CLIMATE

1.1. US experts, activists slam Bush opposition to climate change bill
4. June 2008, AFP
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US experts and environmental activists on Tuesday slammed President George W. Bush for threatening to veto a far-reaching climate change bill which is before the Senate for debate.
"We have had seven years of President Bush trying to mislead the country about the science of global warming and the urgency of taking action," Dan Lashof, climate center director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told a news conference.
"Now he’s trying to mislead the country about the economics of taking action," Lashof told reporters listening in to the tele-conference, called to mark the publication of a report on how building a green economy in the United States would create jobs.
Bush warned Monday that the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, which calls for a "cap and trade" system to try to cut emissions in the United States, "would impose roughly six trillion dollars of new costs on the American economy," and threatened to veto it.
"Nay-sayers for taking action now on solving global warming keep pointing to solutions as being a cost to the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth," Bracken Hendricks, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress think-tank, told Tuesday’s news conference.
"It’s critical that all of us question the assumption that global warming is a cost when in fact it represents the future of the US economy," Hendricks said.
The "cap and trade" system suggested in the climate change bill proposes that companies trade permits, giving them the right to emit a certain amount of pollution, "capped" below current emission levels.
During the Bush presidency, the United States walked away from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol, saying its caps on emissions by industrial countries were too costly for the US economy and unfair, as similar constraints were not imposed on big developing countries.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that the climate change bill would have "a devastating impact on the US economy… and result in massive job losses."
The non-profit Institute for Energy Research (IER) argued in an advertisement that the bill could have a catastrophic impact on American jobs.
But the report released Tuesday pointed in the opposite direction.
"What is clear from this report is that millions of US workers will benefit from the project of defeating global warming and transforming the United States into a green economy," it said.
"New job activities will certainly be created in building the green economy and implementing global warming solutions," the report said.
The report highlights a "chance to revitalize this economy with green energy growth," one of its authors, Bob Pollin, said.
Ignoring the economic opportunities inherent in building a green economy has cost the United States its competitive edge and leadership role in developing technology, Hendricks said.
"We’ve seen solar manufacturing and markets taken up by Japan and Germany … because the United States, which invented solar photovoltaic technology, has had a complete abdication of leadership in building this as a strategic industry," Hendricks said.
The Senate debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill began Monday and is expected to run for most of this week.
Link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3t70rEHSfag0tr8Yda4pOgaAmsQ

1.2. U.N. climate change chief confident of 2009 deal
3 June 2008, Reuters
PARIS, June 3 (Reuters) – A new global deal on climate change should be achieved at a meeting in Copenhagen next year despite disagreement at talks this week, the head of the U.N climate change secretariat said on Tuesday.
"I really am confident that at the end of the day, the deal will be struck," Yvo de Boer said in a speech at the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
His comments came a day after the European Union and environmentalists at U.N.-led talks in Bonn called for action on climate change but were met by reluctance from the United States, which said it was too early for substantial steps.
The Copenhagen meeting at the end of next year is intended to agree a new treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that would come into force after the first round of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
De Boer said growing public awareness of the cost of failure to take action on global warming would push governments into taking action, particularly after the agreement reached at the Bali summit on climate change last year.
"I think that the world is expecting an agreed outcome in Copenhagen," he said. "Just as no self-respecting politician could leave the conference in Bali without negotiations being launched, I believe that no self respecting politician can leave Copenhagen without the deal having been concluded."
He said the new pact should be tight and focused and should leave national governments as free as possible to shape and implement their own policies.
"For the Copenhagen agreement to be really successful, it should be as short as possible and focus on the main issues that you can only make effective through an international agreement," he said. "I hope that not all kinds of stuff will be loaded on that doesn’t really belong in that agreement."
Speaking to reporters earlier, De Boer said that concrete action from the United States had been hindered by the presidential election but he believed that all main candidates in the race had shown real awareness of the need for action.
He refused to criticise the U.S. stance, saying Washington had acted responsibly in declining to lay down commitments that would concern a future administration. He said he hoped for an advance next year.
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL03848373._CH_.2400

1.3. Climate Change Debate Begins In Washington, Bonn
3 June 2008, SustainableBusiness.com
Climate change debate began yesterday in the U.S. Senate and in Bonn, Germany, where a new round of negotiations began among 162 nations seeking to create a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.
On Capitol Hill, Senators voted 74-14 to bring debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill to the Senate floor. The bill calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by roughly 66% below current levels by 2050.
The bill is not likely to pass the Senate this year. Opponents say the bill would severely damage the U.S. economy, while proponents say it will create new markets and jobs and only slightly decrease the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Reuters reported that as many as 20 Senators are uncommitted on the bill.
President Bush criticized the bill before the Senate vote, saying it would cost the U.S. economy $6 trillion dollars. He vowed to veto it, should it pass through Congress in its current form.
In a statement that is laughable in context of U.S. war debt accrued under the current administration, Bush said, "I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, responded to the president’s statement.
"Just when we finally have a chance to get off of Big Oil and foreign oil, you can count on the Bush Administration to fight us every step of the way," Boxer said.
A climate change bill is not likely to pass until a new administration enters the White House.
Bonn Negotiations
In Germany, more than 2,000 delegates kicked off a two-week meeting yesterday to continue searching for compromises between developing nations and rich nations that will allow for a world-wide climate change treaty to pick up in 2012 where the Kyoto Protocol ends.
The meeting began with a statement from developing nations asserting that global warming is already negatively affecting millions of people around the globe, as scientists have warned.
Later, Yvo de Boer, the United Nation’s top climate official said, "The critical issue will be financial engineering," referring to the need for developed countries to assist poorer nations in developing clean-power technologies and respond to the effects of climate change, while doing the same at home.
De Boer told the Associated Press that by 2030 the world will need to spend $200 billion to $300 billion a year to contain global warming and help developing nations adapt to changing climate conditions.
Several proposals to raise these funds will be discussed over the next two weeks, though no major agreements are expected.
The biggest issues are being saved until next year, when delegates expect a new U.S. president to be more supportive of the negotiation process. However, this will leave a tight schedule for finding an agreement before the December 2009 deadline set by the negotiating group in January.
At least seven more large meetings will take place over the next 18 months, leading up to a final meeting in Copenhagen.
Bill Hare, a scientist for Greenpeace, said in the half year since negotiators met in Bali, Indonesia, the outlook on global warming has worsened. New reports say ice is melting at a record rate in Greenland and Antarctica, he said, and droughts in Australia, Ukraine and Russia have cut into food production.
"The negotiators here are gathering under a darkening cloud," Hare said. "The level of ambition is far too low."
Link: http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16147

1.4. EU-US summit: A discord of climate
8 June 2008, AFP
BRUSSELS (AFP) — President George W. Bush will attend his last EU-US summit on Tuesday, with some Europeans already looking to the post-Bush era to narrow differences with Washington on divisive issues such as climate change policy.
The Europeans are not expecting a major breakthrough on the issue at the summit in Slovenia, where it is likely to be a main bone of contention, with the two sides expected merely to restate their positions.
"On climate change, the positions are split," Dimitrij Rupel, foreign minister of current EU president Slovenia, put it bluntly last week.
It’s a "difficult subject" and the European and US positions "are still pretty far apart," echoed European Commission vice-president Guenther Verheugen.
The EU nations have set themselves an ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, with an emphasis on renewable energy sources.
However Bush is unwilling to set binding targets in the US without undertakings from emerging economies such as China and India.
US lawmakers blocked a sweeping climate change bill Friday, after Republican warnings of high energy costs dashed Democrats’ hopes for pollution caps under Bush’s administration.
It’s not just Bush’s stance which causes some EU leaders to feel this week’s summit will not achieve very much, on climate change, or anything else which would require future implementation.
It’s "a lame duck administration," is how one EU official put it. "It is an outgoing administration that is no longer very popular in the United States itself so there is not going to be a lot in terms of real decisions that will be acted upon later," he added.
Many Europeans harbour hopes that whoever succeeds Bush — Democrat candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain — will adopt a more sympathetic position at a Copenhagen international summit in December 2009.
At that meeting leaders will seek a worldwide agreement on CO2 emissions reductions after 2012 when the current Kyoto agreement, which the US never ratified, expires.
"Obama and McCain have made clearly more positive noises on climate change," an EU official said.
It’s a sentiment which the US administration does not endorse.
I think that’s a misconception frankly," US Special Envoy for EU Affairs C. Boyden Gray told AFP.
"If you read what Obama has said about China’s need to be engaged (in a global deal) and that what McCain says is identical to what the president is saying, (then) I don’t think that’s going to change."
Gray describes EU-US relations as "quite good now and I think getting better," not least through the "very, very successful" Transatlantic Economic Council set up last year.
Bush "is admired and I would even say very well liked by the leaders who know him," he added, while admitting "that’s not the public image."
Besides climate change — and the interlinked issues of rising fuel and food prices — the Europeans in Slovenia will also be seeking US clarification over travel visa restrictions.
At the moment 12 of the 27 EU member states, mainly from the former Communist bloc, do not enjoy visa-free travel to the United States.
On top of that Washington announced last week that it would ask travellers from western Europe, as a security measure, to provide personal details via an electronic form 72 hours before boarding a plane for the States.
"We will remind the American president of his promise to lift visa requirements," said Verheugen.
Another bone of contention is chickens.
A continuing EU ban on poultry washed in chlorine, in effect a ban on US chicken imports, rankles with Washington.
"There’s no scientific evidence of any health problems," said US envoy Gray, adding that "chlorine of course is used across Europe for other applications, fruits and vegetables, even water."
Brussels has proposed a conditional lifting of the ban but last week veterinary experts from the EU member states said it should remain in place.
"It’s a philosophical problem," said an EU official, who wished not to be named.
For the United States it is still very much a trade issue, and Washington could well bring it to the attention of the World Trade Organisation.
Link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_1v9LU-pwpVw_0cz1RYSUdnVY2w

POLICY

2.1. Transparency campaigners appeal to Barroso to fix flawed lobbyists’ register
3 June 2008, FOEE
Brussels, 3 June 2008 – The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in the EU (ALTER-EU) has today written to Commission President Barroso urging him "to intervene and ensure that the Commission’s new register for lobbyists will deliver transparency". The appeal by the transparency coalition comes after the Commission’s announcement that the long-awaited voluntary register will not include meaningful financial information nor names of lobbyists.
"It took the Commission more than three years to come up with a proposal that is not only inadequate and messed up but it also treats various lobby groups in different ways", says Paul de Clerck (Friends of the Earth Europe). "We are launching an appeal directly to Commission President Barroso. If he is serious about making EU decision making more transparent, he needs to intervene now, in order to fix the flaws in the register".
The weak transparency requirements for the new register have been drafted by the Commission’s Secretariat-General, which operates directly under Mr. Barroso’s responsibility.
"Without names and detailed financial data the register will be a token gesture rather than a serious step forward in securing transparency around EU lobbying", says Olivier Hoedeman from Corporate Europe Observatory. "Launching the register with these glaring flaws would mean that EU citizens will be denied crucial information, such as how many lobbyists are influencing EU decision-making, on whose behalf and with which budgets".
The number of EU lobbyists is generally estimated to be over 15,000, a large majority representing commercial interests. Industry insiders estimate the annual turnover of corporate lobbying in Brussels to be up to 1 billion euro per year. Precise figures are unavailable because of the absence of financial transparency obligations. The proposed register will not list the individual lobbyists, only their firms or lobby groups.
Even though the Commission always indicated that all lobbyists will be treated equally, the current proposal treats various categories of lobbyists differently. The financial data in the register are incomparable and cannot be compiled into meaningful aggregate data.
"All lobbyists should be dealt with in the same way and should disclose lobbying expenses as well as overall budgets", says Jorgo Riss of Greenpeace.
ALTER-EU is particularly concerned about Commission plans to allow lobbying consultancy firms to opt to declare funding from their clients only in 10 per cent steps relative to their total income. This favours bigger lobby firms who can choose to be less transparent about their clients than smaller firms. The weakening of the transparency obligations for these firms is a direct result of aggressive lobbying by EPACA and other interest groups representing Brussels-based lobbyists-for-hire.
"It is unacceptable that the Commission allows large lobby firms, who are mainly working for big business clients, to be less transparent than others," says Ulrich Mueller from LobbyControl.
ALTER-EU calls upon Commission President Barroso to "ensure that the register will include the names of individual lobbyists as well as meaningful financial data, disclosing lobbying expenses in ranges of 10.000 euro".
In addition to the letter sent by the ALTER-EU steering committee, the coalition will this afternoon launch a pan-European letter writing initiative to convince Mr. Barroso of the need to secure transparency around EU lobbying.
Link: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Jun03_ALTER-EU_Transparency_campaigners_appeal_to%20Barroso.html

TRANSPORT

3.1. Public consultation on the revision of the CO2 /cars "labelling" Directive 1999/94/EC
Cars are an important part of the daily lives of a large number of Europeans. However, car usage also has significant impacts on the environment and climate, with 12% of the overall EU emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, coming from the fuel consumed by passenger cars. That is why the Commission has already proposed legislation to reduce the CO2 emissions from passenger cars to an average of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km) by 2012, down from 160g/km in 2006. As part of the integrated approach, further legislative measures will contribute another 10g/km, leading overall to improvements of on average 120 g/km by 2012. An important flanking measure is to ensure that the buyers of new cars are informed about the fuel consumption and the associated CO2 emissions of these cars.
There is already legislation on consumer information, in the form of Directive 1999/94/EC. However, it has been found that the provisions in that Directive are not as effective as they could be. The Directive will therefore be revised. We would like to hear your views regarding consumer information on the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of new cars. They will be used as input for the proposal to revise Directive 1999/94/EC.
The results of this survey will be published on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations_en.htm and will be part of the impact assessment which will accompany the above Communication.
This internet consultation will open on 02 June 2008 and will close on 28 July 2008. No further contributions will be accepted after that date. Please note that this consultation does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. The consultation should not be considered an opinion poll or a forum for voting about these issues. The Commission’s aim is to generate the widest possible range of views to inform the decision-making.
Thank you for taking the time to answer this consultation.
Link: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=co2&lang=en

3.2. GM axes four SUV and truck plants
3 June 2008, BBC
General Motors is closing four truck and sports utility vehicle (SUV) plants in the US, Canada and Mexico as it looks to environmentally-friendly cars.
Recent strikes at some GM factories have dented production of SUVs.
And surging fuel prices have heralded a shift to smaller vehicles, with GM also considering selling its Hummer brand.
But GM’s board has approved production of a new small Chevrolet car at a plant in Ohio and the Chevy Volt electric vehicle in Detroit.
Boss Rick Wagoner said plants to be closed were in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada; Moraine, Ohio; Janesville, Wisconsin; and Toluca in Mexico.
The world’s largest carmaker said it was making the moves "to aggressively respond to growing demand for fuel-efficient vehicles and to economic and market challenges in North America".
Savings target
GM, which has lost a combined $51bn over the past three years, said it had no plans to allocate products to the four affected plants in the future.
The closures will save the firm $1bn a year from 2010, it said.
However, Mr Wagoner said GM was not ready to lay out a timetable for returning to profitability.
GM shares have lost almost 60% of their value since their peak in October 2007.
Some analysts said GM had dithered over what to do with the Hummer brand which could be revamped or sold pending a review of its future.
"Unfortunately, it’s just a sign that once again they’re behind the curve," said Peter Jankovskis, a chief investment officer with Oak Brook Investments, which owns GM shares in some of its portfolios.
"If they were looking to sell the Hummer brand, the more sensible thing would have been to do it three years ago," he added.
"They’re not going to get anything for it. Just in terms of timing, it’s a very poor example."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7433656.stm

3.3. Only stiff rules will drive car makers to see past the petrol
4 June 2008, The Guardian
The government is in a deep hole over cars and carbon emissions. The doubling of the oil price in the past year has seen petrol prices soar to around £1.20 a litre. Ministers are fretting about a planned 2p increase in fuel duty this autumn and about their earlier decision to impose big increases in car tax for gas guzzlers. The scope of the latter is so draconian that humble family cars will be caught in the net. Applying it to older vehicles seems clumsy – punishing past acts rather than trying to influence future behaviour. On one hand, environmentalists are rightly calling for no let-up on taxes designed to cut emissions by making people drive less. On the other, road hauliers, motorists and sundry other interest groups are up in arms about the costs imposed on them. But it’s only by piling on tax pressure that more efficient alternatives come about.
This is the right time to be taxing to encourage cleaner fuels, because the industry is at last bringing out cleaner cars, after a century addicted to gasoline. One hundred years ago this October Henry Ford’s Model T launched the mass motor industry. Simple and rugged enough for country tracks, it was also the world’s first flex-fuel vehicle. Its engine could run on petrol or ethanol; Ford thought that farmers might prefer to make their own fuel from corn. In fact it was already as economical with either fuel as the average American car today. Although engines have become more efficient, cars have become heavier and made to go faster – wasting the improvements solely on speed.
Until the Model T, nine out of 10 cars were electric. Gasoline-powered vehicles came to dominate as oil was found in Texas, and the battery-powered starter motor made internal combustion cars easier and safer to start, without dangerous backfires. Now the car industry looks set for another revolution.
Modern electric cars began with General Motors’ EV-1, designed largely in Norfolk at the Lotus factory in the early 1990s. The acceleration was striking; so was the speed with which the power needle went from full to empty. Heavy batteries, slow charging and corporate indifference ensured the EV1 was a flop. GM, Ford and Chrysler – America’s big three manufacturers – were toying with clean car technology simply to be seen doing something. Vice-president Al Gore gave them $1bn for greener vehicles, which they gratefully pocketed without producing anything worthwhile.
Governments should avoid throwing money at carmakers. The best policy is a pincer movement: imposing tighter emissions rules to force technology change, and taxes that encourage consumers to adopt alternatives. However much they moan, manufacturers know that they can deliver the improvements if they have to. The worst kind of policy is throwing subsidies at supposed solutions such as biofuels. By imposing rules that biofuels must be blended into ordinary petrol or diesel, all the European commission is doing is subsidising farmers. Biofuels will be a sensible alternative only when the cost of making them from plant stalks and other farm waste comes down, as technology improves.
The most hopeful sign across the board is that the car industry, led by Toyota, has realised that it is in its own interest to develop alternative technologies that really work to cut carbon emissions. Toyota has sold a million of its conventional petrol-electric hybrid cars, and other manufacturers are piling in with their versions. GM yesterday reaffirmed bringing to market its Volt plug-in hybrid in 2010 – and said it might ditch its gas-guzzling Hummers.
The Volt is an example of the latest twist in the hybrid – it can be plugged into the mains overnight, and equipped with a battery that can provide a range greater than 30 miles; the petrol engine is only a stand-by if the battery runs down.
Battery-powered vehicles, even if the electricity comes from coal-fired power stations, are more energy efficient than internal combustion engines; if the electricity comes from nuclear or renewables, there is no carbon emission at all.
Beyond the plug-in hybrid or battery-only car being developed by Renault and others, there is the fuel-cell electric vehicle, running on hydrogen and emitting only water vapour from its exhaust pipe. Makers such as Toyota, Honda and Mercedes believe that the car of the future will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells within 20 years, and costs are coming down as parts suppliers develop mass production techniques.
Oil and energy companies are working with Mercedes and others to create a "hydrogen highway" carving through Germany from north to south. The European commission and the German government are putting about a billion euros into developing the network. Even if making hydrogen consumes electricity, the fuel cell is still more efficient than internal combustion engines.
No one can be sure if electric cars, biofuels or hydrogen power are the answer to cutting emissions. What seems to be happening is that these different technologies are competing with each other to improve the carbon footprint of road transport. The tougher the rules, the harder car companies will work to find alternatives. And high petrol prices are already changing US motorists: in March they drove about 10% less than a year earlier, and sales of gas-guzzling SUVs have tumbled. Meanwhile, even if oil eases back to around $100 a barrel, the days of cheap motoring are over.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/04/automotive.oil?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

3.4. It’s lean and mean, but is it green? EU plans clampdown on car ads
5 June 2008, The Guardian
It’s a staple of the glossy magazine: the eye-catching spread selling the latest Chelsea tractor or high-performance German road machine. But the luxury car advert looks likely to become much less attractive under green advertising rules being drafted by the EU.
As a packet of cigarettes carries a mandatory health warning, a Mercedes C-class advert may be forced to carry a climate hazard alert within months. Manufacturers would be forced to stop supplying pollution information in barely readable small print at the bottom of ads.
The European commission is believed to be considering a "traffic lights" system whereby red dots or stars would mark out high-emission cars, and green ones low-pollution ones. An alternative may be an alphabetical system of A-G grades for pollution levels.
As a result, magazine publishers, advertising executives, TV bosses and car manufacturers are to protest today when they meet senior commission officials. "The massed ranks of the media are up in arms," said Angela Mills Wade, executive director of the European Publishers Council.
The new rules would force advertisers to leaven their creativity by including information on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in their sales pitches.
"This will not achieve the goal," said David Mahon of the European Federation of Magazine Publishers, whose members will be hit hardest by the proposals.
Chris Davies, a Lib Dem MEP, dismissed the protests as "nonsense", likening them to those of the tobacco barons 20 years ago. "The objective is to encourage a shift in consumer behaviour," he said. "They’re more interested in looks and appearance, speed and power, the sexy image. If the aim is to reduce emissions, you need to change that behaviour. Through its advertising, the car industry shapes market demand."
Davies, who wrote a report on the issue adopted by the parliament last October, is calling for environmental data to take up 20% of the ad space.
But the ad agencies argue their work has a minimal role in persuading people to buy a new car, raising the question of why car companies take up so much space in magazines.
The commission inaugurated a two-month period of consultations on the issue this week before unveiling its proposals. But it is clear that regulators are to toughen the terms for trying to sell cars.
"The labelling directive in force is not working as well as it could and needs to be amended," the commission said. "[We are] … committed to reducing CO2 emissions from cars [and ensuring] that consumers have sufficient information to choose fuel-efficient and low-emitting cars."
With cars currently emitting some 12% of total CO2 across Europe, the drive to cut road vehicle pollution is an integral part of the broader campaign to put Europe at the forefront of the global fight against climate change.
But despite the ambitious aims, the EU’s 27 governments are locked in battle over how to share out the load of reaching the greenhouse gas targets.
Environment ministers from the member countries meet today to argue over the problem. On cars the aim is to limit CO2 emissions from new cars to 120g a kilometre by 2012.
But governments cannot agree on the basis for calculating the emissions, how to deal with offenders or whether and what level of fines to levy. Germany, home to BMW, Porsche and Mercedes, is pleading for special treatment.
While Davies and others in the European parliament want to extend the advertising rules to TV, radio and the internet, without quite knowing how to, it appears the new regime will initially be restricted to the print media.
Mahon argues this could be ruinous for the publishing industry, since car companies supply about 10% of ad revenue and are threatening to halt magazine advertising if forced to make loud statements about pollution.
The UK is also drawing up new rules on advertising. Department of Transport officials are considering new guidelines for manufacturers that would require the amount of greenhouse gas produced by a car to feature alongside branding and marketing slogans. The biggest change would be to roadside billboards and print adverts, very few of which currently mention a vehicle’s carbon footprint.
Campaigners say such a change would close a loophole which allows the CO2 figures to be omitted from "primarily graphical" information.
The Department for Transport said: "There are already rules governing including CO2 emissions information in car adverts, for example on prominence. The department will [be] reviewing whether to extend our guidance to cover outdoor media like billboards."
Sian Berry, of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s, said the car industry had "gleefully exploited loopholes to leave CO2 information out of as many adverts as they can".
A survey by Friends of the Earth last year showed that more than half the car adverts in national newspapers were for the biggest polluters, which emit more than 165g of CO2 per km.
"It can be a bit of a struggle for consumers to find out about the carbon emissions of a car they’re thinking of buying," said Berry.
"The right place for that information is in the showroom and not on the billboards or in the papers," said Mahon.
"The fear is that there will be a reduction in the overall amount of media advertising," said Mills Wade.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/05/carbonemissions.carbonfootprints

PUBLICATIONS

4.1. Link of the official website of the next french presidency of EU: http://www.ue2008.fr/

4.2. VOODOO ECONOMICS AND THE DOOMED NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE: a research paper
Link: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf

CONFERENCES

5.1. The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century
ING, Avenue Marnix, 24 B-1000 Brussels, Building I
Wednesday 2nd July 2008, 17:30 – 19:00
This debate will address the role of nuclear energy and whether its contribution to the new energy goals of the EU, notably sustainability and low emissions, can compensate for concerns about its potential harmfulness to the environment.
Link: http://www.europeanmovement.org/events.cfm?ThisMonth=7&year=2008

5.2. Bonn Climate Change Talks 2008
Sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies, 2-13 June 2008, Bonn, Germany
The twenty-eighth sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be held from 4-13 June 2008.
The second session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 2) and the second part of the fifth session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 5 ) will be held from 2-12 June 2008.
More info at: http://unfccc.int/2860.php

5.3. CLIMATE CHANGE – ANALYSING, PROBLEM-SOLVING, MOBILISING
12-13 June 2008, How can you become a participating organisation ?
More at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/agora/agora_participation_en.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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