CLIMATE
1.1. Futuristic climate schemes to get U.N. hearing
27 October 2010, Reuters
Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.
Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the panel’s working group examining climate science, said some so-called geo-engineering solutions could disrupt world rainfall and might backfire by causing abrupt temperature rises if they go wrong.
He told Reuters his group will hold meetings of experts in 2011 to focus on geo-engineering and ocean acidification, blamed on rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, to help prepare the next U.N. review of climate science, due for completion in 2014.
Stocker said proposals for imitating the effect of volcanoes by frequently pumping sun-dimming sulphur gases into the upper atmosphere would have knock-on effects on world rainfall.
"You will have additional effects of drying or moistening in various regions of the world that may be unwanted and even surprises," Stocker, a professor at the
Proposals for geo-engineering include mirrors in space as planetary sunshades, sun-blocking gases injected into the upper atmosphere, fertilization of the oceans to grow carbon-absorbing algae or methods to produce more clouds.
The last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 was dismissive, saying geo-engineering was so far "largely speculative and unproven" with "risks of unknown side effects."
"TERMINATION PROBLEM"
Among geo-engineering proponents are 1995 Nobel Chemistry laureate Paul Crutzen, who has proposed spewing sulphates into the upper atmosphere.
Geo-engineering "is a young and emerging branch of the physical science," Stocker said. "It’s natural that additional ideas and options are being discussed."
But, he cautioned that there was also a "termination problem" if the world adopted such geo-engineering projects for several years but then found that damaging side-effects, for instance on world food output, outweighed the benefits.
In one scenario, abruptly stopping injection of sun-dimming sulphates could cause an annual temperature rise 10 times faster than the current rate from global warming if greenhouse gases kept on building up, he said.
Stocker denied suggestions that the panel’s focus on geo-engineering was caused by the failure of world leaders to agree a new U.N. treaty to curb emissions of greenhouse gases at a summit in
"I have seen increasing interest significantly earlier" than
The IPCC is trying to restore credibility after errors including its exaggeration of the thaw of the Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report. It says the mistakes do not affect its conclusion that it is at least 90 percent certain global warming is manmade.
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69Q4BJ20101027
1.2. EU agrees stance for Cancun climate talks
29 October 2010, Reuters
The European Union will only sign up to a second phase of the United Nation’s climate treaty if loopholes are closed and other big economies make deeper cuts to greenhouse gases, EU leaders agreed on Friday.
"The European Union stands ready with an ambitious approach as regards emissions, provided other major emitters also take their responsibilities," Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, said after a summit of EU leaders.
The Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s main tool for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, expires at the end of 2012 and ministers from around the world will fly to Cancun, Mexico in November to try to make progress toward a new deal.
"It is going to be difficult negotiations, but we believe this can be achieved," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
"The goal for Cancun remains a balanced set of decisions which keep up the momentum toward an international framework to keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius."
Leaders believe the EU’s goal of curbing carbon emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels over the next decade is the world’s most ambitious plan, and fear they would put their economies at risk by going further alone.
After Cancun, they will reconsider whether to increase Europe’s ambitions beyond 20 percent carbon cuts.
Leaders also endorsed an agreement this month by EU environment ministers that it was only worth continuing with the Kyoto Protocol’s next phase if gaps were closed and other major economies increased their efforts to cut emissions of the gases blamed for global warming.
Environment ministers said the U.N.’s system for carbon offsetting must be reformed, emissions from forestry should be tackled and countries will have to take a serious look at scrapping excess U.N. carbon offsets, known as AAUs, that threaten to undermine the system.
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69S23N20101029
ENERGY
2.1. New EU energy savings plan due in spring
28 October 2010, Eur Activ
The European Commission’s new energy efficiency action plan will not be ready until next year, but a leaked preliminary document shows that it will be a stripped down version of its predecessor.
Latest indications from EU officials suggest that the EU’s long-awaited Energy Efficiency Action Plan will not be published before February at the earliest.
A Commission spokesperson said that Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, whose services are working on the draft, wants to have a paper with substance rather than rush it through.
A leaked Commission paper presenting "preliminary ideas" for the next action plan acknowledges that the EU will not reach its target of reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020 in light of the latest projections.
"
The EU executive calculates that meeting the target could inject €78 billion annually into the EU economy through lower energy bills while cutting CO2 emissions by 560 million tonnes.
The two-page document, seen by EurActiv, sets the scene for the coming strategy in five key areas: buildings, transport, industry, the energy sector and the public sector.
However, the revised action plan would "depart from the technical approach of proposing a long listing of individual measures" that characterised its 2006 predecessor, the Commission says. Instead, it would seek to give "high political prominence to energy efficiency".
In the spirit of proposing "policy concepts", the preliminary paper is short on suggestions for concrete legislation.
In the buildings sector, the draft picks up on the idea of setting mandatory renovation rates for buildings to improve efficiency but dismisses it on the grounds that neither member states nor the EU executive can force occupants to renovate.
Instead, it identifies the main barriers to upgrading existing buildings as high upfront costs and the missing skills of building professionals.
"The answers are financial support and targeted professional training," the paper says.Ž
Other concrete suggestions include white certificates to oblige energy companies help their customers save energy and the possibility of extending the Eco-Design Directive to include minimum efficiency requirements at system level.
On transport, the Commission simply states that it is closely following the development of the White Paper on Transport, which is currently being prepared by its transport department.
It also floats the idea of introducing energy-efficiency criteria into public procurement, so that public authorities can set an example.
Legally binding target?
Taking a stand on the long-standing debate on whether to make the EU’s 20% efficiency goal legally binding, the paper briefly mentions that national energy-saving targets are "among the options which will be investigated as well".
The draft argues that it is necessary to carefully investigate what is required to achieve energy savings and whether national targets might be a solution. A single figure would not be comprehensive enough but agreement will have to be found on "a set of objectives and related indicators that are best suited to mirror each member state’s situation," it claims.
Many MEPs have been lobbying for a binding energy-efficiency target. A draft own-initiative report by the European Parliament’s industry committee scheduled for vote on 9 November urges the Commission to propose a binding target based on absolute reductions in energy consumption.
An opinion drafted by MEP Peter Liese (
"
"A mandatory target is the first step to the serious policies we need."
Link: http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy-efficiency/new-eu-energy-savings-plan-due-spring-news-499245
2.2.
28 October 2010, Reuters
A leaked European Commission draft report says
"The current situation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management in EU member states is not satisfactory," says the draft, seen by Reuters Thursday.
EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger will propose new, legally binding rules on November 3 designed to pave a safer path for the renaissance of nuclear power generation in countries such as
The best option for disposing of spent nuclear fuel is in "deep geological repositories" — caverns in clay or granite rocks between 100 metres and 700 metres underground — says the draft, which feeds into the EU’s future nuclear waste directive.
The region produces about 50,000 cubic metres (1.77 million cu ft) of radioactive waste EU each year, of which about 500 cubic metres (17,700 cu ft) are highly active, says industry group Foratom.
Anti-nuclear campaigners welcomed planned measures to ensure greater public scrutiny, independence of waste watchdogs and payment of costs by nuclear operators, not by future taxpayers.
But they accused Oettinger’s advisers of glossing over serious doubts about the safety of deep disposal.
"There are gaps in the science, and no disposal site currently exists, yet the Commission is claiming this is a proven method," said Greenpeace campaigner Jan Haverkamp. "We fear a disposal facility could rupture high-level nuclear waste into the water table for hundreds of thousands of years."
Foratom countered that 30 years of research into developing deep sites had proven the method to be feasible.
"As a natural barrier, the rock formation will ensure safety even better than human beings could do," said Foratom’s Christian Taillebois. "Why should we wait any longer before implementing what is described by scientists as the safest option for waste management?"
PUBLIC MISTRUST
Current international rules for nuclear waste carry little legal clout, and most such waste is currently kept in interim storage sites, waiting for a permanent solution.
Public mistrust runs high, with the
Nowhere is the issue more tense than in Oettinger’s homeland, where demonstrators took to the streets of
"Without EU action there is an increasing risk of a negative environmental impact over time," says the draft. "Geological disposal is the only end-point option that is being actively pursued."
"This will place undue burdens and threats on future generations," it adds.
Companies will have to stash away billions of euros to pay for disposal of spent nuclear fuel, ensuring that future taxpayers are not left with the bill and to keep competition fair versus other power generators, who already have to pay for their pollution.
It cited
"These funds should be properly managed and protected in order to make sure that they are available when costs arise," says the draft.
Disposal costs could range between 0.14-0.16 euro cents per kilowatt hour or 3.5-4 percent of the assumed total generating costs of 4 euro cents per kilowatt hour, it says, citing Finnish and Swedish estimates.
Link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69R2DB20101028
2.3. New EU energy savings plan due in spring
28 October 2010, EurActiv
The European Commission’s new energy efficiency action plan will not be ready until next year, but a leaked preliminary document shows that it will be a stripped down version of its predecessor.
Latest indications from EU officials suggest that the EU’s long-awaited Energy Efficiency Action Plan will not be published before February at the earliest.
A Commission spokesperson said that Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, whose services are working on the draft, wants to have a paper with substance rather than rush it through.
A leaked Commission paper presenting "preliminary ideas" for the next action plan acknowledges that the EU will not reach its target of reducing energy consumption by 20% by
"Europe only made half of the way," it says.
The EU executive calculates that meeting the target could inject €78 billion annually into the EU economy through lower energy bills while cutting CO2 emissions by 560 million tonnes.
The two-page document, seen by EurActiv, sets the scene for the coming strategy in five key areas: buildings, transport, industry, the energy sector and the public sector.
However, the revised action plan would "depart from the technical approach of proposing a long listing of individual measures" that characterised its 2006 predecessor, the Commission says. Instead, it would seek to give "high political prominence to energy efficiency".
In the spirit of proposing "policy concepts", the preliminary paper is short on suggestions for concrete legislation.
In the buildings sector, the draft picks up on the idea of setting mandatory renovation rates for buildings to improve efficiency but dismisses it on the grounds that neither member states nor the EU executive can force occupants to renovate.
Instead, it identifies the main barriers to upgrading existing buildings as high upfront costs and the missing skills of building professionals.
"The answers are financial support and targeted professional training," the paper says.
Other concrete suggestions include white certificates to oblige energy companies help their customers save energy and the possibility of extending the Eco-Design Directive to include minimum efficiency requirements at system level.
On transport, the Commission simply states that it is closely following the development of the White Paper on Transport, which is currently being prepared by its transport department.
It also floats the idea of introducing energy-efficiency criteria into public procurement, so that public authorities can set an example.
Legally binding target?
Taking a stand on the long-standing debate on whether to make the EU’s 20% efficiency goal legally binding, the paper briefly mentions that national energy-saving targets are "among the options which will be investigated as well".
The draft argues that it is necessary to carefully investigate what is required to achieve energy savings and whether national targets might be a solution. A single figure would not be comprehensive enough but agreement will have to be found on "a set of objectives and related indicators that are best suited to mirror each member state’s situation," it claims.
Many MEPs have been lobbying for a binding energy-efficiency target. A draft own-initiative report by the European Parliament’s industry committee scheduled for vote on 9 November urges the Commission to propose a binding target based on absolute reductions in energy consumption.
An opinion drafted by MEP Peter Liese (Germany; European People’s Party) in the environment committee went even further, urging the Commission to propose legislation similar to the renewables directive, introducing a binding 25% target for reducing energy consumption.
"Europe needs a mandatory target for energy efficiency like it has for renewables and emissions reductions. Reducing energy use by 20% by 2020 would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and slash emissions in the EU’s fossil fuel dominated energy system," said Brook Riley from Friends of the Earth Europe.
"A mandatory target is the first step to the serious policies we need."Ž
Link: http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy-efficiency/new-eu-energy-savings-plan-due-spring-news-499245
2.4. Industry skeptical of IEA views on EU gas glut: Enagas executive
28 October 2010, The Platts
The International Energy Agency is expected to predict that the EU gas glut will continue beyond 2015 in its World Energy Outlook due out November 9, a senior Spanish gas industry executive said Wednesday.
This contrasts with the views of many in the industry that the glut will turn into a shortage by 2013 or 2014, Francisco de la Flor Garcia, director of regulation for
But with the uncertainty of the unconventional gas boom in the
"Shale gas is not only competitive but in the
Colette Lewiner, global leader for consultancy Capgemini’s energy, utilities and chemicals practice, agreed that there are too many unknowns to say how long the gas glut will last.
"There are a lot of parameters to consider, such as how efficient measures to curb energy consumption will be," she said.
Other factors that could impact the glut include the impact of an economy which remains soft, exceptional weather forecasts and changes to market growth predictions, she said.
LNG market developments have played a significant role in the gas glut, with the
Expected growth in Chinese gas demand, estimated at around 300 Bcm by 2020, could temper the oversupply, while interaction with other sectors such as power generation would be "crucial" to the gas market, de la Flor Garcia said.
The EU also needs to ensure that LNG capacity is fully exploited, for example by ensuring there is enough infrastructure to allow LNG to be exported from countries where there is a surplus, such as
But Enagas and partners have so far failed to find enough private backing to build the 7.2 Bcm/year MidCat gas pipeline project, which would cross
"Shippers were not ready to commit for up to 10 years or more at this stageif we had asked them three years ago maybe the pipeline would have gone ahead," said de la Flor Garcia.
Link: http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/NaturalGas/8118760
EMISSIONS
3.1. EU preparations for Cancun fall far short
29 October 2010, FOEE
Europe’s heads of government today prepared their joint position for the next round of international climate talks with Friends of the Earth Europe warning the agreement falls way below the scale of emission reductions needed and includes a dangerous over-reliance on carbon markets.
The EU Council in Brussels adopted a common negotiating position to take to the crucial UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico which begin in four weeks.
The EU’s long standing pledge to cut emissions by 20% by 2020 was reiterated by the meeting. It represents little more than a ‘business as usual’ scenario and falls far short of the cuts of at least 40% in domestic emissions that are needed to avoid catastrophic climate change, according to Friends of the Earth Europe.
EU leaders endorsed recommendations by Europe’s Environment Ministers to use the Cancun summit to push for the expansion of carbon markets. This will undermine these targets further, opening up loopholes that could potentially counteract the entire effort to reduce emissions in developed countries. Over-reliance on carbon markets is also obstructing the use of other more effective policy measures such as regulation, investments, and taxation.
David Heller, climate justice campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Europe must end its reliance on carbon markets which are failing to solve the climate crisis. Expanding the flawed mechanism that is carbon trading is simply an escape hatch for rich industrialised countries and could create a global speculative bubble in carbon trading – a double whammy of financial and environmental disaster. Carbon trading and international offsets must not replace binding emissions reductions and new public money to enable developing countries to cope with the impacts of climate change and develop sustainably.”
Business attempts to undermine effective European action on climate change are being exposed by the Worst EU Lobbying Awards 2010. www.worstlobby.eu: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2010/Oct29_EU_preparations_Cancun_fall_short.html
Link
3.2. Chinese firms blamed in huge greenhouse gas scam
28 October 2010, SMH
The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.
The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in
Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.
The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.
The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.
The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.
In 2008-9, 134 million permits (84 per cent) of offsets used in the scheme were from industrial gas projects in
Buying this amount of permits in the scheme would cost €2 billion at today’s prices. British companies used 7.6 million of these offsets in 2008-9, worth €116 million, instead of cutting emissions from their own operations.
The gas offsets have attracted criticism, with suggestions some plants exist only to earn money from the offset scheme.
”If you finance an HFC-23 project to reduce the equivalent of a tonne of carbon dioxide, it costs close to nothing,” Ms Hedegaard said. ”Why should the Chinese put a stop to these projects if they get money for continuing to create HFC-23? Here we have a perverse incentive.”
Ms Hedegaard’s office will publish proposals soon on how to end the use of industrial gas offsets in the emission trading scheme. The power to ban their use already exists.
Link: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/chinese-firms-blamed-in-huge-greenhouse-gas-scam-20101027-173yh.html
3.3. End of charging ban comes at cost of congestion charging
25 October 2010, T&E
The EU’s ban on member states charging road hauliers for the unpaid costs of lorry journeys looks set to be partially lifted, after a compromise deal was agreed among member states that could lead to a new Eurovignette directive next year. But the cost of the Belgian presidency getting agreement appears to be the retention of important restrictions on how states can charge for the costs of congestion, plus an air pollution loophole for newer lorries that T&E has described as ‘bizarre’.
The compromise deal would allow member states to charge lorry operators for the external costs of their vehicles’ journeys but only to cover air and noise pollution. But any charging for congestion would have to be revenue-neutral, which means governments could charge extra during busy periods, as long as it reduced the cost of driving in less busy periods – effectively making for very little change compared with the current law. It also means the true cost of congestion caused by lorries cannot be covered.
In approving the deal, EU transport ministers introduced exemptions from air pollution charges for current generation Euro-V lorries and the next-generation Euro-VI, a change that may well be questioned and possibly thrown out when MEPs debate the deal.
T&E has given news of the compromise a mixed reception. ‘It is welcome that this revision of the Eurovignette directive looks set to overturn a long-standing and counterproductive ban on external cost charging,’ said Nina Renshaw, T&E’s deputy director. ‘This prohibition never made any sense, as it violated the polluter-pays principle and blatantly prevented member states from dealing with environmental problems at source.’
‘But not recognising congestion as an external cost restricts how much you can charge and makes the law less effective as a tool. Charging lorries for the damage they cause makes the freight industry smarter and more efficient, and in economically hard times it is much more productive than raising taxes on labour as some countries have done. Furthermore the Euro-V/VI exemption is bizarre – it’s rather like exempting smokers of low-tar cigarettes from smoking bans, and we hope MEPs will throw out this loophole when they review the legislation at its second reading.’
Research for T&E concludes that the unpaid bill to European society caused by lorry transport is around €90 billion a year. Yet successive Eurovignette directives going back 17 years have not allowed member states to charge for the costs to society not paid by lorry operators.
The compromise on congestion charging will apply only to motorway congestion, not to city schemes like those in operation in London and Stockholm.
Link: http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2010/10/End-of-charging-ban-comes-at-cost-of-congestion-charging/
JOBS
4.1. CAMPAIGNER to work on the issue of resource use
Full time and working in the FoEE office in Brussels
Friends of the Earth campaigns for sustainable and just societies and for the protection of the environment. It unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups and is part of the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International. Please see www.foeeurope.org for more information.
This is an excellent opportunity to join one of the leading green NGOs in Brussels and to be part of a vibrant network of national member organisations.
More at: http://www.foeeurope.org/job/campaigner_resources_October10.html
EVENTS
5.1. European Climate Justice Assembly
Brussels, 26th – 29th November 2010
Join us in
In November and December 2010, the UN climate conference “COP16″ will be held in
In
Activists from environmental and social movements from across Europe will be gathering in
Start making plans to attend, and please spread this call in your networks. Let us know if you would like to attend so we can get an idea of numbers that are likely to attend.
The event is being organised by European and Belgian environmental and social movements including Friends of the Earth, Climat et Justice sociale, and La Via Campesina. And we’re still looking for groups and individuals who can help us organising the event, or who want to organise a workshop, film screening, or other activity at the event.
On Sunday afternoon we’ll be joining the Belgian Climate Coalition to “Sing for the Climate”, to bring a climate justice voice to the event.
Following the Assembly, Young Friends of the Earth Europe are organising a convergence in
Before and during the assembly we will be collecting messages to be taken to the UN negotiations in
More at: http://climateassembly.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/european-climate-justice-assembly-brussels-26th-29th-november-2010/
5.2. United Nations Climate Change Conference Cancun – COP 16 & CMP 6
29 November-10 December 2010
Cancun, Mexico
The sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) will be held in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010, together with the thirty-third sessions of the subsidiary bodies and the fifteenth session of the AWG-KP and thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA.
More at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_16/items/5571.php
5.3. Worst EU Lobbying Awards 2010!
Thousands of corporate lobbyists roam the corridors of power in Brussels. Operating out of the spotlight, many of them do not hesitate to employ improper methods: pretending to be concerned environmentalists, scaremongering the EU into inaction, or securing privileged access to EU decision-makers.
These underhand tactics, combined with the strength of big business, have allowed corporate lobbyists to continue for-profit lobbying at the expense of more climate- and consumer-friendly regulation; putting profits before people and the planet.
If these damaging and dirty lobbying tactics worry you, then fear not, help is at hand, and you can be part of the solution. This year’s Worst EU Lobbying Awards is here, with a twofold focus – climate and finance. And, with the help of Lobby-Cleaner, and your vote, we can clean up the lobbying scene in Brussels, discourage controversial lobbying practices by publicly exposing the worst offenders, and discredit the big business lobby among EU decision-making circles.
Lobby-Cleaner, the Worst EU Lobbying Awards’ anti-heroine, also roams the corridors of power in Brussels, but with a different agenda – clean lobbies, and clean lobbying. She is here to clean up the mess created by corporate lobbyists in Brussels. She has rounded up three corporate lobbyists in both the finance and climate categories; those who using the worst lobby tactics to block ambitious and effective European climate and finance regulation in 2010.
But, Lobby-Cleaner is unable to decide the two most deserving of the Award – she’s calling on you to help choose a winner for the climate and finance categories.
Vote now at: http://www.worstlobby.eu/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Disclaimer: We do not guarantee for the accuracy, reliability or content of information. For help or questions, contact: [email protected].
