Energy roadmap backs renewables

Half of the world's energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, a study has said.

It said alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, could provide nearly 70% of the world's electricity and 65% of global heat demand.

Following a "business as usual" scenario would see demand for energy double by 2050, the authors warned.

The study, by the German Aerospace Center, was commissioned by Greenpeace and Europe's Renewable Energy Council.

The report, Energy Revolution: a sustainable world energy outlook, provided a "roadmap" for meeting future energy needs without fuelling climate change, said Sven Teske from Greenpeace International.

"We have shown that the world can have safe, robust renewable energy, that we can achieve the efficiencies needed and we can do all of this while enjoying global economic growth," he said.

He added that the strategy outlined in the report showed that it was economically feasible to cut global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by almost 50% over the next 43 years.

'Solar generation'

The report calls for ageing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to be replaced by renewable generation when they reach the end of their operational lives.

"Right now, we have five main sources of energy - oil, coal, gas, nuclear and hydro. In our scenario, we have solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-energy and hydro," Mr Teske told BBC News.

He added that they had developed 10 regional scenarios to highlight which renewable sources would be most effective in particular parts of the world.

"Of course, for the Middle East we have a lot of solar power, while northern Europe and North America will have a lot more wind energy in the mix.

"We also dissect it by sector," he added. "Renewables will dominate the electricity sector, and the heating and cooling sectors.

"By 2050, in our scenario, the majority of fossil fuels will be used in the transport sector."

China is pushing ahead with a rapid building programme for fossil fuel power plants to sustain its economic growth. A statistic often quoted is that it is effectively bringing a 1GW coal power station online each week.

As these plants are expected to be operating for at least 40 years, there is concern that this is "locking" greenhouse gas emissions into the world's energy supply for decades to come.

Mr Teske said this had been factored into their figures: "If you look at our scenario for China, you will see that the demand for coal will increase over the next 10 years because we have assumed that all the power plants being constructed will be used."

He added that the increase in demand for energy in emerging economies and developing nations would be balanced by greater efficiencies being made in developed nations.

But he said that it would not mean rich nations would have to "freeze in the dark"; strict energy standards would ensure only the most efficient electrical goods, heating systems and vehicles would go on sale.

Political will

The best way to curb greenhouse gas emissions without harming economic growth has made its way to the top of the political agenda.

The European Commission recently published its strategic review, outlining a range of measures that it felt would deliver a reduction in emissions while not undermining energy security.

These included tighter efficiency standards for goods and housing in the EU; strengthening the European Emissions Trading Scheme; and plans to revamp the way the region's energy market.

However, plans to introduce legislation to limit CO2 emissions from cars were shelved after disagreements within the commission and further afield.

The apparent lack of political consensus on the best way to proceed was a concern, especially as a number of nations were currently reviewing the shape of future energy supplies, said Arthouros Zervos, president of the European Renewable Energy Council.

"What we want to believe is that there is a change in the minds of politicians, especially after what we have seen happen to the climate," Professor Zervos told BBC News.

"We hope this report will have an effect on the political decision making process."

Source: Copyright 2007, BBC
Date: January 25, 2007
Original URL

Real Climate Change Based Energy Policy: Renewables, Efficiency AND Conservation

Real Climate Change Based Energy Policy: Renewables, Efficiency AND Conservation

A new study by the German Aerospace Center, commissioned by Greenpeace and Europe's Renewable Energy Council, contends that half of the energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewable energy and energy efficiency gains. It is estimated that alternative energy sources including wind and solar could provide nearly 70% of the world's electricity. They state there would be no need for nuclear nor coal energy, though biofuels would be intensified under this scenario. The report entitled Energy [R]evolution: a sustainable world energy outlook seeks to provide a"roadmap" for meeting future energy needs without fuelling climate change. My primary concern (other than severe doubts about the environmental gains from industrial biofuels expressed on many occasions including recently) with the approach taken is the failure to factor in conservation, or willfully using less energy. No one seems willing to say truthfully that addressing climate change through limiting energy use to clean, green sources is going to mean purposefully sacrificing on some luxuries. Who will tell the developed world that their lifestyle is not sustainable? Indications are that people ARE willing to sacrifice for the environment. This is different than efficiency, a factor of technology and mechanics, it is an ethic of shared voluntary simplicity as a societal duty. I do agree with the report's conclusion that an apparent lack of political consensus on the best way to proceed, along with I would add a dearth of leaders with the requesite knowledge and vision, are the biggest hindrances to energy policy that keeps the lights on without frying the Planet.

Exxon Mobil softens its climate-change stance

In one of the strongest signs yet that the U.S. industry anticipates government curbs on global-warming emissions, Exxon Mobil Corp., long a leading opponent of such rules, is starting to talk about how it would like them to be structured.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company by market value, long has been a lightning rod in the global-warming debate. Its top executives openly have questioned the scientific validity of claims that fossil-fuel emissions are warming the planet, and it has funded outside groups that have challenged such claims in language sometimes stronger than the company itself has used.

Those actions have prompted criticism of the company by environmentalists and by Democrats, who recently gained control of the Congress.

Now, Exxon has cut off funding to a handful of those outside groups. It says climate-science models that link greenhouse-gas concentrations to global warming are getting more reliable. And it is meeting in Washington with officials of other large corporations to discuss what form the companies would prefer possible U.S. carbon regulations to take.

The changes in Exxon's words and actions are nuanced. The oil giant continues to note uncertainties in climate science. It continues to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty that limits emissions from industrialized countries that have ratified it. It also stresses that any future carbon policy should include developing countries, where emissions are rising fastest.

Still, the company's subtle softening is significant and reflects a gathering trend among much of U.S. industry, from utilities to automakers. While many continue to oppose caps, these companies expect the country will impose mandatory global-warming-emission constraints at some point, so they are lining up to try to shape any mandate so they escape with minimum economic pain.

Think-tank funding

Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful.

After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and "five or six" other groups active in the global-warming debate, Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, confirmed recently in an interview at Exxon's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to identify the groups beyond CEI; their names are expected to become public in the spring, when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.

Myron Ebell, director of CEI's energy and global-warming program, declined to comment about why Exxon didn't fund CEI last year. But he added: "Like any company, they are concerned about both policies and image.

"We're not at the mercy of our funders for what we believe. But we are dependent on them for funding to help promote our programs," he said. "Obviously, we would like to find a lot more funding on energy and global warming than we've had."

Meetings of the mindss

More significant are the meetings between executives from Exxon and other companies to discuss the potential structure of U.S. carbon regulations. Several parallel tracks of discussions are under way, some sponsored by Washington think tanks, including the Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future.

The meetings underscore the view within much of U.S. industry that the science and the politics of global warming are changing. "The issue has evolved," Cohen said.

Exxon says important questions remain about the degree to which fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to global warming. But "the modeling has gotten better" analyzing the probabilities of how rising greenhouse-gas emissions will affect global temperatures, Cohen said.

Exxon continues to stress the modeling is imperfect; it is "helpful to an analysis, but it's not a predictor," Cohen said. But he added, "We know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken."

What kind of action?

The question is what kind of action. The economic reality is that some companies will win from a carbon constraint and some companies will lose, depending on how regulations are written.

One question is whether a carbon tax or cap should be imposed upstream — on producers of fossil fuels — or downstream, on the industries, and perhaps even the individual consumers, who use those fuels. Another question is whether such constraints should target just a few industries or should be applied across the economy.

Such questions already are sparking fierce lobbying fights among industries in Europe. There, countries have slapped carbon caps on several heavily emitting industries. Now the countries are toughening those constraints.

A similar zero-sum fight appears increasingly likely in the U.S. California adopted a broad global-warming cap last year, and now it has to decide which companies, and perhaps which consumers, to stick with the responsibility for meeting the targets. Other states say they plan to follow California's lead.

In Washington, meanwhile, Democratic congressional leaders say they will push for some sort of federal carbon constraint.

"By all indications, we'll certainly see much more legislative activity at the state and federal level going forward," Cohen said. Among the broad options being debated, he said, "some look more favorable to us than others."

'Broadest possible base'

Exxon wants any regulation to be applied across "the broadest possible base" of the economy, said Jaime Spellings, Exxon's general manager for corporate planning. Exxon says avoiding a ton of carbon-dioxide emissions is, with certain exceptions, less expensive in the power industry than in the transportation sector.

Though solar energy remains expensive, reducing a ton of emissions by generating electricity from essentially carbon-free sources such as nuclear or wind energy is cheaper than reducing a ton of emissions through low-carbon transportation fuels such as ethanol.

Exxon, like the U.S. government, also argues that any regulation should take into account rising emissions from developing countries, too. Both Exxon and the federal government oppose the Kyoto Protocol.

The fact that Exxon officials are beginning to lay out even these generalities is significant, said Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future.

"They are taking this debate very seriously," said Sharp, a former Democratic congressman long active in energy-policy debates. "My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate."

Source: Copyright 2007, Wall Street Journal

Original URL

India should work against global warming

'India should work against global warming' PRESS TRUST OF INDIA London, : India should play a major role in bringing about a new deal on global warming and avoiding the pitfalls of the developed countries while developing its own economy, Britain's Scretary of State for Environment David Miliband said. "It is very important India plays a strategic role in the battle against global warming and in that it should get necessary help from every one," Miliband told PTI on the eve of his four-day visit to India commencing in Delhi tomorrow. "Global warming is a challenge to all countries and I am interested in learning how India is coping up with it. "25 per cent of the Indian population live in coastal areas and 27 per cent of the Indian economy is agro-based and climate change and rising sea levels are desperately dangerous for the Indian people and the Indian economy," he said. Most scientists concur that temperatures would rise by two to six degrees Celsius this century, mainly because of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, putting millions of lives at risk from flood and famine. "The British government wants to have a real partnership of equals with the Indian government in coming to terms with climate change and global warming. We feel there is a moral and economic responsibility for the industrialized countries to show that they are willing to take the lead in cutting carbon emissions. "But there is also a requirement that all countries are part of a global emissions reduction deal," Miliband said.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/latest_full_story.php?content_id=152321

Global warming could cast chill on India’s growth story: UK report

Global warming could cast chill on India’s growth story: UK report

NEW DELHI,
Global warming and climate change could affect India’s growth story unless a range of steps are taken to address the effects of increased surface temperature and its effect on monsoon pattern and river flows.

This is according to a report released in London today commissioned by UK Chancellor Gordon Brown and authored by Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank. In his 700-page report, Stern calls for an urgent shift to a low-carbon economy in countries like India which could translate into huge business opportunities for the developed world.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called the report the “final word’’ on why the world must act now. “The case for action is the final piece of the jigsaw to convince every single political leader, including those in America, China and India, that this must be top of their agenda,” he said.

There is a wealth of evidence quantifying the economic costs of climate change in India. Experts from the University of Reading have estimated that mean summer rainfall in India will increase by 10% — along with rainfall intensity — and this will be accompanied by more regional variations. This is likely to affect agriculture and, therefore, GDP growth.

The review identifies three elements of policy required for an effective response: carbon pricing, through tax, trading or regulation, so that people pay the full social cost of their actions; policy to support innovation and deployment of low-carbon technologies and removal of barriers to energy efficiency and measures to inform, educate and persuade.

Some of the key predictions, according to the Stern report, of changes over the next 100 years:

• Regional climate models suggest 2.5-5 degrees Celsius rise in mean surface temperature. Regionally within India, northern India will be warmer.

• 20% rise in summer monsoon rainfall. Extreme temperatures and precipitations are expected to increase.

• All states will have increased rainfall except Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu where it will decrease. Extreme precipitation will increase, particularly along the western coast and west central India.

• Hydrological cycle is likely to be altered. Drought and flood intensity will increase. Krishna, Narmada, Cauvery, Tapi river basins will experience severe water stress and drought condition and Mahanadi, Godavari, Brahmani will experience enhanced flood.

• Crop yield decrease with temperature and rise with precipitation. Prediction of loss of wheat is more. Rabi crops will be worse hit which threatens food security.

• Economic loss due to temperature rise estimated between 9-25%. GDP loss may be to the tune of 0.67%. Coastal agriculture suffers most (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka), Punjab, Haryana, Western UP will face reduction in yield; West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh will gain marginally.

• 100-cm sea level rise can lead to welfare loss of $1259 million in India equivalent to 0.36% of GNP.

• Frequencies and intensities of tropical cyclones in Bay of Bengal will increase particularly in the post-monsoon period and flooding will increase in low-lying coastal areas.

• Malaria will continue to be endemic in current malaria-prone states (Orissa, West Bengal and southern parts of Assam north of West Bengal). It may shift from the central Indian region to the south-western coastal states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala. New regions (Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram) will become malaria prone and transmission duration window will widen in northern and western states and shorten in southern states.

What is Global Warming?

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future.

Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."^[1] The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture.

Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity; for example, future emissions may be constrained by availability of fossil fuels.

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise) is expected to continue past then, since CO₂ has a long average atmospheric lifetime.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combatting global warming. (See List of Kyoto Protocol signatories.)

Global warming becomes hot topic on Capitol Hill

Global warming becomes hot topic on Capitol Hill By Jim Snyder and Jessica Holzer

Facing the loss of the committee gavel he used to block global warming legislation, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) urged corporate executives late last month to keep up the fight against greenhouse gas emission limits. “In 2007, there will likely be many bills introduced, hearings held, and floor debates on the issue of climate change,” the Senate’s leading global warming skeptic wrote to “several dozen” CEOs in a three-page letter that challenged dire climate forecasts and estimated greenhouse gas emissions would carry a heavy economic cost. He warned executives that “Wall Street will not reward” companies that “are positioning themselves in the hope for specific climate proposals.” Whether Inhofe’s marketplace advice proves worthwhile remains to be seen. But his political prognostication seems spot-on. In just the third week of the 110th Congress, bills that seek to curb global warming are among the hottest on the Hill. Presidential candidates are among the supporters, including the favorite to win the Republican nomination, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Environmental groups are increasingly optimistic that a measure might reach the president’s desk. “It is becoming nearly a full-time job just tracking various global warming plans in our nation’s capital,” Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch wrote in an e-mail yesterday that listed a few of the proposals. There was even a rumor that President Bush was among the converts and that he planned to support a greenhouse gas emissions cap in his State of the Union address. But Tony Snow, his press secretary, put that to rest on Tuesday, saying it wasn’t true. Democrats say they are committed to moving global warming legislation forward, after Inhofe and other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee thwarted climate change legislation in the last Congress. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the new Environment and Public Works Committee chairwoman, plans a hearing next week on various climate proposals and has said it is her intention to move a bill to the floor. Action seems less clear in the House. In a letter he sent last week to committee members, John Dingell (D-Mich.), Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, called climate change the one issue the panel must address, but he also seemed to indicate that a bill will not come out soon. “It is critically important that Members of the Committee gain a full appreciation of the scientific and substantive implications of climate change policy so that we can develop and, if at all possible, enact a sound and effective public policy that is environmentally and economically responsible,” Dingell wrote. While the Senate may move faster, Democrats there will have to overcome differences among themselves before a measure gets to the floor even though a number of Senate Republicans also support climate-change measures. There are four main climate proposals in the Senate. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced a bill yesterday that would cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 10 percent from 2006 levels by 2020. “This is the first of five bills to address the No. 1 environmental issue facing this planet: global warming,” Feinstein said. She intends to introduce companion measures that will target emissions from industries besides electric utilities, raise fuel efficiency standards for cars by 10 miles per gallon over the next decade, promote biodiesel and other cleaner-burning fuels, and raise energy-efficiency standards. Feinstein said the broad effort was necessary to limit global temperature increases and therefore avert the most serious consequences of global warming. But she also acknowledged that her measure’s political success is not assured. “I know that coal is in 40 states, and garnering the votes here in the Senate will be very difficult,” she said. Coal is critical because it produces more than half the power used in the United States, despite its reputation as a dirty fuel. As many as 154 new coal plants have been proposed, according to the Energy Department. Most will not be built, but coal, which is relatively cheap and abundant, is still likely to be the mainstay for electricity generation into the foreseeable future. Industry officials claim that technology that would siphon and then store carbon dioxide emissions is not ready for widespread use and therefore a federal carbon cap is premature. Electric power plants account for a third of the carbon emitted in the United States. But six utilities are supporting Feinstein’s bill. By far the most aggressive approach to global warming is a measure authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that also has the support of EPW Chairwoman Boxer. It calls for slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. A host of environmental groups signed a letter of support for the legislation. Sanders acknowledges his plan is ambitious but said the problem required goal-setting on the order of putting a man on the moon or preparing to fight World War II. “I think the American people are catching on that we have a huge crisis,” Sanders said. A third proposal, authored by McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), is similar to Feinstein-Carper in that it would use a “cap-and-trade” program to cut emissions. But its target is steeper: by 2050, emissions would have to be cut roughly one-third from 2000 levels. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is floating a fourth option that by 2020 would freeze carbon dioxide emissions at levels projected to be reached in 2014. The proposal is meant to attract “key players in the Senate who are a little bit cautious of jumping into the debate,” said Jonathan Black, the lead committee staffer on global warming. Despite the buzz surrounding global warming, neither the Senate nor the House has ever passed a bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups were encouraged that a Sense of the Senate resolution that acknowledged a human cause to global warming passed last year with 55 votes. But a bill offered by McCain and Lieberman, less aggressive than the current version but one that would actually limit greenhouse gas emissions, only garnered 38 votes on the floor last year. Sen. Robert Byrd (D), the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee from West Virginia, a big coal producer, was among the “no” votes. A few Democrats voted no because the measure included financial aid to develop nuclear plants, which do not emit carbon dioxide. Environmental groups remain opposed to that approach, a possible complication to action this year on McCain-Lieberman. “We’re encouraged by declining caps, but as long as the legislation includes nuclear subsidies, it’s a non-starter,” said Julia Bovey, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Carper said the measure he and Feinstein support is the right compromise between doing nothing and the Sanders bill, which he equated with driving 55 mph “and then hitting reverse.” The McCain-Lieberman bill, Carper later said, is like a freeway that lacks an on-ramp. His bill is like the on-ramp. “We need to get started,” he said. Inhofe, now the ranking member on EPW, will remain a critic of all four approaches. In his letter, he said the science was not settled. Even if it were true that humans are causing global warming, he added, efforts in the United States to curb greenhouse gas emissions would be fruitless unless China, India and other developing countries follow suit. China builds a coal plant every three days, Inhofe said, and will overtake the United States as the largest greenhouse gas emitter in 2009. Given the activity out of the gate, however, supporters of climate action increasingly believe that a cap on greenhouse gas emissions is inevitable, if not this year, then in the near future. “Inhofe seems a little like the legendary King Canute, standing at the beach and demanding that the tide stop rolling in,” said O’Donnell of the Clean Air Watch. “Canute’s feet got wet. So will Inhofe’s.”

Canada: Most willing to sacrifice for environment: poll

An increasing number of Canadians are willing to make sacrifices for the environment, according to a poll conducted for CTV News and The Globe and Mail.

About 93 per cent of those surveyed said they were willing to make some kind of sacrifice to solve global warming, according to findings from the poll conducted by the The Strategic Counsel.

According to the results:

76 per cent are willing to pay to have their houses retro-fitted to become more energy efficient
73 per cent would reduce the amount they fly to times when it is only absolutely necessary
72 per cent would pay more for a fuel-efficient car
62 per cent are willing to have the economy grow at a significantly slower rate
61 per cent would reduce the amount they drive in half.

Richard Briggs is one of those Canadians who has changed his ways for the environment.

In fact, even winter's bitter cold can't keep him from biking to work.

There's no car for him to drive, because he's never owned one, and he says he never will.

"I have never taken the bus to work. I don't even know what the routes are that get me there," he told CTV News.

Richard Briggs' wife Carole doesn't use a car either.

She walks her kids to the babysitter, and while getting by without a car is not always easy with the little ones, the Briggs say it's a sacrifice they're willing to make for the environment.

"I think that it is sort of one huge step that one can take to contribute to a healthier planet," she said.

Carole Briggs is not alone. About 83 per cent of those polled say they feel global warming has the potential to harm future generations.

Still, 64 per cent of survey respondents said they were not ready to pay significantly higher prices for gasoline or home heating fuel.

Environmental activists reject the idea that the personal sacrifices or the economic costs of going green are too high.

"We're still biological creatures. If we don't have clean air, if we don't respond to the climate that affects our lives, we're in deep trouble. How can we put the economy above the reality of the world that we live in?" said David Suzuki, the advocate, author and journalist who has become the face of the environmental movement in Canada.

Technical notes

Results are based on tracking among a proportionate national sample of Canadians 18 years of age or older.
Interviews were conducted between Jan. 11 and Jan. 14, 2007.
The national sample size is 1,000. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
The Quebec sample is 247. The margin of error is 6.3 percentage points.
The Ontario sample is 379. The margin of error is 5.0 percentage points.
The Western sample is 297. The margin of error is 5.7 per cent.
The "rest of Canada" sample is 753. The margin of error is 3.6 per cent.

Source: Copyright 2007, CTV
Date: January 26, 2007
Original URL