1.1. Environment: Johnson unveils secret weapon in war on climate change – the roof garden
30 August 2008,
To some they are a rural escape in the centre of the city, to others they are a chance to test their green fingers and design skills. Now London mayor Boris Johnson has found a new use for urban roof gardens – as a key weapon on the front line against global warming.
An increase in the number of rooftop gardens to soak up rainwater across the capital is among a series of measures suggested by Johnson yesterday, as part of efforts to prepare London for the effects of climate change.
The mayor’s adaptation strategy, billed as a world first, aims to address the challenges of flooding, extreme temperatures and drought. It calls for compulsory water metering, greater awareness of flood risks and more tree planting, alongside stronger efforts to resist attempts by local authorities and insurance companies to fell existing urban trees.
The mayor’s team said they were also looking to copy a heatwave emergency plan used in US cities, including Philadelphia, where old and vulnerable people are collected in air-conditioned buses and taken to cool public buildings, such as libraries, shopping centres, churches and offices.
Despite previously attacking the Kyoto Protocol – which regulates international carbon emissions – as "pointless" and saying that anxiety over climate change was "partly a religious phenomenon" Johnson now admits that the 2006 Stern review on the issue had convinced him of the need to act. "When the facts change, you change your mind," he said.
Launching the strategy at the Thames Barrier, in east London, he said: "We need to concentrate efforts to slash carbon emissions and become more energy efficient in order to prevent dangerous climate change. But we also need to prepare for how our climate is expected to change in the future. The strategy outlines in detail the range of weather conditions facing London, which could both seriously threaten our quality of life, particularly that of the most vulnerable people, and endanger our pre-eminence as one of the world’s leading cities."
He said the strategy, which is a legal requirement under the Greater London Authority Act, put London in a strong position.
"London is not unique. All major cities, such as New York and Tokyo, are at risk from climate change," he said.
The strategy does not address so-called mitigation of climate change – measures to reduce emissions – but Johnson said he supported a target set by the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone, to slash carbon pollution 60% by 2025. He said measures to meet the target would include incentives for Londoners to better insulate their homes and switch to more efficient condensing boilers. His team is assessing whether households could be given council tax rebates for adopting such energy-saving measures.
Global warming is expected to give London and its surrounding area longer, hotter summers as well as warmer, wetter winters with the added problems of more frequent heatwaves, droughts and flash floods from rising sea levels and downpours. About 600 Londoners died as a result of the 2003 heatwave that killed about 15,000 in France, while low rainfall during 2004 and 2005 led to water shortages in the capital.
Fifteen per cent of London is at high risk from flooding due to global warming – an area including 1.25 million people, almost half a million properties, more than 400 schools, 75 underground and railway stations, 10 hospitals and London City airport. At stake is an estimated £160bn worth of assets, not just in London, but along the Thames estuary, where large housing developments are planned.
Johnson said work was under way to address stifling summertime temperatures on the underground network, with air cooling on subsurface tube lines to begin in 2010. By 2015, he said all trains on subsurface lines, around 35-40% of the network, would be air-cooled.
The draft adaptation strategy, which will be finalised next year, calls for a citywide "urban greening" programme, using green spaces and trees to absorb and retain rainwater, and pledges to map London’s drainage network to reduce surface water flood risk. It also recommends greater use of rainwater harvesting and "grey water" recycling in new buildings, as well as London-specific guidance for designers and architects to reduce the risk of buildings overheating in summer.
Jenny Bates, of Friends of the Earth, said: "It is essential that the capital prepares for the impacts of climate change, which is already affecting Londoners through increased flood risk, heavier and more frequent downpours and extreme heat. But Boris Johnson is also committed to cutting London’s carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2025 in order to prevent dangerous climate change, and has so far failed to explain how he will achieve this.
"The mayor must provide a comprehensive action plan for reducing emissions that includes ways to make it cheaper and easier for Londoners to go green."

2.1. Areva takes new provision for Finnish nuclear plant losses:report
28 August 2008, Platts
French nuclear group Areva has registered a further provision for liabilities associated with its turnkey construction of the Olkiluoto-3 nuclear power plant in Finland for Teollisuuden Voima Oy, financial daily Les Echos reported Thursday.
Areva will announce the provision when it publishes its second-half 2008 results Friday after closure of the Paris bourse, according to Les Echos. Areva has written two previous provisions to cover potential losses on the Olkiluoto-3 reactor project, in March 2007 and in September 2007. The company has not revealed the size of the provisions, citing discussions under way with TVO, but financial analysts have estimated them at between Eur700 million and Eur1 billion (about $1-1.5 billion). TVO continues to say it expects Areva to stick to the initial contract budget of Eur3.2 billion. Les Echos said Thursday several sources had confirmed that the total amount of charges on Areva’s books linked to the Finnish project now exceeds Eur 1 billion. Germany’s Siemens and Areva’s reactor-building subsidiary Areva NP, which is 34% owned by Siemens, signed the contract to build the 1,600 MW Olkiluoto-3 EPR, or European pressurized water reactor, unit with TVO in December 2003. The deal was Areva’s first contract for an EPR, a so-called third-generation nuclear plant designed to have enhanced safety, longer life and better operational characteristics than second-generation reactors.
The Olkiluoto-3 project has been plagued by quality control problems, notably on the civil engineering side, and Areva last year replaced the original Finnish concrete subcontractor with French construction giant Bouygues.
The previous financial provisions Areva had written were attributed to delays in the project due to the concrete quality assurance problem, which led to a four-month suspension of concrete pouring on the nuclear island. Les
Echos reported Friday that there are fresh problems with civil engineering, but gave no details.
The new provisions, however, are also due to rising costs of construction materials as well as higher personnel costs linked to the need for closer project control.
The Olkiluoto-3 project is now two years behind schedule, with commercial operation expected in 2011 instead of the original contract date of May 2009.

2.2. UK minister says energy comes before climate: report
28 August 2008, Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) – The battle against climate change must not take precedence over the need to guarantee energy security, British industry minister John Hutton was quoted on Thursday as saying in an apparent policy change.
The government has often said climate change is the biggest threat facing the world.
"Of course we’ve got to tackle climate change, it’s a real and present danger for used (sic)," Hutton told the Daily Telegraph in an interview on the newspaper’s website.
"But we’ve also go to be absolutely clear that our energy policy has got to be figured first and foremost with a view to supplying Britain with affordable and secure energy it needs for the future."
Hutton’s remarks, in an interview on the energy crisis due to the spiraling costs of gas and electricity, come amid rising tensions with Russia over its bitter rift with Georgia which has raised fears for future security of gas supplies to Europe.
A spokeswoman for Hutton’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said there had been no change in policy and that energy security and climate change were considered of equal importance.
"There is no change of government policy. Energy security has always been a priority. John (Hutton) is the energy minister and it is his priority to make sure that the UK has enough energy in the future," she said.
But environmentalists expressed bewilderment at the apparent message from Hutton, an advocate for new nuclear and coal power stations to fill the energy void that will be left when many of the existing plants are forced to close over the next decade.
"The government repeatedly tells us climate change is the biggest threat we face and this seems to suggest that he (Hutton) doesn’t even get the basics," said Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Dave Timms.
Hutton is pushing for a rapid deal with EDF Energy, the British arm of French utility EDF, to press ahead with building new nuclear power plants in Britain to replace the exiting ageing fleet which supplies 19 percent of the country’s electricity.
He also wants a new fleet of coal-fired power stations with the proviso that they must be built ready to have carbon emissions reduction and storage technology fitted when it becomes commercially available.
"We cannot turn our back on any proven form of technology. We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear," he was quoted as saying on the newspaper’s website.
Environment campaigners say nuclear is not a solution because of its highly toxic waste and that unabated coal stations simply add to global warming with no guarantee of if or when carbon capture and storage technology will be available.
Six activists from Greenpeace will appear in court on Monday changed with criminal damage and trespass after they last year briefly forced the coal-fired Kingsnorth power station in Kent to close to highlight the climate crisis.
German owner E.ON wants to build a new "capture-ready" coal-fired station on the site.

2.3. Surprise Nuclear Plant in Kaliningrad
29 August 2008, The Moscow Times
Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko has signed a decree for the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Kaliningrad region, the country’s atomic energy company announced Wednesday.
Design of the two-reactor plant is to be completed by the end of 2009, and the first of the two 1,200-megawatt reactors is to come on line in 2015, Rosatom said in a statement.
St. Petersburg’s Atomenergoproyekt institute will design the facility, while construction will be carried out by Energoatom at an estimated cost of 5 billion euros ($7.4 billion).
Kaliningrad is not able to meet its own electricity needs and imports 30 percent of its power from a Soviet-era plant in Lithuania, which is scheduled to close next year as one of the conditions set for the country when it gained European Union membership in 2004.
Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said that, aside from meeting the region’s needs, some of the power generated by the plant would be exported, without providing figures.
"We cannot say what the region’s energy needs will be by 2015," he said.
Previous efforts to meet the energy shortfall in the region of less than 1 million people have been less than successful.
The Kaliningrad natural gas power plant, completed in 2005, still operates at less than capacity because Gazprom is not supplying it with enough gas.
A second gas plant generator was scheduled to be completed by the end of the year, but construction has been frozen until an agreement with Gazprom can be reached.
It remains unclear how the region will cover the electricity shortfall between the closure of the Lithuanian plant and the opening of the Baltiiskaya unit in 2015.
The decree caught analysts and environmentalists by surprise.
The Kaliningrad plant is not mentioned in the federal plan for the power industry to 2020, developed by the Energy Ministry in 2007.
"Russian nuclear plants always appear in the federal plan first," said Vladimir Slivyak, co-chairman of Ecodefense, a Kaliningrad-based environmental organization. "The government always makes the decision to build a nuclear plant; this is the first time I’ve seen otherwise."
Rosatom’s Novikov denied that there was anything untoward, saying the Energy Ministry’s plan was not binding and only intended to provide for "mainland" Russia.
The Kaliningrad region is a western exclave separated from the rest of the country by Lithuania and Poland. No funding for the project will come from the federal budget, Novikov said.
Foreign investors are expected to cover 49 percent of the cost, he said, with the remainder coming from Rosatom.
Novikov declined to name any prospective investors but said that talks are already under way.
There were some questions about the economic sense of the plan.
"This project seems to have a political, rather than an economic motivation," said Gennady Sukhanov, an analyst with Troika Dialog.
"Building new capacity of more than 1,000 megawatts is excessive for the Kaliningrad region, but otherwise it would continue to be dependent on European countries," he said.
In a poll conducted by Kaliningrad sociological center in 2007, 67 percent of respondents were against building a nuclear power plant in the region.


3.1. FEATURE-Aid agencies plan CO2 offsets that also help poor
2 September 2008, Reuters
From fuel-efficient stoves for displaced Congolese families to drought-resistant cashew trees in Brazil, some aid agencies offering carbon offset schemes want to marry emissions savings with help for people living with climate change.
A London-based coalition is launching a new funding scheme to address concerns about existing trade in carbon credits — primarily that this excludes the world’s poorest communities, which are most at risk from the impact of global warming.
"This is very much not a minor absolution for your carbon sins, but is honestly a compensation payment for the impact you know your personal carbon emissions will have," said Andrew Simms, policy director at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), coordinating the initiative with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
The consortium says its scheme differs from conventional carbon offsetting — which has focused mostly on promoting renewable energy — because it will also help vulnerable people cope with phenomena such as more severe droughts and floods.
In the jargon, it will fuse mitigation — measures to curb carbon dioxide emissions — with adaptation — activities enabling people to deal with climate-related problems they are already experiencing.
Over the coming year, the approach will be tested in regions expected to be worst and soonest hit by climate change in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Pilot projects will prioritise adaptation: for example teaching Indian children to swim so they can survive floods, and planting the drought-resistant cashew trees whose fruit pulp families plan to sell to schools for income. But they will also include mitigation steps such as providing solar-powered lighting for girls in Mauritania to do their homework after dark, and solar-powered freezers to store the Brazilian cashew apple pulp which makes juice.
The partners — including the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Greenpeace, CARE International and Trocaire — describe the scheme as a way for charities, business and individuals to take responsibility for the damage caused by their carbon emissions in the short term.
They call people who help fund the scheme investors, rather than donors: the capital involved is human as well as financial.
"It connects me with a human being at the other end of the world who’s being affected by my pollution, and I then invest in that person and relate to that person, and feel there is solidarity between us," said Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at IIED.
"It’s not buying and selling — it is much more investing in people."
Some existing projects backed with money from unregulated or so-called voluntary carbon emissions trading have been accused of not delivering promised environmental and social benefits. Critics also say carbon credits offer polluters a guilt-free way to carry on emitting damaging greenhouse gases.
"Offsetting is something that people have little faith in because they don’t know where the money goes," said Betsy Joseph of aid agency Mercy Corps, which has launched a separate initiative aimed at strengthening the relationship between carbon offsetting and poverty reduction.
Its "Cool Carbon" Web site invites individuals and businesses to calculate the cost of their carbon usage and donate that amount to carbon-neutral projects that also create jobs.
In Bosnia, for example, it is partnering with a pastry manufacturer to convert used cooking oil into biodiesel that could power city buses in Tuzla.
"People can look at the progress of the projects online, and this should give them more faith that their money is going somewhere tangible, with more of a connection to those they are helping," said Joseph.
The United Nations has called for around $86 billion in new financing by 2015 to help the world’s poor cope with climate change. But so far funds from governments and a levy on U.N.-regulated carbon trading amount to a fraction of what aid agencies say is needed. A growing number regard the sale of voluntary carbon offsets as one way to fill the gap.
The market for voluntary carbon trades is growing rapidly, more than tripling between 2006 and 2007 to reach a value of $331 million, according to a report from environmental information providers New Carbon Finance and Ecosystem Marketplace.
But charities have found it difficult to access buyers in the voluntary market, partly because offset companies, which act as brokers, prefer large projects that deliver high volumes of emissions savings.
"The transaction costs are quite high for small projects," said Andrew Scott, policy director at Practical Action, which is planning to raise around 400,000 pounds ($782,000) over five years by selling carbon credits from four energy projects in Sudan, Peru, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
"It is a very slow, time-intensive process for the initial assessment and verification, and you do begin to wonder whether it is worth the effort."
Michael Schlup, director of the Gold Standard Foundation, which administers a widely used quality label for clean energy projects that also support sustainable development, questioned whether the carbon market was the best place to raise money for climate change adaptation work.
"People see it as a miracle cure, but it could be a diversion from other policy measures," he said, adding his organisation had not yet tried to convert climate change adaptation into a service people could pay for.
For potential investors, one of the key obstacles is that while tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions now have a price, it is difficult to put a value on measures to help people survive weather disasters and adapt to long-term climate stresses.
"I think this is a very valuable exercise but the hard thing is to see how to link it to the carbon market," said Schlup. "With mitigation, you have tonnes of carbon, but with adaptation, are you saving lives or dollars?"
There are also tensions between market demands and the needs of poor communities. For instance in a Practical Action project in Bangladesh, an offset company chose a stove design that produced the lowest emissions but was not favoured by local women.

3.2. Cutting Fossil Fuel Subsidies Can Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions Says UN Environment Report
26 August 2008, UNEP
Meanwhile New Assessment of Clean Development Mechanism Shows Climate-Friendly Energy Projects Achieving Lift-Off in Sub Sahara Africa
Accra/Nairobi, 26 August 2008 – Scrapping fossil fuel subsidies could play an important role in cutting greenhouse gases while giving a small but not insignificant boost to the global economy a new report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says.
The report challenges the widely held view that such subsidies assist the poor arguing that many of these price support systems benefit the wealthier sections of society rather than those on low incomes.
They are also diverting national funds from more creative forms of pro-poor polices and initiatives that are likely to have a far greater impact on the lives and livelihoods of the worse-off sectors of society.
Globally around $300 billion or 0.7 per cent of global GDP is being spent on energy subsidies annually.
The lion’s share is being used to artificially lower or reduce the real price of fuels like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from such fossil fuels.
Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as six per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP.
The report acknowledges that some subsidies or mechanisms, whether in the form of tax breaks, financial incentives or other market instruments can generate social, economic and environmental benefits.
A case in point are feed-in tariffs that have kick-started a renewable energy revolution in countries such as Germany and Spain.
The report also accepts that there may be cases where some subsidies can, if well- devised and time-limited meet important social and environmental goals.
For example ones to encourage a switch from dirty, health-hazardous or environmentally harmful fuels such a charcoal.
The report also cites the case of Chile where well devised subsidies have increased rural electrification from around 50 per cent to over 90 per cent of the population over 12 years.
But the report argues that many seemingly well intentioned subsidies rarely make economic sense and rarely address poverty. The report therefore challenges the widely-held myth that scrapping fossil fuel supports would hit the poor.
The report cites the example of Liquid Petroleum Gas subsidies in India where $1.7 billion was spent in the first half of the current financial year on trying to get the fuel into poor households. "LPG subsidies are mainly benefiting higher-income households…despite the ineffectiveness of the subsidy the programme is being extended until 2010,"says the study.
Indeed the report concludes that in many developing countries the real beneficiaries of such subsidies are neither the poor nor the environment but well off households; equipment manufacturers and the producers of the fuels.
Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: "In the final analysis many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating inefficiencies in the global economy – they are thus part of the market failure that is climate change."
"There are now less than 500 days before the crucial climate change convention meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. Governments should urgently review their energy subsidies and begin phasing out the harmful ones that contribute to the wasteful use of finite resources and delay the introduction of renewables or more efficient forms of generation while creating disincentives and barriers to public transport up to energy saving appliances," he added.
The new UNEP report – Reforming Energy Subsidies: Opportunities to Contribute to the Climate Change Agenda-was released today at a meeting in Accra, Ghana of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Here governments have gathered to continue negotiations under the Bali Road Map towards a conclusive and far reaching new climate deal by Copenhagen 2009.
CDM Takes Off in Sub Sahara Africa
Today UNEP also presented new findings on the penetration of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in sub Saharan Africa.
The CDM, part of the Convention’s Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, allows developed nations to offset some of their greenhouse gas emissions by funding cleaner energy projects in developing countries that generate carbon credits known as certified emission reductions.
These can range from wind and biomass energy projects to ones that tap methane from rubbish tips and schemes that encourage the use of less polluting fuels or power plants.
There has been concern that the benefits of the CDM, a contrasting example of a policy tool aimed at wider social, economic and environmental benefits when compared with fossil fuel subsidies have been by-passing countries in Africa.
The main countries benefiting to date have been the rapidly developing economies such as China, Brazil, and India.
The new figures, compiled by UNEP Risoe Centre in Denmark, indicate that this is changing with the first CDM projects emerging over the past 18 months in six countries – the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Mali and Senegal.
These include an oil well, gas flare reduction project in the DRC and a run-of river hydroelectric project in Madagascar.
In Kenya new projects include a 35MW extension of geothermal, hot rocks, generation and a sugar cane waste-into-energy project with Mumias Sugar Company.
Mr Steiner added: "Whereas fossil fuel subsidies are an example of a blunt policy instrument, perpetuating old and inefficient economic models, the CDM is an example of a more intelligent, market-based mechanism that is fostering the transition to a modern Green Economy".
He said the uptake in Africa was due, in part to the impact of the UN’s Nairobi Framework initiative launched in 2006.
Here UNEP, along with partners including the UN Development Programme (UNDP) have been working to build the human and regulatory capacity of poorer countries to access carbon financing.
Other measures have included awareness-raising among banks and industry players on the Continent to new green finance opportunities.
UNEP Risoe has been monitoring global trends in CDM investment and the impacts of these activities for some time.
This still remains low compared to a global tally of close to 3,500 CDM projects, but does mark a departure from the very low levels of the past.
"As new policy drivers and planned capacity development activities bear fruit, the market will likely exhibit exponential growth like other regions," says Glenn Hodes, CDM Program Manager at UNEP Risoe. Indeed, assuming governments agree on a deep and decisive new climate agreement in 2009, Africa overall could see roughly 230 projects by 2012, according to Hodes and Appelquist’s calculations."
These could cumulatively generate over 65 million certified emission reductions, worth close to one billion US dollars at a conservative carbon credit price of $15.
"Compared to CDM prodigies like India, Africa is poised to be the late bloomer," says Hodes.


4.1. MEPs stall in vote on car fuel efficiency
1 September 2008, FOE Europe
Brussels, 1 September 2008 – Members of the European Parliament this evening voted to delay proposals to force carmakers to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars, despite overwhelming public support for more fuel efficient vehicles.
The Industry Committee of the European Parliament voting in Brussels bent to pressure from the car industry and opted to delay a target of 120g CO2/km – equivalent to reducing fuel consumption by a quarter – by three years, from 2012 until 2015.
Jeroen Verhoeven, car efficiency campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said; "The industry committee has voted for the car industry over people and the climate by supporting an opinion ridden with loopholes. But the vote wasn’t overwhelming and it is now up to the environment committee to get the priorities right next week."
An opinion poll commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe and published last week shows a large majority of citizens around Europe support measures to force carmakers reduce the fuel consumption of cars by 25 per cent without delay.
More at:

4.2. European poll shows huge public support for fuel efficient cars
28 August 2008, FOE Europe
Campaign urges MEPs to vote for fuel efficiency
Making manufacturers produce cleaner cars is the best way to bring down climate changing emissions from Europe’s cars, and urgent action on fuel efficiency should be taken by the European Union, according a majority of people around Europe.
An opinion poll conducted in five EU countries shows overwhelming support among citizens for measures to force carmakers to reduce the fuel consumption of the cars they produce by 25 per cent without delay. The results come ahead of decisive votes in the European Parliament on a proposed new legally-binding target for new car CO2 emissions.
The poll – carried out by TNS Opinion – probed close to 5000 people in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. An overwhelming majority (87 per cent) stated that measures to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars by a quarter – equivalent to the 120g CO2/km target being discussed by MEPs – should be introduced urgently.
Almost half (46 per cent) of respondents think that requiring manufacturers to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles is the best way to reduce harmful emissions from cars, ahead of tax incentives (27 per cent) and promoting fuel-efficient cars through better information (13 per cent).
Also, around two thirds (64 per cent) of citizens support the statement that such measures will be good for their national economy because people will buy less fuel and have more money to spend on other things. Respondents listed fuel consumption (64 per cent) as the most important factor, apart from price, when choosing a new car. Safety was second (37 per cent) and environmentally clean third (26 per cent).
The findings seem to show that citizens don’t buy carmakers’ claims that the proposed legislation would damage their industry.
German respondents felt the most strongly that requiring manufacturers to reduce fuel consumption was the best way to improve efficiency, despite the German car industry’s attempts to weaken the planned legislation.
"Citizens are sending a loud and clear message to politicians and carmakers to shift fuel efficiency up a gear," says Jeroen Verhoeven, car efficiency campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe. "Car fuel efficiency is a simple, effective and sustainable way to reduce Europe’s climate changing emissions. MEPs should listen to their constituents and vote for a regulation which is guaranteed to deliver a 25 per cent reduction in fuel consumption by 2012."
The lack of progress by the car industry on fuel efficiency is highlighted in a new advertising campaign launched today by Friends of the Earth Europe and Transport and Environment (T&E). The two environmental groups are calling on MEPs to vote for fuel efficiency targets (120g CO2/km by 2012 and 80g CO2/km by 2020).
The adverts show the 1948 and 2008 models of the Volkswagen Beetle which, despite sixty years of advances in automobile design, share the same level of fuel efficiency. The post-war Beetle used 7.5 litres per 100 km driven. The 2008 Beetle ‘Luna’ 1.6 Petrol uses the same.
Kerstin Meyer of T&E states: "For the last six decades, carmakers have been innovative in everything but fuel efficiency. And they have failed to notice that times have changed. We need fuel efficient cars that minimise impacts on the environment."
"If new cars were twice as efficient as they are today, we’d be on the right track. It’s up to MEPs to set the targets, and to Europe’s top automotive talent to produce the goods," she adds.
A website – – has been launched where people can ask MEPs to support car fuel efficiency and read more about the EU’s proposals.
The European Environment Agency estimates that cars are responsible for 14 per cent of CO2 emissions.


5.1. Reforming Energy Subsidies
Opportunities to Contribute to the Climate Change Agenda
United Nations Environment Programme
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
More at:


6.1. Developing Countries and the EU Climate Package The key to a new international climate agreement
Climate Action Network Europe, WWF and Oxfam with the EU-ACP JPA
invite you to a lunch briefing & debate on:
Developing Countries and the EU Climate Package The key to a new international climate agreement
Wednesday 10 September 2008, 12h45 – 14h15 – with buffet lunch, Room ASP 5G2, European Parliament, Hosted by John Bowis, MEP
Background note: What role for EU’s Climate / Energy Package in EU external relations?
In advance of the decisions on the EU’s Climate and Energy Package this autumn, and ahead of the UN international climate change talks in Posnan in December, this briefing and debate will consider how the EU’s climate and energy package can contribute, first, to helping Developing Countries cope with the threat of climate change and, second, to a successful international climate agreement at Copenhagen in 2010.Louise Guhmann [email protected]

6.2. Countdown to Poz’n’Hagen: The Young Friends of the Earth Climate Tour
More info and application here:

Geneva, 31August – 4 September 2008
More info at:


Disclaimer: We do not guarantee for the accuracy, reliability or content of information. For help or questions, contact: [email protected].