the GCF, as informal meetings of finance ministers and experts were set for 18 April and the next UN climate negotiating session begins in Bonn in mid-May. This is not the time for infighting and individualism over climate change in the EU.

Right now we need the kind of united EU that we saw – and applauded - in Durban. The EU should honour its newly cemented Durban alliance by helping secure money for the fund, rather than contributing to the fracas over who should sit on the board.

The continued delays in getting the GCF up and running do not speak to the urgency of action required in developing countries to address the very real impacts of climate change.

We need to see progress on this issue in Bonn and a complete fund before the next Conference of Parties in Qatar in December. Let’s hope the EU will soon once again become a unified voice on this issue so we can get down to the real work of helping vulnerable countries cope with a changing climate."

Rising Asia and old Europe need to work together

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:45:25 +0000

Europe should engage more firmly with Asia not only in trade but also in foreign policy, climate issues and resource efficiency if it is to regain its powerful role in the international arena, argue Giles Merritt and Shada Islam from Friends of Europe.

Giles Merritt is secretary-general of Friends of Europe, a Brussels based think tank, and editor-in-chief of Europe’s World. Shada Islam is head of policy at Friends of Europe.

"Tempting as it may be, it would be wrong to write off Europe as yesterday’s power. Europe still matters even though this is not the message some EU policymakers have been sending out to a watching world.

The impression that Europe is too busy dealing with internal challenges to play a strong global role is especially strong in Asia. True, China gets a great deal of EU attention. And the EU’s outreach on trade remains strong. But there is more to Asia than China - and trade and investment agreements must not be made a substitute for a more pro-active EU foreign policy.

The EU must engage more strongly with South Asian and Southeast Asian countries on foreign policy and security questions, not just trade. This means top-level EU participation in Asian security meetings such as the ASEAN Regional Forum. It means showing up and seriously participating in ministerial meetings with Asian countries such as the EU-ASEAN gathering of foreign ministers in Brunei in April. It also requires regular and consistent high-level conversations on global and regional challenges with India and other South Asian nations.

Apart from trips to China, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has been a rare visitor to the rest of Asia. Her decision to stay away from the ASEAN Regional Forum last year, for a second year running, was a serious faux pas. Not surprisingly, Asians have put Europe’s request to join the East Asia Summit – the region’s prime security club – on hold and insist that Europeans must first prove they are ready for a serious conversation with Asia on security.

European policymakers are selling Europe short. Asia cannot take Europe seriously unless it does a better job of communicating with the region – and gains better understanding of what makes increasingly self-confident Asians tick.

Dealing with a changing and rising Asia will require that the EU engages in new courtships and new alliances with governments, businesses and civil society leaders in the region.

The name of the game has to be partnership between Rising Asia and Old Europe. But by failing to engage seriously and consistently with Asia, Europeans are propagating a myth of European weakness and irrelevance.

The reality of Europe – the eurozone crisis notwithstanding – is different. Given its experience in turning enemies into friends, voluntarily pooling sovereignty and achieving economic and political integration, the EU has a wealth of experience to share with Asia on future frameworks for global governance. More so, it scarcely needs saying, than the United States.

Asians pressing ahead with their own efforts at regional integration and cross-border cooperation still look at the EU for inspiration. Interestingly, this is still the case although Europe’s practice of lecturing ASEAN on the subject has irked many Asians.

The EU’s predominance in world trade is undiminished. EU-Asia trade is booming and is crucial both for Europe’s economic recovery and ensuring that Asian growth remains on track. The EU-Korea free trade agreement is the first in a series of trade-expanding deals that Europe is negotiating with Asian partners, including India, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

Europe is the biggest source of foreign investments in Asia. Today, the eurozone crisis has made Europe’s frontier-free single market even more of a magnet for Asian investors. A recent survey underlined that 45% of businesses in Asia are either currently doing or looking to make strategic acquisitions in Europe in the next 12 months, compared with just 14% in the Middle East and 7% in North America.

Although Asian exporters and businesses may complain about Brussels’ heavy-handed ways, the EU has fostered the development of high-quality rules and standards which help shape global norms in areas such as food and consumer products, cars, chemicals and aircraft emissions. European companies are leading innovators in clean and green technologies that Asia needs to meet the challenge of low-carbon growth and urbanisation and realise their plans for increased connectivity among nations.

It is the coming overhaul of the many aspects of the EU rulebook – from financial services to climate issues – that will maintain the EU’s clout and influence.

Neither Europe nor Asia can work alone to tackle threats to global stability that range from resource competition, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation to climate change.

Europe isn’t indifferent and certainly not irrelevant to Asia’s rise. As the US speaks of the Asia-Pacific Century and seems to reinforce its presence in Asia, Europe must develop its own blueprint for improved engagement with the region."

MEPs agree on carbon price intervention

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:18:38 +0000

Members of the environment committee in the European Parliament have approved an amendment to the proposed Energy Efficiency Directive that is to see carbon prices go up.

In a bid to create incentives for investment in low-carbon technologies and tackle oversupply, MEPs voted to set aside some €1.4 billion worth of allowances from the EU’s emissions trading system, or ETS, during its third phase of implementation.

The vote took place just as European carbon prices slumped to a historic low of €6.51, a price regarded as too low to encourage investment in low-carbon technology development. The EU’s flagship tool for cutting down on carbon emissions has been eroded because of the financial market shock caused by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and research groups estimated that there will be surplus of allowances to 2020 ranging from 500 million to 1.4 billion.

“This undermines the effectiveness of the EU ETS and could wipe out billions of urgently needed for low-carbon finance. Withholding allowances from the scheme is therefore essential to restoring confidence in the EU ETS and low-carbon growth up to 2020,” a group of 15 companies and lobby groups said in a joint statement issued last Friday (16 December) asking the European Parliament to back measures to support the ETS. The signatories, which include Dong Energy, Alstom, Shell, Bellona and E3G were pleased with the outcome of the committee’s opinion vote.

“The vote is significant, it is the first step in realising EU’s climate ambitions and I expect more and more people in the EP and member states supporting this, because there is so much money at stake”, Sanjeev Kumar of environmental group E3G told EurActiv.

Although this sends out a “strong positive message”, it serves just to prepare the ground for the “very tough negotiations” to come. “The vote puts the issue on the agenda of the upcoming [industry] committee, which cannot ignore it,” Kumar said.

Christian-Democrat MEP Peter Liese, rapporteur for the committee, called this a “cautious proposal”. “We approved a careful intervention in the ETS.

The Commission should set a significant number of allowances aside to stabilise the carbon price, but we want the Commission to monitor the development and guarantee that the carbon price will not go up to more than the €30 we expected in 2008,” Liese said, adding that the strategies of many member states which were based on the revenues from ETS could not work anymore.

A roadmap to a global legal regime for climate action

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:23:27 +0000

The Durban summit marked a breakthrough in introducing a new phase of international climate policy and it was the EU that paved the way for the others to follow its ambitious climate strategy, writes Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action.

Connie Hedegaard, is the European Commissioner for Climate Action

"At the Durban climate conference that ended on Sunday, the European Union’s strategy worked. The first commitment period under the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. The EU had made clear we would engage in a second Kyoto period only if Durban agreed on a clear roadmap to a deal which for the first time will bind all nations legally.

And Durban delivered this roadmap. It agreed that this new legal framework must be concluded by 2015 and come into force from 2020. And it stated that the new climate regime must be more ambitious than the one we have now.

By standing united and firm in Durban, the EU achieved what few had thought possible. We put pressure on the big emitters. We proved wrong those who thought the EU would cave in to China and India. We had to fight until the very last minute but we succeeded in bringing for the first time all countries into a common and truly global legal regime to curb emissions.

The truth is that the EU was the leader in Durban and we will continue to be proud leaders in the future. When the EU moves, others follow, sometimes under pressure, but they do move. The EU's roadmap was at the core of the negotiations from the outset. It was our main goal and our key condition for taking a second Kyoto period. Linking the two paid off.

But how does a roadmap help combat climate change? Well, it's obvious that this doesn't change much today nor in the near future. However, it is really good news that by 2020 all countries will be legally bound under a common regime to reduce emissions.

In the meantime, more ambitious near-term action is essential. All the scientific evidence indicates that global emissions need to peak before 2020 – before the future legal regime kicks in.

In the EU will not be sitting back and waiting for the new big deal. We will be trying to do more here: more renewables and energy efficiency, smarter ways of taxing and more emissions cuts. And this will boost growth and jobs here in Europe. Until we get the big deal in force by 2020, the rest of the world must join us in considering how they will increase their ambition.

At present only some developed countries have the legal obligation to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. With the new legal framework Durban has agreed to build, all countries, developed and developing, will for the first time be equally bound.

In breaking with the past, this new system reflects the reality of today’s mutually interdependent world. All countries need to take on commitments that have equal legal weight. Developing countries, led by China, already emit more greenhouse gas than the developed world and by 2020 it is estimated they will be responsible for around two-thirds of global emissions.

The EU would have liked to see the new system in place very much earlier. But many of the big emitters were not ready for that yet. In accepting the Durban outcome they have agreed to be ready by 2020 at the latest.

In the meantime Kyoto will act as a bridge to the new global regime. The EU has always supported Kyoto and want to preserve its essential elements for the future. We have based our own legislation on Kyoto principles; we are the region with the most ambitious target under Kyoto – and we are meeting it. Actually, we are on course to over-achieve our target.

If there is one thing we have learned in Europe, it is this: binding targets work. They help governments remain focused even when other political priorities come up.

Important though they are, international agreements are not the only answer to climate change. What defines whether we have strong and effective or weak and inadequate climate policies is what nations, regions, municipalities, companies and each individual citizen do. Combating climate change concerns us all.

However, it is no exaggeration to say that Durban marked a breakthrough. It is not the end of the road but rather the beginning of a new phase in international climate policy. A new phase with a clear mandate to raise the level of ambition, both now and in the future legal regime.

As we did in Durban, the EU will continue to set the pace and fight for more ambition here and abroad. We will continue working to get all our partners on board for the ambitious action our planet demands."

Commission expected to boost LIFE funding

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:52:53 +0000

The European Commission is expected to provide significantly more money for regional environmental and climate projects under proposals scheduled to be unveiled on Monday (12 December).

The successor to the current Financial Instrument for the Environment, known as the LIFE programme, is likely to include €3.2 billion in funding for the 2014-2020 budget, 52% more than the €2.1 billion package approved five years ago.

One-quarter of the budget is expected to be dedicated to climate change adaptation.

LIFE has been in operation since 1992 and helps finance environmental initiatives in the EU as well as in some candidate and accession countries.

Push for efficiency

The next-generation LIFE is likely to reflect Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik’s push for greater resource efficiency and a more integrated approach to climate and ecology projects funded by the EU.

He has pushed, for instance, for better coordination between agriculture and environmental policies in areas such as water and soil contamination and is expected to seek a consolidation of pollution laws and regulations under umbrella legislation akin to America’s Clean Air Act.

“Resource efficiency is unavoidable,” Potočnik told the British Chamber of Commerce Tuesday night (6 December). “There will be green growth or no growth.”

The LIFE proposals must still be formally adopted by the Commission, expected Monday, and then sent for legislative review.

The Commission is likely to propose making co-financing more flexible and to accelerate financial approval for local and regional projects.

It is also expected to provide more clarity in how funding is spent on projects that could directly benefit private companies.

A better LIFE?

The current programme, known as LIFE+, also was intended to streamline funding. During debate over the programme five years ago, some proposals were criticised in the European Parliament for creating too much paperwork and Commission oversight of project proposals.

Since then and the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament has gained significantly more power over Commission proposals and spending.

Also in 2007, the Greens/European Free Alliance in Parliament sought a significant boost in the LIFE budget, eventually winning a marginal increase of €40 million.

In recent years, the LIFE programme has funded woodland restoration in Ireland, technology for treating industrial wastewater in Italy, a Dutch project to reduce noise pollution in coastal ports, and phosphate decontamination of several Polish lakes.

MEPs push for strong EU role in climate talks

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:29:04 +0000

The European Parliament called yesterday (16 November) for the EU to have a leading role in the forthcoming UN climate change conference in Durban and to push for the extension of the Kyoto protocol unless a new legally binding deal is agreed.

With the international negotiations on climate change balancing on a thin rope, the MEPs sent a clear message to the EU's summit negotiators and reiterated the EU pledge to cut emissions 20% by 2020.

"We must address loopholes and redefine commitments made in Copenhagen and Cancun," said Jo Leinen, chairman of the parliamentary committee on environment. "Existing official pledges amount to only half of what is needed to limit the temperature increase to 2°C. And this temperature is the red line to keep climate change under control."

The resolution made special mention of the need to further reduce carbon emissions beyond 20%, saying it would create economic benefit through 'green jobs' and 'green growth'.

The resolution was supported by the five main political groups in Parliament and was approved on a vote of 532 to 76, with 43 abstentions.

The MEPs want the EU to speak with one voice at the South African summit and to have clear proposals for future measures that other countries will follow as well.

At the same time they invited EU to clarify its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and confirm its capability to pass on the second phase of the implementation measures.

Special mention was made to the so-called 'gigatonne gap', or the difference between the current international commitments and the target of average global warming reduction to 2°C set by the UN.

Doubts cast on biofuels' air quality claims

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:45:24 +0000

When the European Commission began pressing for a dramatic expansion in the use of biofuels in transport and energy several years ago, it was seen as a win-win situation: a way to help farmers, create energy security, cut greenhouse emissions and improve air quality. But even that last claim is no longer taken for granted.

The 2003 biofuels directive and the 2009 renewable energy legislation called for a steady shift to plant-based fuels, advancing Europe’s leading role in cutting fossil fuel consumption and combating climate change.

Yet the policies have faced mounting criticism amid evidence that biofuels are not as effective at reducing greenhouse gases as long claimed, and concern that cultivation harms the ecology of developing countries that are leading exporters of plant fuels.

Fresh criticism of transport fuels

Britain’s Local Government Association, for example, has questioned national biodiesel targets in transport on the grounds that emissions of fine particulates were higher than in traditional diesel.

A report prepared earlier this year for Britain’s Environment Department showed mixed benefits on air quality of biodiesel and bioethanol.

Separate research shows that biofuel production – such as land clearing, cultivation, fertiliser use and shipping – may negate any advantages that biofuels for transport use have in cutting smog and greenhouse gases.

In a new study, researchers at the University of Leicester who examined palm oil plantations in Southeast Asia contend that the end product may even be worse for the planet than traditional transport fuels.

Their findings show that palm oil – a leading source for biodiesel – is as carbon intensive as petrol, with a 60% increase in land use emissions resulting from cultivation of tropical forest.

The research should raise alerts for European policy-makers, said Susan Page, head of the Physical Geography Department at Leicester and a lead author of the study.

“What I’m saying is we have to consider the whole picture,” Page said.

“In this case, probably we’ve made some wrong decisions in Europe over the last few years where we’ve taken a more general view about biofuels and not considered individual cases, which in the case of oil palm, is leading to a situation where we might as well just burn petrol or diesel rather than biofuels because the net greenhouse gas emissions are not going to be any different.”

The British researchers acknowledge that their study was relatively limited in scope and concentrates mainly on palm oil grown on lush tropical peatlands in Indonesia and Malaysia.

The soggy peat in these environments act like sponges that suck up carbon dioxide and other gases, creating a natural buffer against global warming. When these soggy peatlands are cleared, drained and cultivated for palm oil, the trapped carbon dioxide is released, along with gases like ozone-depleting nitrous oxide.

Bad air days

Palm oil cultivation also has other consequences in countries like Indonesia, which ranks 20th in forest loss and 21st in urban pollution levels in the UN’s 2011 Human Development Index of 187 nations.

What happens in Indonesia and other leading tropical producers of plant oils has global consequences, scientists told EurActiv, noting:

Clearing and draining peatlands releases grit and toxins into the atmosphere, creating dust plumes that affect local and global air quality.
Seasonal fires and the intentional burning of forests and undergrowth to clear land is a perennial problem in Indonesia, with pernicious effects on ambient air quality. In one of the most serious incidents, in 1997, the United Nations said more than 40,000 people were sickened in southeast Asia from haze that originated in Indonesia.
Much of the plant oil, and growing amounts of wood chips and other biomass, is sent to European markets from southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa, and the transportation adds to the ecological footprint.

These consequences may not directly affect the air European breathe, but they do add to the ecological footprint of fuels consumed in the European market, prompting environmental groups to pressure the European Commission to weigh such impacts its policies have on developing countries.

Oxfam, in a 22 September report on biofuels, urged the EU to scrap its biofuel targets and to set sustainability standards to ensure that production has “no adverse impact” on global air quality, water, land and food supplies.

Leicester University’s Page says European policy-makers should consider the broader impacts of their energy and pollution policies.

“I’m not saying it’s a mistake to consider transferring from fossil fuels to biofuels per se,” Page said. “That would be a very naïve statement. What I’m saying is that if you are going to do that, one must take into account the full greenhouse gas implications and emissions implications.”

Fireplaces are bad for you

Meanwhile, air quality worries have extended beyond biofuels to cover wood used for household heating.

Health experts are raising alarms about the impact that bio-energy has on air quality, particularly in Northern and Central Europe where the popularity of wood and timber products for home heating is soaring.

European Environment Agency officials warned on 9 November that rising levels of biomass in home heating poses a threat to air quality. Wood smoke contains fine particulates and toxins such as nitrogen and sulphur oxides, carbon monoxide and dioxins with implications for both indoor and outdoor air.

Though well meaning, biofuel consumer trends and policies overlook human health consequences, says one Finnish health expert.

Juha Pekkanen, a physician and research professor at the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Finland, says the popularity of wood stoves in his country and others in Europe poses a public health threat.

“We’re going back to the old days when everyone was warming up their house with their own furnace and we’re going to go back to the really bad pollution days we had then,” Pekkanen said by telephone.

Garlic-fed cows combat global warming

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:41:05 +0000

Reducing farm animals’ wind by adding garlic to feed could substantially reduce greenhouse emissions, according to research by West Wales’ scientists featured by Euronews.

An organosulphur compound obtained from garlic kills off methane-producing bacterium in the digestive system of cows, according to Professor Jamie Newbold, who heads up a €5 million-research programme at Aberystwyth University.

Cows eating feed enriched with the garlic compound — called Allicin – release 40% less gas without interference to their normal digestive fermentation, according to the research.

Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and agricultural emissions constitute approximately 18% of global greenhouse gas production, Kenton Hart of Aberystwyth University told Euronews.

The scientists said cutting methane emissions by cows by 40% would substantially curtail global warming.

David Williams from Neem Biotech – which manufactures Allicin – said that supplying a quarter of the UK’s cattle herd would require five-and-a-half thousand tons of garlic a year, which he told the channel could be “very, very big business”.

The only negative is that Allicin appears to taint the taste of milk and other dairy products. So the researchers – who are also experimenting with sheep and other livestock – are looking at other kinds of garlic metabolites which would achieve the same effect, without the downside.

A single binding international climate agreement will remain a chimera

Mon, 23 May 2011 14:07:59 +0000

Eberhard Rhein argues that Copenhagen and Cancún-style UN climate conferences should be discontinued in favour of more regular meetings of the most polluting countries.

Eberhard Rhein is a former official in the European Commission's external relations department, responsible for the Mediterranean and Arab world.

He gives a course on economic policy at the Mediterranean Academy for Diplomatic Studies in Malta.

This commentary was first posted on blogactiv.eu.

"The international community is once again preparing for an international climate conference, the 17th meeting of the contracting parties of the UNFCCC to take place in Durban (South Africa) in December. Like the two preceding ones in Cancún (2010) and Copenhagen (2009), it will hardly produce more than declarations.

The preparatory meetings held so far in Bangkok and Brussels do not augur well. And we should not expect much more from the next meeting in Bonn in early June. More than ever the positions of the parties remain widely divergent as to the format, objectives and substance of a climate agreement.

The USA, China, India, Brazil, Russia and South Africa are vigorously opposed to any type of legally binding commitments. They refuse to have their hands tied by international rules.

The EU is the only group that continues to favour a legal binding text. There is therefore very little chance of reaching a consensus on this point. Considering the impossibility of enforcing national commitments concerning climate and energy policies, it really does not matter to have a legal binding text.

The USA and the EU insist on major emerging countries also taking commitments for limiting and progressively reducing their C02 emissions. This position is based on considerations of effectiveness: China has overtaken the USA as the biggest emitter country; and jointly the emerging countries will soon emit more C02 than all OECD countries.

Effective action against climate change therefore requires all major emitters to participate in the effort. Having been responsible for the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere throughout the 20th Century, the OECD countries must, of course, go faster and deeper in cutting their emissions, by 80% until the middle of the century.

By signing the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 the developed countries have, in principle, accepted their historical responsibility. But it has never been a meaningful instrument: it commits only 37 countries, above all the EU and Japan, [with] Australia, Canada and [the] USA having refused to put it into force.

It does therefore not make much sense to extend the Kyoto Protocol for another commitment period beyond 2012. The EU and Japan should rather apply its provisions autonomously.

Wide divergences exist as to the depth of commitments. Only the EU insists on reducing emissions below 1990, the reference chosen as the date at which the international community first started to address the issue of climate change.

All developing countries remain strongly attached to an international climate agreement under UN aegis and supervised by UN agencies. They consider themselves severely threatened by droughts, floods and rising sea levels caused by climate change and entitled to financial compensation from developed countries.

At Durban, their main interest is a commitment to have the 'Green Climate Fund' fully operative after 2020 with a volume of $100 billion. Whatever the slim chances of a meaningful climate agreement in the foreseeable future, political realities push the world community to pursue what appears as a fight against windmills.

Since the Rio de Janeiro Conference on Sustainable Development in 1992, the fear of climate change has helped create an international climate bureaucracy that keeps the ball rolling from one conference to another, elaborating papers, draft resolutions and publishing documents.

No country, [and] certainly not the EU, [which] has done more to promote an effective climate policy than any other country, will want to attract the opprobrium of quitting mostly useless and costly rounds of negotiations.

They all find advantages in being present, if only to defend their posture or economic interests. And they are right: the protection of the global climate can only be achieved by all countries working side by side, in a momentous effort of sharing responsibility.

The issue is therefore not about the need [for] a global effort but about its nature and the most effective methods to curb climate change. Can this be done by a single international agreement that imposes binding commitments [on] all countries for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer can only be negative. Doubts about the feasibility of a single international climate agreement have been mounting in the last [few] years. So have the doubts about the nature of the commitments to be taken by the contracting parties. Climate change is the consequence of many economic and cultural factors, from demographic growth to power generation, transport of goods and people, etc.

In view of successfully fighting climate change it is necessary to influence these factors through incentives and penalties, abolishing subsidies [for] fossil energies, subsidising investments in energy efficiency, renewable energies or alternative technologies, imposing energy efficiency standards, etc.

With appropriate incentives private investments in 'green technologies' will come forth, both in developed and emerging countries. Recent developments in the USA and many European and Asian countries are ample proof of this.

It is therefore imperative to turn the international negotiations away from non-operational targets for the reduction of C02 emissions or containing the rise of global temperatures within two [degrees] centigrade.

To make them operational the main energy-consuming countries should take the lead, and:

Adopt appropriate measures for reducing the use of fossil energies through incentives for energy efficiency, renewable energies and technologies facilitating the use of renewable energies (storage, CCS, intelligent grids, etc.).
Submit their policies to regular in-depth peer reviews.
Share the results of their work with all interested countries.

The 'Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate' (Brazil, China, EU, India, Japan, USA) should become the core body for the future international cooperation on energy and climate. Its members account for three quarters of global energy consumption and C02 emissions, and possess the necessary skills and capacities for an ambitious energy agenda.

Their first priority should be to establish an atmosphere of mutual confidence and cooperation. To that end, they should regularly compare notes of their respective policies (peer review). That process has started, with the EU and USA laying open their strategies, including the difficulties they encounter in obtaining domestic acceptance.

Once a minimum of confidence established they should try to agree on simple targets like the phasing out of subsidies on fossil energies and imposing a minimum share, say 20%, of renewable energy in power generation by 2020/25.

I draw these conclusions for future energy and climate policy:

Focus on energy policies that have a positive impact on climate change.
Discontinue annual climate 'messes' like Cancún or Copenhagen for reasons of ineffectiveness. These should take place only every three years for taking stock of global energy and climate developments and giving political guidance, especially on fighting emissions from deforestation, air and maritime traffic as well as adaptation to climate change.
Substitute them [with] more frequent meetings of the main fossil energy-consuming/producing countries for intensive exchanges of views on the most effective policy tools and national energy policies.
Cooperation among the 'Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate' will not be able to reverse the rapid acceleration of climate change. But it can set a positive example of climate-effective policies to be followed by other countries.
Organise regular meetings between forest and donor countries for a review of the most effective preservation measures.
Push the international Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to enhance fuel efficiency and introduce bio-fuels in view of stopping the unsustainable rise of C02 emissions from air traffic.

An international political framework can only serve as a catalyst and accelerator for national policies, but not substitute failing political will of national governments. Governments will only act if their interests are at stake.

They will do so even autonomously if political leadership realise the long-term risks and opportunities. Such assessments have led China and USA to encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency. The EU is continues to be the foremost example of a go-it-alone strategy. The EU should therefore reflect on how to make international energy and climate policy more effective and take appropriate initiatives.

In the final analysis, societies seem incapable of acting against risks that lie far away in the future. Humanity will need a series of devastating climate catastrophes to wake up to the looming dangers. But then it might well be too late: Climate change will have become an unstoppable self-perpetuating process."

5% of world's gas wasted in flaring

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 06:46:03 +0000

General Electric, ranked by Forbes as the second largest company in the world after JPMorgan Chase, has released a study warning that 5% of the world's natural gas production is wasted by burning or 'flaring' unused gas.

According to the study, the amount of gas wasted is equivalent to 30% of consumption in the European Union and 23% in the United States.

Gas flaring emits 400 million metric tons of CO2 annually — the same amount as 77 million cars — without producing useful heat or electricity. Worldwide, billions of cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas are wasted annually, typically as a by-product of oil extraction.

The study finds that the technologies required for a solution exist today. Depending on region, these may include power generation, gas re-injection (for enhanced oil recovery, gathering and processing), pipeline development and distributed energy solutions. Nearly $20 billion in wasted natural gas could be used to generate reliable, affordable electricity and yield billions of dollars per year in increased global economic output.

"Power generation, gas re-injection and distributed energy solutions are available today and can eliminate the wasteful practice of burning unused gas. This fuel can be used to generate affordable electricity for the world's homes and factories," said Michael Farina, programme manager at GE Energy and author of the white paper.

"With greater global attention and concerted effort — including partnerships, sound policy and innovative technologies — large-scale gas flaring could be largely eliminated in as little as five years. It's a win-win outcome," Farina added.

The report provides a region-by-region analysis of gas-flaring trends, including Russia, the world's largest source of flare gas emissions, where as much as 50 billion cubic metres of the natural gas produced is wasted annually. If half of this flare gas (25 bcm per year) were captured and sold at prevailing domestic prices in Russia, the economic opportunity may exceed $2 billion US dollars (65 billion rubles), it estimates.

18 months ago, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin singled out the flaring of extracted gas alongside oil as one of the most glaring examples of ineffective use of energy resources in the country.

Russia is the largest gas and oil producer in the world and the second-largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia.

Patents and trade policy in the era of climate change

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:45:02 +0000

Calls for patent-free green technologies on the one hand and for trade barriers on the other highlight the deep rift between developing and industrial countries, write Thomas Dapp and Eric Heymann of Deutsche Bank Research.

The following analysis was authored by Thomas Dapp and Eric Heymann of Deutsche Bank Research.

"In the debate about climate protection, there have recently been calls for the abolition of patent protection for climate-friendly technologies to allow faster dissemination of these technologies among the world's poorer countries.

At first glance, one can understand the countries' push for free green tech. Giving away clean technologies for free may actually be seen as repayment of climate debt (i.e. high historical greenhouse gas emissions) which the industrialised countries have been accumulating for decades.

This is precisely the argument used by energy-hungry developing countries and emerging markets, which require modern technology to generate sustainable economic growth. Of course, where a global public good is concerned it is in the interest of all nations if developing nations can reduce their emissions with the help of clean tech and thus help mitigate climate change.

However, in an economic system based on private property, patent protection is seen as an important precondition for innovation and should therefore not be considered for abolition in this field of technology either.

Similarly, demands by a number of industrial countries that climate tariffs or similar barriers to trade should be introduced for countries with less ambitious climate policies must be rejected. Such barriers would probably trigger countermeasures and dampen these countries' climate protection efforts.

The end of patent protection would mean a change of paradigm in our economic order: it is about a thought experiment to imagine what the world would look like without patent protection.

In our current system, the protection of intellectual property is a guarantor of research and development as well as entrepreneurial application of innovations in many areas and provides the necessary (monetary) incentives to invest and take risks.

By protecting a temporary monopoly, slower diffusion of know-how and reduced transfer of technology is tolerated to ensure that more knowledge-intensive technological innovation is induced over the long term. Access to knowledge is temporarily privatised via patenting. Given that product lifecycles are becoming shorter and global competition is increasing, though, the current 20 year protection period is not always used up in any case.

A new patent paradigm

An interesting subsidiary aspect in this context is the question of the motivation that drives innovation in the digital sector and in climate and environmental technologies. In the development of open-source software, for instance, there are individuals who are not centrally organised and have no monetary incentive but all the same are permanently making contributions to improving the software.

However, unlike in the digital world, the implementation of green ideas or the dissemination of technology often fails because of a lack of investment capital.

Ideal patent protection would thus be a trade-off between a strong incentive to innovate and a strong incentive to replicate.

There are possible solutions to both the issue of patent protection and trade policy, which would yield better results than the calls for patent-free green tech and/or climate tariffs. Technology transfer could be financed via climate funds replenished by the industrial countries. To avoid competitive distortions and shifts in production to countries without ambitious climate policies, (temporary) exceptions to climate regulation could be a sensible alternative for certain sectors of the economy."

To read the analysis in full, please click here.

Hedegaard throws weight behind EU carbon tax

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:30:56 +0000

'Don't tax what you earn, tax what you burn'. In an interview with EurActiv, EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard throws her weight behind an EU carbon tax and speaks about Europe's efforts to stay ahead of the game in international climate negotiations.

Drawing on the experience she gained in Denmark, which has long taxed the CO2 content of fuels, Hedegaard argued that a carbon tax should be one of the tools to encourage people to consume less energy.

Hedegaard was speaking ahead of the European Business Summit in Brussels this week, at which she will appear alongside UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer in a session dedicated to climate change.

"If you do it intelligently, you can have a lot of results coming from energy taxation," Hedegaard said following a debate with her fellow commissioners last week on the revision of the Energy Taxation Directive.

The commissioner argued that shifting from taxing labour to taxing energy makes sense to encourage people to stay longer in the job market and find ways to finance Europe's "relatively expensive welfare societies".

"But of course it should not be just for generating money but it should have a purpose that you want people to do things differently," she added.

The agriculture sector, for instance, should fall under the tax as it is currently not included in the EU emissions trading scheme for carbon dioxide. She argued that a tax could be an incentive for farmers to explore possibilities like biogas.

30% or not?

A carbon tax was one of the policy options explored in a paper presented by the European Commission in May, which argued that the EU could afford to raise its emissions reduction target to 30% by 2020, up from the current 20%.

She pointed out that the economic consequences of increasing the EU's target to 30% had not been analysed when the EU pledged to raise its ambitions in case other developed countries make comparable commitments.

"The next step that we need before we can go ahead is to cooperate with the member states to analyse what the consequences of setting the goal would be for them as the potential costs and benefits are not equally spread," the commissioner explained.

She dismissed critics who claim she bowed to pressure by failing to endorse a unilateral move to 30%, arguing that it was never the Commission's intention to change the EU's strategy of making the pledge conditional.

But despite the Commission's efforts to make the assessments in time for the UN climate conference in Cancún at the end of the year, this might not be possible as member states close their administrations for the summer recess, Hedegaard said.

"Timing is very tight but we are trying to do as much as we can before Cancún and then have a very strong dialogue with the member states," she said.

But she warned that Europe should not be "complacent" about its lead on climate protection, arguing that in the past year, major economies like China, Russia, India, Mexico and Brazil have since set targets to green their economies.

"We will be playing a very different game over the next five to ten years from what we used to play before the rest of the world woke up and set domestic targets after Copenhagen," she warned.

Indeed, the EU will not go to Cancún with the same rhetoric as Copenhagen, where European leaders said it was now or never for agreeing a new climate treaty, the climate commissioner stressed.

"If we were to say 'everything that Copenhagen didn't deliver, Cancún must now deliver', then you would run a big risk of not achieving anything," she said. Instead, she believes Cancún should seek agreement on substantial issues like forestry, adaptation and fast-start financing and leave wrangling over the legal format to South Africa in 2011, after developing countries have seen what is in it for them.

"Let's be frank, how many G2 meetings did the US and China have last year to discuss the legal form without agreeing?" Hedegaard said, pointing out that it will take "at least some new signals" from Washington and Beijing to think that fundamental issues can be solved in Cancún.

Talking sectoral approaches with China

Despite giving industrialised countries a hard time around the negotiating table, China is quietly moving towards its targets, Hedegaard said.

The Danish commissioner revealed that the EU was going to start talks with the Chinese on developing industry-wide approaches for cutting emissions in early July.

"I suggested that to China's minister in late April and I thought he would just say 'no', but he said it might be a good idea," the commissioner said, adding that China was currently looking at several sectors such as cement, aluminium and steel.

She added that while China needs to significantly increase energy efficiency in these energy-intensive sectors to fulfil its domestic targets, these are also the sectors in Europe that are most exposed to foreign competition.

"So it's a good example that if we could cooperate with the Chinese to develop sectoral approaches that would be rather interesting, not only for them but definitely also for us," Hedegaard said.

Connie Hedegaard was speaking to Susanna Ala-Kurikka and Daniela Vincenti-Mitchener.

To read the interview in full, please click here.

EU promotes ‘green jobs’ as way out of crisis

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:13:22 +0000

Plans to create a generation of 'green' jobs will involve low-skilled as well as high-skilled workers, and could therefore play a key social function in addressing Europe's unemployment crisis, EU officials and MEPs told a Brussels conference yesterday (10 June).

The debate, organised by the European Greens, sought to assess the state of play in the EU's drive to "green the economy," particularly as it relates to the creation of low-carbon jobs.

Former Socialist MEP Gyula Hegyi, introduced as 'Mr. Green Jobs' in EU Employment Commissioner László Andor's cabinet, refuted the notion that the green agenda would only create elite science and high-tech jobs.

Instead, he emphasised that workers from all skill levels would require retraining to adapt to the green era. "Green jobs will also mean low-skilled jobs, and millions of them," he claimed.

He cited as an example a major project in his home country Hungary – a canal which will link the Danube with another major river, providing agricultural irrigation and improved transport emissions. This project would require 100,000 workers to build, and 40,000 workers to maintain, he said.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition is the ideal benchmark for how we should view green jobs, Hegyi said, adding that the promotion of low-skilled, low-carbon employment "can have a very important social function, particularly in a time of crisis".

No transformation without investment

The Commission official argued that if successfully promoted, the advent of the green jobs era in the EU could be compared to the advent of the computer era 20 years ago, in that scientists and tech experts will initially hold most of the knowledge, but it will rapidly become common currency among all citizens.

However, other participants at the debate cautioned that this hopeful scenario could only become reality if policymakers as well as big business leaders put their money where their mouth is.

German Green MEP Elisabeth Schroedter, who in April 2010 produced a draft report on the subject, argued that without significant investment in the "green transformation" of European industry and the retraining of European workers, more jobs would be lost than created.

This point was echoed from the industry perspective by Judith Kirton-Darling of the European Metalworkers Federation (EMF). "We have heard a lot of rhetoric about green jobs, but the lack of real investment worries us," she cautioned.

Kirton-Darling said that the scale of the transformation was "mind-boggling" and would fail without huge investment, specifying that many industrial players and trade unions favoured the introduction of so-called "green bonds" – Euro bonds earmarked for investment in green technology and training.

Hegyi, too, mentioned green bonds as a potential investment tool, and also drew attention to the new UK government's mooted green investment bank, which he viewed as a positive idea.

He concluded by arguing that both EU structural funds and the European Social Fund would have to play a part "if we are serious about greening our economy".

France pleads for better regulation of carbon market

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:35:41 +0000

A working group commissioned by French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde has delivered a report calling for better regulation of the carbon market in light of recent scandals. EurActiv France reports.

The EU carbon market has faced a series of setbacks in recent months: VAT fraud, cyber crime and Hungary's sale of 'used' carbon credits have all highlighted weaknesses in the EU’s flagship policy to fight climate change.

To tackle these issues, French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde has commissioned a former president of French securities regulator AMF, Michel Prada, to identify regulatory options.

In a report submitted on 19 April, the Prada working group warns that the planned auctioning system foreseen for carbon credits as of 2013 could increase the risk of market abuses (see 'Background').

The report makes 28 proposals, grouped into six main objectives. First and foremost, the reflection group sees the creation of an EU-level legal statute for CO2 quotas as essential.

According to the group, current disparities between quota definitions in Europe are leading to problems that only full harmonisation can solve.

To start with, the legal nature of quotas is unclear because they are an ambiguous mix between an administrative permit, a raw material and a financial instrument. The report thus calls for the creation of a new category at EU level.

Moreover, the reflection group supports the establishment of a monitoring mechanism for the carbon market and calls for a coherent European system of regulation.

This could take two forms, according to the report: either the creation a new European surveillance authority or a decentralised surveillance system run by national financial supervisors and energy regulators – and coordinated at EU level by the proposed European System of Financial Supervisors.

Emphasis is also put on the quality of information, particularly on creating a central reporting system for transactions carried out on the market.

Several European Commission departments were consulted ahead of the report's publication – the Internal Market DG, the Energy DG and the Climate Action DG.

When questioned by EurActiv France, a Commission spokesperson said: "We appreciate the work of the Prada committee. It provides an interesting contribution."

Prada should soon meet with Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier and Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard to "pass on the right message" to the European institutions, the spokesperson added.

Europe and US need fundamental shift in climate thinking

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:20:17 +0000

"The most dangerous thing Europe and the United States could do on climate change is ignore the implications of Copenhagen and fall back into old strategies with a new sense of patience" when instead a "fundamental shift in thinking is needed," write Nigel Purvis, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, and Andrew Stevenson, research assistant at Resources for the Future, in a March publication for the Brussels Forum Paper Series.

''The biggest risk for effective transatlantic climate cooperation is that policymakers and thought leaders in Europe and the United States will choose to ignore the strategic implications from Copenhagen, however obvious they may be, simply because those implications are too depressing and politically difficult to accept. The worst thing the Atlantic partners could do now is to reaffirm old strategies with a new sense of patience. The chance of this happening is greatest in Europe because it is the most committed to the top-down strong multilateral solution that seems so sensible in theory but so unlikely in practice, and because some European politicians will see risk in moving away from established orthodoxies.

Yet, to protect the climate, a fundamental shift in thinking is essential. The most effective strategy would begin focusing, country-by-country, on advancing concrete mitigation actions that further broader sustainable development objectives. The keys to success for Europe and the United States in this new approach will be offering financial support on a pay-for-performance basis and aligning international trade policy with climate objectives.

Negotiating formal climate commitments via global talks must turn into an important but lesser priority, informed by realistic expectations about the extent and pace of likely progress. Moving from climate commitments to climate action is not without risk. Developing nations have opened the door, but this approach is untested.

Success will depend on political will around the world. For its part, Europe must lead in old and new ways. It must continue to reduce its own emissions and press the United States for domestic action while also finding for the first time the will to mobilise even larger international climate funds. Europe also must come to terms with the unfortunate truth that US leadership – even in the age of Obama – is far from assured and that Europe must be prepared to continue leading alone. But the greatest responsibility lies with the United States. To whom much is given, much is expected. The United States must find the strength to act even if ideal approaches prove politically impossible. It must accept the reality that US leadership is not only warranted but also essential to avoiding unacceptable risks of catastrophic climate change.''

Top climate scientist downplays Himalayan blunder

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:40:00 +0000

The vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defended the scientific body's review processes in Brussels yesterday (25 January), after it was forced to apologise last week for its mistake about the impact of global warming on Himalayan glaciers.

"I believe this incident on Himalayan glaciers might contribute to increasing the credibility of the IPCC," the deputy chief said. He stressed that no human institution is infallible, but if it can admit to its mistakes and learn from them, then this should only enhance its reputation.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said the IPCC's claim that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of disappearing by 2035 was not in line with the panel's own review procedures.

"In this particular instance, an error had been made and procedures had not been followed," he said. He explained that the reviewers did not have enough time to invest in producing this part of the report, but was quick to stress that the review process had been strengthened last autumn.

The organisation was forced to admit its mistake after an article in New Scientist revealed that the year 2035 did not come from peer-reviewed scientific literature but was first put forward in an interview in 1999 by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain. The year resurfaced in a 2005 report by conservation group WWF, which is cited in the IPCC's 2007 report.

However, Van Ypersele downplayed the implications of the mistake, saying that it was only one page of a 938-page report and had "not [been] given a lot of visibility". It did not feature in the glaciology chapter but in the Asia chapter, which is much further into the report and is not highlighted in the summary for policymakers, he added.

Van Ypersele said a 2006 email from Austrian glaciologist Georg Kaser, who noticed the error, had not reached the right person.

"He provided correct information but not to the correct person at the correct time," Van Ypersele lamented, adding that the most severe criticism had come after the plenary at which the report was finalised. "It is a combination of very unfortunate things."

Pachauri under fire

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has come under pressure to resign as a result of the blunder. Pachauri also finds himself under scrutiny over his personal finances amid accusations that he made a profit from his work on climate change.

Van Ypersele fended off the accusations. "He really does not have a life that you could envy," he said, adding that Dr. Pachauri has dedicated his life to his work and was always travelling and lecturing.

Despite admitting that Pachauri's dismissal of the Indian report questioning the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers as voodoo science "was not ideal," he said it was impossible for someone who gives speeches all the time to avoid making occasional mistakes.

John Schellnhuber, who advises the German government on climate change, joined Van Ypersele in insisting that accusations that Pachauri profits financially from his work are unfounded.

"It is pathetic to ask Dr. Pachauri to step down just because of the Himalayan glacier thing," Schellnhuber said. "He lives like a monk in India, and all the money he receives, he gives to his foundation."

Nevertheless, Schellnhuber said the IPCC would have to reconsider its use of literature.

"There is the question of 'grey literature'," he said. In the past, the organisation has tried to use every possible source for the sake of being comprehensive, rather than aiming for strict quality control.

The IPCC researchers were speaking at a Tipping Point conference in Brussels bringing scientists and artists together to fight climate change.

Despite supporting arts, van Ypersele stressed that he has always maintained the difference between his role as the vice-chairman of the IPCC and the "role of a militant".

"I am trying to be very careful not to bring the IPCC, which is supposed to be policy-relevant, into a policy prescriptive role," he said.

Commission wants quick follow-up on Copenhagen

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:55:00 +0000

During an informal meeting of European energy and environment ministers in Seville, the European Commission will tomorrow (16 January) call for swift implementation by the EU of the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, urging other countries to follow suit and reach a legally-binding agreement in 2010, EurActiv has learned.

"We should encourage the largest possible number of countries to subscribe to the Copenhagen accord and invite them to table their own reduction targets or actions as the case may be," reads the Commission non-paper tabled at meeting, obtained by EurActiv.

Jump-start EU climate diplomacy

Although the Copenhagen accord fell short of the EU's expectations and was not formally adopted, it does provide the basis on which to work further, said EU sources.

"The EU should play an active role in strengthening and expanding support for the Accord. Doing so will require an active outreach by the EU, including at bilateral and regional levels, but possibly also through facilitating a meeting of 'Friends of the Accord' during the first quarter of 2010," the paper suggests.

After the disappointing outcome at Copenhagen, all parties must redouble their efforts to ensure we have a legally-binding UN climate deal by the end of 2010, said Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout.

"The EU needs to take a much more proactive diplomatic effort to this end, broadening the net of its diplomacy to ensure it does not repeat its mistake of exclusively focusing on one or two players at the expense of others," he added.

The urgency of implementation is dictated by the fact that the Copenhagen Accord sets an end of January deadline for all nations to submit plans for curbing emissions to the United Nations.

The EU committed to achieving a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 1990, as called for in its climate and energy package adopted in 2008.

During the home stretch of the negotiations, the EU said it would be willing to step up efforts and take on a 30% reduction target only if other developed countries commit to comparable emission reductions and economically-advanced developing countries - namely China and India - contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.

Conscious that it needs to restore its credibility in international climate policy, the Commission believes "the EU could review/strengthen its commitment notably in the light of the pledges notified by other countries," reads the informal non-paper, stating that an analysis of pledges under the Accord should be carried out "at the appropriate time".

The EU executive considers that the negotiating texts drawn up within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change talks contain very difficult elements for the EU, sources said.

Legally-binding agreement a tall order for EU

It is therefore essential for the EU "to ensure that the next steps in the negotiations, currently planned for May-June in Bonn, integrate and build upon the Copenhagen Accord with a view to reaching a legally-binding agreement in 2010," reads the Commission non-paper.

Indeed, the Copenhagen Accord does not expressly foresee the conclusion of a legally-binding agreement in 2010.

"A bold move from the EU would clearly help put global climate policy back on track. The EU's dated 20% emissions pledge clearly no longer cuts it. Europe's environment ministers must immediately end their prevarication and step up the EU's emissions reduction pledge to 30%," said Green MEP Eickhout.

Fast-start finance

The Commission also proposes immediate action on climate finance agreed in Copenhagen, including fast-start funding (US$ 30 billion) for 2010-2012 and long-term finance (US$ 100 billion per year in 2010).

"The EU should also, together with the other parties who have associated themselves formally with the Accord, explore how to implement the provisions," reads the text.

Ministers will also discuss the EU Energy Action Plan for 2010-2014, the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) plan, and sustainability and security of energy supply.

Europe catches up on clean tech venture investment

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:45:00 +0000

Venture capital investment in clean technology continued strongly in 2009 despite the financial crisis, with European investment declining by just 12% as opposed to 42% in North America, according to market researchers Cleantech Group and Deloitte.

Last year's clean technology venture investments in Europe, North America, China and India totalled $5.6 billion in 557 deals, a preliminary report compiled by the companies shows. They expect the figures to increase by 5 to 10% once investors have announced all their activities from the past year, making 2009 a record year for the sector in terms of the number of deals struck.

The economic decline took its toll on total venture investment, which was down 33%, but cleantech investment suffered less than other sectors, declining only to 2007 levels.

Europe has been trailing behind the US when it comes to attracting venture capital for clean technologies (EurActiv 30/03/09), but it raised its global share to a five-year high of 29% in 2009. The US was still the world leader in attracting cleantech venture capital, but its percentage fell from 72% in 2008 to 62%.

The strength of green investment offers reason for optimism in the wake of the disappointing climate agreement reached at Copenhagen, as investment is going ahead regardless of the absence of an ambitious global treaty.

"Record levels of activity from investors, governments and corporations in 2009 demonstrated that the market for clean technologies continues to strengthen regardless of any non-binding global climate change agreement," said Nicholas Parker, executive chairman of Cleantech Group. "In parallel to trying to reach carbon agreements, governments spent the year earmarking hundreds of billions of dollars for clean technology in pursuit of economic growth."

With changed policy priorities, the private sector is becoming more optimistic about green business opportunities, which translated into increased corporate and utility investment despite the global downturn. Last year, the sector attracted around a quarter of all global venture investment capital, outdoing all others including software and biotechnology, according to the research.

Solar was the most popular clean technology among venture investors with a 20% share. It was followed closely by transportation and energy efficiency, which received a major boost from Europe, where efficiency more than doubled its share to 19%.