“Once we have the certainty and predictability, American ingenuity rises to the occasion. There are lots of people prepared to make investments in the new technologies which will allow us to meet the needs of America in terms of security, in terms of electricity production and in terms of a cleaner environment. But we have to give them the rules of the road.” This from Carol Browner, former EPA boss, and now President Obama’s director of energy and climate change policy, on the new US Energy Bill, which could be introduced to Senate as soon as Earth Day 22 April and could well become the clean energy road code.

Carol Browner was interviewed by Carrie Halperin on US ABC News (5 April 2010):

Once thought of as an Al Gore protege, Carol Browner is now President Obama’s director of energy and climate change policy. The Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change was chief administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 to 2001, serving longer than any other administrator.

Browner spent time on the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection, Gore’s climate campaign, as well as the Center for American Progress, a public policy research and advocacy group, before stepping down to join the Obama administration. She has been acknowledged as a key negotiator to the comprehensive Waxman-Markey climate bill, as well as the auto bailout.

In this excerpted interview with ABC News, she talked today about the work that lies ahead as the Obama Administration crafts its energy policy.

Q: It has been suggested that a new energy bill will be introduced in the Senate Earth Day, April 22.

A: There is a bipartisan team, Sen. [John] Kerry [D-Mass.], [Joe] Lieberman [Connecticut independent Democrat] and [Lindsey] Graham [R-S.C.] working to craft legislation that would meet the goal of a comprehensive energy plan. I think they are working over the next several weeks to put that bill out&

Q: What does the president want included?

A: We would hope a plan would build on work that we’re already doing. The president has said repeatedly — at the State of the Union [and] last week — what we need is a comprehensive energy plan for this country, one that breaks our dependence on foreign oil, one that creates a new generation of clean energy jobs, and one that puts a cap on the dangerous pollutants that contribute to global warming. We’re encouraged by the fact that the House has already passed the bill.

Q: Specifically?

A:China right now is guaranteeing that they will build so many wind farms, so many solar farms. That kind of guarantee leads to direct investment. We need to make the same kinds of guarantees.

We’re hoping a comprehensive energy bill will set a renewable electricity standard, a significant commitment to nuclear [energy]. We believe that natural gas offers real opportunities. We think that it’s important to invest in carbon capture and sequestration. We have a lot of coal facilities in this country, we have coal, and we need to make sure that we’re making investments so that if we continue to use coal, we’re doing it in a way that is not damaging to the environment.

We also hope that there will be an investment to allow us to develop the technology for the next-generation vehicles, for example battery technology, we’re making significant investments. We want to not only have the benefits of clean energy, we also want to participate and lead the world in the clean energy revolution.

Q: What about a cap on carbon or some other pricing mechanism?

A: We need a cap on carbon; we absolutely believe that, we are open to what are the mechanisms for ensuring what is the lowest cost for compliance. A trading regime certainly can be a very important part of that, and senators are looking at a variety of options. It’s fairly safe to say that they will incorporate some type of trading mechanism.

Q: Opponents of the bill have argued it will actually cause energy prices to skyrocket and mean the reduction of jobs. What’s your response to that.

A: I think the senators are being very careful to ensure that doesn’t happen, that there are phase-in periods, so that we can bring online the new technology. There is a long history. As you know, I was at the EPA for eight years. There’s a long history of EPA setting environmental standards and people suggesting that life as we know it is going to grind to a halt. In fact, what happens, once we have the certainty and predictability, American ingenuity rises to the occasion, and we find an answer more cheaply and more quickly than anyone had anticipated and it allows us to lead the world in that new technology. I meet with CEOs day in and day out and there are lots of people prepared to make investments in the new technologies which will allow us to meet the needs of America in terms of security, in terms of electricity production and in terms of a cleaner environment. But we have to give them the rules of the road.

We think that there are tremendous opportunities in terms of jobs, if we get the legislation structured properly. Right now the business community is telling us that they won’t make capital investments in renewable technology because they don’ know what the rules will be. They want predictability and certainty when they make those capital investments.

Q: In 2008, candidate Obama made a speech in Jacksonville saying offshore drilling has-long term effects on the coastlines, and wouldn’t do a thing for oil prices. What has changed?

A: Well, first thing, you have to put that statement into context. It was made at a moment when gas prices were rising and Republicans were saying let’s drill, we can lower gas prices. Obviously, drilling doesn’t affect near-term prices. Nothing’s changed. The president has always believed we need to break our dependence on foreign oil, and one of the ways to do that is to expand our domestic drilling. That’s what we’ve announced last week, a very balanced responsible for doing that. We also announced on Thursday more fuel-efficient cars as an important component to breaking our dependence, not just more drilling here, but also better use of efficiency technology. That announcement with the car companies will achieve on average 35.5 miles per gallon by model year 2016; for cars it’s as high as 39 miles per gallon. The Congress has said we needed to get to 35 by 2020, so by working in partnership with the automobile manufacturers, the state of California and others, we were able to achieve greater fuel efficiency and thereby cost savings for the American people.

Q: What can individuals do if they want to take advantage of some of the tax incentives or rebates offered in the stimulus?

A: There are rebates in the stimulus and, hopefully, Congress is going to add some additional ones though the Home Star legislation. Most of the existing tax rebates are focused on updates to insulation, updates to heating and cooling systems. We make small amounts of our electricity from oil. Most of our electricity is made from coal and nuclear, a small amount is made from renewables and, hopefully, we’re going to grow that, and have been growing that since the president came to office. But the issue when it comes from electricity is making sure we are using our existing electricity more efficiently so a lot of the tax credits that were in the recovery act are focused on efficiency.

Goals for Energy Transmission

Q: One of the biggest challenges in getting clean energy online is access to transmission. Is this something you are going to deal with in the energy bill?

A: On transmission, we do have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which does have the authority, which was granted new authority over the last several years to help site lines. I suspect there may be some additional legislation on that issue. Also as part of the recovery act, we’re making investments in new transmission. The way we’ve thought about it is the grid’s got to be bigger, better, smarter. Bigger means we need the right kinds of lines to carry the renewable energies, better means that we have the right kind of leakage that it’s up to date, and then smarter means taking advantage of technologies that actually allow everything from the average homeowner to manage their electricity, to know how much they’re using at any time of day to know why this light bulb is less efficient in their house.

Q: Should the EPA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses?

A: Under a Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts vs. EPA, EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gasses and, in fact once they determine that greenhouse gasses endanger public health and welfare, which they did, under that case they had to regulate greenhouse gasses from automobiles, which they also did on Thursday. In addition to setting the toughest fuel-efficiency standards ever, they also set DOT and EPA together. DOT did the efficiency, EPA did the first greenhouse gas emissions standards. But the president has long said that’s an important authority, but we think that comprehensive legislation can look at all of our energy issues, and not just the climate change issue, which is obviously a very, very important issue. And in the meantime, the EPA has a legal responsibility to use their authority, and I think [EPA administrator] Lisa Jackson should be commended for using it in a responsible and thoughtful way.

Source: www.abcnews.go.com

UK Waste Mountain Reaches New Heights

The phenomenal amount of food and drink thrown away is costing the country UK£17 billion (A$36.7 billion) a year, says  a new report from Wrap, painting the first complete picture of the scale of Britain’s waste mountain, which hit 18.4 million tonnes last year. This includes food, drink and excess packaging discarded by households, distributors, retailers and manufacturers, adding up to a carbon cost equivalent to an extra 12.4 million cars on British roads.

By Nina Lakhani and Susie Mesure in The Independent (5 April 2010):

Households, not retailers, produce the bulk of food and drink waste.

The phenomenal amount of food and drink thrown away in Britain is costing the country £17 billion ($36.7 billion) a year, at a time when the economy is still struggling to emerge from the longest recession on record.

A new report paints the first complete picture of the scale of Britain’s waste mountain, which hit 18.4 million tonnes last year. The figures, which include food, drink and excess packaging discarded by households, distributors, retailers and manufacturers, will increase pressure on the British Government to accelerate its long-awaited plans to slash waste.

Wrap, the Government’s recycling body that published the report, said the environmental cost is compounding the economic impact. The carbon cost of all that wasted food and drink is equivalent to an extra 12.4 million cars on British roads.

Environmental activists leapt on the figures yesterday, which they said highlighted the Government’s failure to focus on waste prevention.

Julian Kirby, Friends of the Earth’s resource use campaigner, said: “Neither the economy nor the planet can afford to foot the bill for the staggering level of waste in the UK food chain. There is not enough talk about prevention, which is where we need to see much greater focus from government and industry. The Government must act on this report across the food supply chain and end its own wasteful and costly obsession with incineration.”

The report underlined that households produce the vast bulk of food and drink wasted in Britain, throwing away 11.9 million tonnes every year, at a cost of £12 billion. This is two-thirds of the country’s total waste mountain. Manufacturers are the next worst offenders, wasting 5 million tonnes annually, with retailers wasting 1.4 million tonnes and a further 100,000 tonnes getting lost during the distribution process.

In response to government pressure, retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer are all trying to send less waste to landfill to meet EU targets and avoid hefty fines. Critics believe this focus on landfill is diverting retailers from exerting pressure on suppliers to cut waste throughout the supply chain.

Liz Goodwin, chief executive of Wrap, said the survey would help to focus attention on where the most food and drink are being wasted. But she warned that retailers and manufacturers had to work together to have any hope of reducing the vast vats of unused food and drink, and piles of excess packaging. “We need to improve communication between various parts of the supply chain. For example, if retailers talk to their suppliers, we will be able to get the best outcomes,” she said.

While the big numbers concern household waste, Goodwin said there is a lot of potential to reduce manufacturing waste. Some efforts were working, she added, pointing to a Waitrose initiative to throw away fewer bananas. “Getting them to recognise the need for customers to accept more cosmetically imperfect fruit meant less than 3 per cent of its bananas got wasted in 2008, down from 40 per cent in 2002.”

Wrap has also commissioned a number of so-called “food maps”, which Goodwin said would spell out exactly where food was being wasted along the supply chain.

One example concerns onions: millions were being thrown away because they were not all standard shapes and sizes. “Sainsbury’s has now added misshapen ones to its Essentials line, which has had a massive impact,” she added.

MPs want the Government to force retailers and manufacturers to reveal how much food their businesses waste annually. They are also calling for retailers with annual sales greater than £50 million to publish details of waste prevention strategies, spelling out targets to reduce each type of product. Although Wrap also recommended that companies measure waste so they could track their progress in reducing it, the Government last month said it would “not be logical” to isolate retailers.

Wrap’s report, written by the consultancy firm Oakdene Hollins using data compiled by the services group DHL, makes the best estimate to date of the amount of food that supermarkets waste. Extrapolating figures from an analysis of one retailer’s skip suggests grocers threw away 232,200 tonnes of food in 2008 – barely down from 291,300 the previous year.

A spokesman for the British Retail Consortium said its members had cut packaging growth and helped customers to reduce waste by “providing consistent on-pack recycling information, improving recycling facilities and giving out free recipe cards”.

More than 40 grocery retailers and manufacturers have signed up to government targets to help householders to reduce the amount of food thrown away by 155,000 tonnes by the end of this year. In addition, they are trying to reduce packaging waste by 5 per cent.

The carbon cost breaks down as 10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, from food and packaging waste in the supply chain, and a further 26 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, from household waste.

The Government has pledged to bring its proposals to cut waste in line with European Union targets by the end of this year. It has until 2013 to put a waste prevention plan in place, according to an edict from Brussels.

WASTE MOUNTAIN

Costing: £17 billion ($36.7 billion) a year.

Size: 18.4 million tonnes.

Households: * 11.9 million tonnes of waste annually. * £12 billion annual cost.

Carbon cost: * 10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from food and packaging waste. * 26 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, from household waste.

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz

Global Approach To Cut Growth In Agricultural Emissions

How agriculture can be intensified to feed a growing population while at the same time environmental concerns – including how the growth in agriculture emissions can be curtailed – are addressed. This Malthusian conundrum is grabbing  the attention of about 80 scientists, officials and politicians from 28 countries at Wellington’s Te Papa museum. The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases has justifiably been hailed as the New Zealand Government’s most important foreign policy initiative.

Fran O’Sullivan in New Zealand Herald (7 April 2010):

Daunting challenge to feed the world

The big issue is how to feed a growing population in an environmentally-friendly way.

Prime Minister John Key will today front the first full meeting of a global alliance which is tasked with solving one of the greatest conundrums facing mankind: “How to grow more food to feed the exploding global population – yet emit less greenhouse gases.”

This Malthusian conundrum will grab the attention of about 80 scientists, officials and politicians from 28 countries over the next three days at Wellington’s Te Papa museum.

But the sheer magnitude of the problems facing humanity as it tries to grapple with the expected increase in the world’s population to nine billion people by 2050 is daunting.

At issue is how agriculture can be intensified to feed a growing population while at the same time environmental concerns – including how the growth in agriculture emissions can be curtailed – are addressed.

Just one example: The International Food Policy Research Institute suggests rice and wheat yields in developing nations could decrease as much as 19 per cent to 34 per cent respectively by 2050 because of climate change. If no solution is found – it will pave the way for starvation in some countries.

The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases has justifiably been hailed as the Key Government’s most important foreign policy initiative.

It was unveiled by United States Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and New Zealand’s Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser at last December’s United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen – one of the few solid initiatives to emerge from that ill-fated meeting.

Vilsack’s announcement that the US would expand its research budget for agricultural gases by another US$90 million ($128 million) over five years to support the alliance’s work was critical for the credibility of the project.

Canada also voted C$27 million ($38 million) and New Zealand has chipped in $45 million.

Vilsack later used his blog to champion the initiative to US citizens saying it would bring together the nation’s best agricultural scientists to develop the science and technologies that farmers around the world need to reduce greenhouse gases and yet ensure agriculture meets the world’s growing need for food, feed, fibre, and biofuels.

It fits with the Obama Administration’s desire to have a “progressive” farming regime.

Twenty members were signed up for the Copenhagen announcement. The alliance now has 28 members including: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Ghana , India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Britain, the United States, Uruguay and Vietnam. Three other countries, China, Brazil and South Korea, will have observer status.

There are big issues in front of the delegates: While Vilsack advocates scientific collaboration – there will inevitably be tension over who owns the science.

Even determining consistent measures for agricultural emissions will be a stretch. But it will be abundantly obvious that without technological innovations the major challenges facing the world will not be surmounted.

Groser stresses building trust and confidence in the process will be one of the big challenges.

During closed sessions the delegates will determine how the alliance is governed and the leadership of four agriculture workstreams: Intensive livestock, extensive livestock, arable crop and rice paddies.

With nearly 80 per cent of agriculture emissions coming from livestock production, there will inevitably be debate over what is the right agricultural mix to ensure growing populations can be fed.

This issue is of critical national importance to New Zealand.

While agriculture is 14-15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions it comprises 45 per cent of New Zealand’s emissions profile.

New Zealand has put its money where its mouth is.

New Zealand will also take the opportunity to showcase its own initiatives during the next few days – the $50 million new domestic agricultural greenhouse gas research centre which has been established at Massey University in Palmerston North; work being done on a greenhouse gas foot-printing strategy for the primary sector and also the ground-breaking decision to include agriculture in New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

But even before Key makes his opening comments this morning, his Government is having to deal with a backlash.

Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson is using the event as a platform to attack agriculture’s inclusion in the ETS.

“Yes the world is fully behind New Zealand, in fact they’re a long way behind us looking on while the New Zealand Government prods our farmers out into an ETS in no-man’s land.”

But Nicolson neglects the opportunity for agriculture to profit from the ETS through carbon sequestration in soils – another issue in front of the scientists.

The science is controversial.

Arable soils have the potential to sequester an estimated 6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. But – as with biofuels – people will be severely impacted if too much is used for carbon trading instead of feeding people.

Global markets for food failed in 2008 as countries shut down exports in the face of rising grain prices. The markets have yet to fully recover. Getting the tradeoffs right will be a major task.

Key deserves praise for garnering support from the United States for this initiative during his visit to New York for the General Assembly meeting last September.

Groser first floated the concept in December 2008 at the annual United Nations climate change conference.

But its gestation may well have sprung from a suggestion made by former National Cabinet Minister Simon Upton at a meeting of the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum for more transtasman collaboration in such areas.

But it was not until Key secured support from US President Barack Obama that the initiative had real legs.

New Zealand has invited two luminaries to act as scene-setters for the alliance.

India’s MS Swaminathan – who is known as the father of the green revolution and is a plant geneticist by training – has the street cred to talk about the agricultural renaissance in his country.

Swaminathan was hailed by Time magazine as among the 20 most influential people in Asia.

Princeton University’s Timothy Searchinger will set out the challenge of how to feed a growing world population while reducing greenhouse gases from agriculture.

The alliance is expected to develop partnerships, between farmers and agriculture organisations, the private sector, international and regional research institutions and other non-governmental organisations.

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz

The New Zealand Government is under increasing pressure from business, farmers and coalition partner Act to delay or at least soften the impact of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) ahead of its introduction in July this year, while the Rudd government in Australia has transferred its emissions trading scheme team into the strife-prone household insulation program, relegating plans for carbon trading this year to the back burner.

By Adam Bennett In New Zealand Herald (7 April 2010):

The New Zealand Government is under increasing pressure from business, farmers and coalition partner Act to delay or at least soften the impact of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) ahead of its introduction in July this year.

Yesterday Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly confirmed his organisation was one of a number of signatories to a letter from business groups to the Government in March asking it to delay or alter the entry onJuly 1 of key parts of the scheme.

The Herald understands other signatories included the NZ Chambers of Commerce, the Road Transport Association, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association, the Major Electricity Users Group and the Meat Industry Association.

Mr O’Reilly said the Government had made it clear its scheme was based on the expectation Australia would have its own ETS in effect before New Zealand and the local version would not cause a flight of capital or labour to countries that did not have carbon pricing.

“We weren’t delighted with the scheme but were comfortable with it based on those predications. They’re no longer there and really the Government needs to be rethinking the nature of the scheme and its impact.”

Mr O’Reilly said Business NZ and other groups, including the Business Roundtable, had suggested three options in their letter: delaying the implementation of the scheme, amending it to give greater protection to emitters facing strong overseas competition, or bringing forward the 2013 review to 2011.

Don Nicholson of Federated Farmers said his organisation did not sign the letter but “would have been very supportive” if given the opportunity.

He indicated that Federated Farmers would continue its opposition to the scheme.

Act MP John Boscawen continued his attacks on the ETS last week in Parliament, saying that although agriculture would not be coming into the scheme until 2015, farmers would suffer significant additional costs from July this year anyway.

“No less than three-quarters of the ETS tax that farmers will pay comes as a consequence of their use of electricity, and petrol and the emissions of the dairy processing factories.”

That could add $7800 a year to the average dairy farmer’s costs.

Climate Change Issues Minister Nick Smith was not available for comment yesterday.

Labour climate change spokesman Charles Chauvel said he was aware of the pressure on the Government because of “rushed amendments” aligning the scheme with Australia’s.

“It will be interesting to see whether it can resist pressure from certain business interests to suspend the scheme instead of amending it to make it better.”

Green Party co-leader and climate change spokesman Russel Norman said suspending the scheme would send a signal to business “that there’s never going to be a price on carbon”.

CER is the Closer Economic Relations agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz

By national political editor Simon Kearney in The Sunday Telegraph (4 April 2010):

THE Rudd government has transferred its emissions trading scheme team into the strife-prone household insulation program, relegating plans for carbon trading this year to the back burner.

The team of 154 bureaucrats, who cost taxpayers an average of $370,000 each to plan for the non-existent emissions trading scheme, will instead be put to work sorting out problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program that left four people dead and has been implicated in 120 house fires up to March 24.

With a budget of $57 million this financial year alone, the public servants are working for the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority – an agency that is little more than a name until the legislation to create an emissions trading scheme passes through federal Parliament.

Is it a waste of money? Tell us what you think below

The Sunday Telegraph has reviewed dozens of contracts let by the department relating to the fitout of the yet-to-be-built building in Canberra and publicity campaigns.

Among them are $22,000 for six coffee machines, $22,000 for 120 stackable chairs and $35,000 for stand-alone air conditioners – the least energy-efficient cooling units on the market.

Hiring for the “phantom agency” – as it has been dubbed by the Opposition – is continuing, with plans to take staffing to 300 by the end of next year, according to Department of Climate Change deputy secretary Geoff Leeper.

Emissions trading laws, officially known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, are stalled in the Senate and now face a firm “no” vote from the Opposition.

They laws formed the centrepiece of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s response to climate change, which he dubbed the “greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”.Not only do the bureaucrats have nothing to do, but Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has not made an official announcement on emissions trading since last November.

Senator Wong denied the entire emissions trading team had been redirected.

She said the intelligence and compliance branch of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority had been temporarily deployed so that it could help with compliance and audit arrangements for the bungled Home Insulation Program.

“The ACCRA group continue to work on the development and implementation of the CPRS and their other compliance/regulatory responsibilities, such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting system and Australia’s Kyoto registry,” Senator Wong said yesterday.

But Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency secretary Martin Parkinson, told a Senate committee: “We have redirected the ACCRA group of the former Department of Climate Change – what will become the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority in the event that Parliament passes the CPRS bills.”

Dr Parkinson told the Senate committee his department was now an amalgam of the former departments of climate change and environment.

He said the emissions trading team was being redirected into the Home Insulation Program, along with a forensic audit team and a compliance and intelligence branch.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the diversion of emissions trading teams into home insulation meant fixing up the insulation mess had become “the great moral challenge of our time” – a reference to Mr Rudd’s famous line about the climate change challenge.

Source: www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Untapped Vast Potential of Micro Hydro and Solar Energy

The development of renewable energy in the Philippines is not just a means to mitigate the impact of climate change but can also help solve the pressing problem of energy security. The Government has an energy plan and is encouraging foreign investment. Global Green has three biomass power projects in the Philippines, with an aggregate capacity of 70 megawatts and expected to be on-line by 2012.

From Manila, Philippines by Philstar.com (6 April 2010):

The development of renewable energy in the Philippines is not just a means to mitigate the impact of climate change but can also help solve the pressing problem of energy security.

This is especially crucial now as the El Nino is causing widespread blackouts in Mindanao. The drought spell, which is expected to last until June, reduced water levels, cutting supply in southern Philippines, where more than half of its energy requirement is sourced from hydropower dams.

Philippine Assistant Energy Secretary Mario Marasigan noted in a recent forum that one of the key programs of the twenty-year Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) is to “aggressively develop renewable energy potential such as biomass, solar, wind and ocean resources.”

Under the PEP, the Philippine government is targeting to double the current 5,300 megawatts renewable energy-based installed capacity for power generation by 2030. This is in line with the government’s thrust to ensure energy security while at the same time help in reducing carbon emissions.

The use of the so-called “green power” is at the core of the global climate change debate, as rising greenhouse gas emission is mainly caused by the growing consumption of coal and oil for energy needs.

The Philippines depends on imported oil and coal for most of its energy needs. But the abundance of potential renewable energy resources will help limit such dependence.

Marasigan noted that apart from the “untapped vast potential” of micro hydro and solar energy, the Philippines can further harness its wind, solar and ocean energy potential.

The Philippines in fact has the only wind farm in the Southeast Asian region. The windmills in the northern Philippine province of Ilocos Norte was built via a $40 million loan from the Danish

Development Agency. Wind power supplies about 40 percent of Ilocos Norte’s electricity requirements.

“The Philippines has abundant indigenous sources of renewable energy. Not to utilize this is a crime,” says David De Montaigne, president of British project development firm Global Green Power Corp.

Global Green has three biomass power projects in the Philippines, with an aggregate capacity of 70 megawatts and expected to be on-line by 2012, at the earliest. The company will sink in about $192 million to build plants in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Iloilo and Bukidnon.

Global Green is one of the foreign investors that the Philippines managed to attract following the passage of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008. The law provides fiscal and non fiscal incentives to investors in renewable energy.

Marasigan said that since the passage of the said bill, the government has awarded 159 new project development contracts. About 61 contracts are pending for review and eventual awarding to project proponents. Combining the awarded and pending contracts can provide an estimated renewable energy capacity of 6,274.37 MW.

By 2030, Marasigan said that the energy department is projecting an additional renewable energy capacity of 10,835 MW. The bulk of which will come from hydro with additional 6,767 MW capacity and geothermal, with 6,767 MW.

Despite the presence of several project proposals and the fact that the government grants attractive incentives for renewable energy investments, Marasigan said that several challenges remain.

For one, “the perceived investment risks are still an issue.” The available technical expertise is still in question given the limited number of engineers and technical consultants. And in some areas, the energy plants, even those that generate green power, are not socially acceptable.

But the biggest challenge that faces those who advocate for renewable energy is its marketability. Coal is perceived to be cheaper than renewable energy sources. So the question remains: would consumers pay more to consume clean energy?

For Ernesto Tan, senior vice president and chief finance officer of pioneering biomass power project developer Asea One Power Corp, the answer is yes.

“The initial investment in renewable energy is usually high. But it’s cheaper to maintain it,” he said.

Asea One is investing about $180 million in the next three years to build biomass power facilities in central Philippine provinces of Aklan, Negros Occidental, Iloilo and Cebu. The projects will generate an additional 72 MW capacity in the Cebu-Negros-Panay grid.

Source: www.philstar.com

Billion Dollar Investments in Hydro, Wind, Solar & Biomass for Peru

Peru should get about US$1 billion in investments after signing 26 green energy contracts, which will  last for 20 years and will generate about 9% of current power demand in the Andean country. Among the companies are Spanish firms T-Solar and Solarpack, which will together build an 80 megawatt solar project.

Marco Aquino for Reuters World Environment News (6 April 2010):

Peru should get about US$1 billion in investments after signing 26 green energy contracts, companies involved said on Monday.

The contracts last for 20 years and will generate about 9 percent of current power demand in the Andean country, the government said.

The deals, signed with foreign and domestic companies, include a total of 412 potential megawatts of “clean” energy produced by wind farms, solar panels, dams and biomass, among other natural resources.

Among the companies are Spanish firms T-Solar and Solarpack, which will together build an 80 megawatt solar project.

“The investment forecast are some $1 billion for the 26 projects,” said Juan Coronado, head of a project put together by a firm called Energia Eolica.

All of the contracts come with pacts enabling the generators to sell power to Peru’s main distribution companies.

The deals include 162 megawatts of hydro power, 142 megawatts of wind power, 80 megawatts of solar and 27 megawatts of biomass, Peru’s energy ministry said.

All projects should be in operation by 2012, the government said.

The green energy contracts come as Peru has also pushed to open up vast sections of its land and sea to petroleum exploration as part of a drive to become a net exporter of oil and gas.

Source: www.planetark.org

Australia Needs To Lead With A Solar Project Like Desertec

THE German industrial giant Siemens is urging Australia to build a massive renewable energy network to rival that of the Desertec project that will harness solar energy in northern Africa and deliver it to consumers in Europe. Siemens’ own push into green technology came in 2005 after the board analysed the global “mega-trends” and how the company might be placed in 50 years. Siemens Joe Kaeser says: “The push to sustainability is real. It is not a fashion.”

Giles Parkinson in his Green Chip column in The Australia (5 April 2010): 

THE German industrial giant Siemens is urging Australia to build a massive renewable energy network to rival that of the Desertec project that will harness solar energy in northern Africa and deliver it to consumers in Europe.

Siemens — along with Deutsche Bank, Munich Re, ABB, and utility groups E.ON and RWE, among others — has been one of the driving forces behind the $700 billion Desertec concept and the creation of energy “super-highways”.

Siemens is active in Australia and has made four separate applications under the Australian government’s Solar Flagships program, which aims to build two large-scale solar energy facilities by 2015. But chief financial officer Joe Kaeser believes Australia should be much more ambitious and consider its own “Austral-tec” project.

“Australia has everything it needs,” Kaeser says, adding that Siemens has already held some preliminary discussions with the government and other corporates. “Australia should be in the lead (in solar energy) and showing the world how it works. If you source solar energy for nothing, and sell natural resources to other countries, it makes for a powerful business case.”

Siemens is Europe’s largest engineering group and is leading the push into green technology, from where it now sources some $25bn of annual revenues — nearly one quarter of its global revenues.

Kaeser says Siemens’ push into green technology came in 2005 after the board analysed the global “mega-trends” and how the company might be placed in 50 years. “The push to sustainability is real. It is not a fashion.”

Kaeser says Siemens’ hunger for innovation is borne from need. Europe does not enjoy the rate of economic growth of China, or the natural resources of Australia. “Our natural resource is know-how.” It spends $1bn on green-tech R&D each year.

But Kaeser says the massive redistribution of wealth from new technologies, and the transformation of desolate solar-rich areas such as the Sahara into “economic treasures”, will be fiercely resisted and the transition will not be easy.

“There is a lot of economic power behind the current technologies, behind coal-fired power plants, and the factories that produce CO2,” he says. “These markets are threatened by a paradigm shift, and that can cause social problems. That is why the government needs to lead the way.”

He points to the experience of Denmark, which was burned by the oil crisis in the 1970s and supported massive investment in wind technology, where it now leads the world. He also points to Singapore, which with few natural resources in now turning itself into a “Smart City”.

Carbon capture a `diversion’

ANOTHER to support a more vigorous push into renewables is professor Stefaan Simons, one of the world’s leading experts in low-carbon technologies. Professor Simons addressed a Santos-sponsored event in Adelaide last week. His message is that the focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a “dangerous diversion” that is stalling the transition to renewable energy sources and a highly efficient, low-carbon energy system.

Professor Simons is a specialist in the chemical engineering at the University College London and director of its Centre for CO2 Technology. He is currently on a global research fellowship with the Royal Academy of Engineering that includes time at Australia’s Co-operative Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, which is leading research into CCS.

However, he says CCS research (which accounts for more than half of the funds promised by the Australian government for clean energy technologies) is soaking up time, resources and funding that could be better applied in securing a low carbon future. He says CO2 capture is not fit for post-combustion at a large scale — and therefore most existing fossil fuel plants — but the real problem lies in technical and legal issues around storage. There will be a role for CCS, he says, but not as broad as its supporters make out.

“I challenge our energy policymakers to reassess whether large-scale deployment of CCS makes sense and whether we should continue to use fossil fuels as our primary energy source, or use these fossil resources to produce higher value forms of energy and chemicals.

“We could then replace fossil-fuel electricity production with that from renewable sources, at the same time reducing the need for CCS. We also need to mature our thinking, our innovation and our chemical industry so that CO2 becomes a valuable resource, rather than a waste product in need of disposal.”

This, Professor Simons says, could provide an opportunity for Australia to use its expertise in coal and gas to lead in the development of to new and existing chemicals from CO2 so that CO2 becomes a valuable feedstock rather than a waste product. “It needs new business models, and policy and market support. If the coal and gas industries do not change, where will they fit into a renewable energy-driven society?”

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

The wind, solar, and biofuel sectors alone generated US$139.1 billion in revenue last year. Major financial institutions have dedicated clean energy departments. There are clean energy stock indices and funds. Hundreds of venture capitalists have successfully exited cleantech start-ups. Cleantech was turned to by global governments as a remedy for recession. The number of cleantech IPOs continues to climb. A refreshingly clean and green update from Green Chip Review.

The people at Green Chip Review and Green Chip Stocks have their ears to the ground and know what’s hot or not before the market wakes up. Here’s the latest insights, as well as some old Myths and New Realties to ponder and soak up.

Green Chip Stocks can point to guaranteed gains to select companies in the clean energy  and green tech sectors every year since 1995, handing early investors wins like 793%, 846%, 1,021%, 1,375%, 1,805%, 2,628%, 3,475% — and 38 more…

If early indications are correct, the 2010 meeting on results  is going to make previous years’ gains look like pennies in a bucket.

Headlines this week brought some of those arguments to the fore…Then & Now.

Old Myth: There’s plenty of remaining oil.

New Reality: The UK Task Force on Peak Oil just published a report concluding that “oil shortages, insecurity of supply and price volatility will destabilise economic, political, and social activity potentially by 2015.”

The College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University (an Oil State!) recently found the world’s oil reserves to be 2.14 trillion barrels, of which we’ve already produced 1.16 trillion — so more than half is already gone. It marked non-OPEC peak production in 2006 and forecast OPEC production to peak in 2026.

ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva publicly stated last week that pursuing new oils reserves is no longer a viable business model and that his company will focus instead on natural gas.

Old Myth: Cleantech is too expensive.

New Reality: Traditional solar is already price competitive in many markets. Greentech Media reported this week that those markets include Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and most of Europe. Advanced non-silicon solar is even cheaper. Wind is competitive where geographically suited.

And efficiency — which the Old Myth crowd never considered — can save consumers energy and money while still generating a profit for the companies pursuing it.

All this without mentioning the hidden costs of fossil fuels: pollution, environmental damage, energy dependence, health. These factors make renewables even more competitive.

New hybrids — included the Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius — are priced competitively with their internal combustion counterparts.

Old Myth: Renewables will never catch on or produce much energy. Coal and natural gas will rule.

New Reality: As you read this, renewable are responsible for more than 10% of U.S. energy. Renewables’ contribution to our energy needs is now almost equal that of nuclear, and that total has been growing every year.

Old Myth: You can’t make money with renewables.

New Reality: The wind, solar, and biofuel sectors alone generated $139.1 billion in revenue last year. Major financial institutions have dedicated clean energy departments. There are clean energy stock indices and funds. Hundreds of venture capitalists have successfully exited cleantech start-ups.

Cleantech was turned to by global governments as a remedy for recession. The number of cleantech IPOs continues to climb. Thousands of Green Chip premium members have been profiting for years.

Embracing the New Reality

As far back as our cleantech myth-busting days, Green Chip and its readers have been embracing the new energy reality.

We saw past the noise and bitter attacks because we knew the level of prosperity about to be ushered in. We worked hard to spread the new energy truth and to help as many people profit from it as possible; to adapt an old George Jones lyric, we were cleantech when cleantech wasn’t cool.

And it’s paid off handsomely.

But for all the progress that’s been made — for all the policies changed; for all the billions spent; for all the support gained — cleantech is still very much in its infancy.

Imagine what’s ahead in adolescence and adulthood.

Some stocks have already gained thousands of percentage points; some investors have already made millions.

And that was all during the preparatory stage. Expanding solar and wind factories, pioneering smart grid devices, launching initial deployment was the hard part!

The real money will be made as we continue the transition from alternative to mainstream; as renewables continue to increase capacity; as the smart grid just becomes the grid. This is the easy part compared to the past decade.

So be encouraged by how far we’ve come. But know that there’s even further to go.

Be aware that you’re on the correct side of this equation. Don’t be dissuaded by myths and misinformation.

And above all, know that cleantech is synonymous with prosperity.

We’ll continue to be here every week, bringing you the best ways to profit from the new energy reality.

Source: www.greenchipreview.com

Fossil Fuelled Freighter is a Ticking Environmental Time Bomb for Reef

Salvage crews boarded the grounded coal ship, the Chinese bulk coal carrier Shen Neng 1, which is wedged on a section of reef and has leaked four tonnes of oil in marine park waters. Interrupting his tour of hospital bedsides to survey the damage to the Great Barrier Reef, perhaps Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had pause for introspection. With or without oil spills, the Reef is destined for catastrophic destruction.

ABC News (6 April 2010):

Salvage crews have boarded the grounded coal ship on Tuesday in the Great Barrier Reef off the central Queensland coast. The Chinese bulk carrier Shen Neng 1 is wedged on a section of reef and has leaked four tonnes of oil in marine park waters.

Maritime safety experts say it will be another day before they can assess the full extent of damage and work out how to move the ship from the reef.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will inspect the site on Tuesday and the Federal Government has moved to establish a special panel which will assess the damage to the reef.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says he has asked the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) to coordinate the panel and the group will advise the Government on how the ship should be moved.

Two tugboats are in place to stabilise the ship and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh says salvage experts will consider pumping oil from the damaged vessel.

“The damage is extensive to the engine, to the rudder and other parts of the ship,” she said.

Ms Bligh says more than 900 tonnes of oil is still on board the ship.

“There is thought being given at the moment to whether the best way forward is to pump out the oil,” she said.

“That’ll be a decision ultimately of the salvage team and that is something that could be part of the salvage effort.”

‘Time bomb’

The World Wide Fund for Nature’s Australia director Gilly Llewellyn says the ship is a “ticking environmental time bomb”.

“We would potentially be looking at an environmental disaster,” Ms Llewellyn said.

“It would be an extremely large spill.”

But Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) is confident it will be able to stabilise the ship.

MSQ general manager Patrick Quirk says even though the ship is damaged, there is unlikely to be a “catastrophic break-up”.

Mr Quirk says the spill is less serious than first thought.

“We suspect at the moment that the oil has spilt not from the actual tanks but from some overflow pipes on the deck,” he said.

Planes were not sent out with dispersant chemicals this afternoon because the amount of spilt oil was too small.

Booms are expected to be used to limit the spread of oil, but maritime authorities say it may take weeks to refloat the coal carrier.

AMSA investigating

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) says it is concentrating on securing the ship and cleaning up the pollution from the spill.

AMSA spokesman Graham Peachey says one of its ships will be travelling to the site of the leak to help with the clean-up on Wednesday.

“We will be investigating very thoroughly what happened,” he said.

“This is an extraordinarily valuable area in the Great Barrier Reef. It’s pristine and needs to be protected and there are rules there in place that need to serve a purpose and we’ll be investigating very thoroughly.”

Rockhampton Mayor Brad Carter says some oil spilled from the ship may reach the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area by Wednesday and miss popular tourist islands.

“At this stage the advice we have seems to indicate that the islands Great Keppel and south are not likely to be impacted on,” he said.

Compensation

Meanwhile, Ms Bligh says no changes have been made to the amount of compensation shipowners are liable for if their boats create pollution damage.

Last year, the owners of the Pacific Adventurer offered $25 million in compensation after an oil spill off the south Queensland coast.

Ms Bligh says the Queensland Government will look into compensation issues after the oil spill in the reef is contained.

“This is an international cap and the Federal Government, through the minister Anthony Albanese, has formally made representations to the international body to lift that cap,” she said.

“My understanding is they have yet to do that, so we’ll look at that those issues as they arise but right now our first priority is to stabilise this vessel.”

Monitoring ships

The spill has also sparked criticism of a lack of monitoring of coal ships in the Great Barrier Reef.

Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) spokesman Michael Gardiner says there is more monitoring of fishing trawlers than large coal ships.

“All trawl vessels in Queensland are required to have a vessel monitoring device in place seven days a week, 24 hours a day,” he said.

“Here we’ve got these massive ships fully laden with coal and fuel oil traversing part of the marine park, and there’s certain parts there where there’s no vessel tracking at all.”

MSQ spokesman Patrick Quirk says the authority has been looking at expanding the tracking coverage area as part of its risk assessments on future port development.

“Under our risk analysis, though this has proved us wrong, I will admit, this was seen as a low-risk area because the navigation is fairly straight forward,” he said.

“I want to emphasise that this is not an idea where we require complex navigation exercises.”

Source: www.abc.net.au

Jessica Irvine, Economics Writer for The Sydney Morning Herald (7 April 2010): 

Interrupting his tour of hospital bedsides to survey the damage to the Great Barrier Reef from the grounded Chinese bulk carrier, perhaps Kevin Rudd had pause for introspection.

Even before the Shen Neng 1 ran into it, the best-case scenario for the reef over the coming century, according to Rudd’s climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, was for twice as many mass bleachings of coral. They are caused by rising sea temperatures and acidity as higher levels of carbon dioxide are absorbed into the ocean.

In the worst case, Garnaut predicts, there will be ”catastrophic destruction” of the coral by 2100.

It must weigh heavily on Rudd to know history will judge him a failed prime minister if he does not deliver his promised emissions trading scheme. It will make the home insulation scheme look like a relative triumph – at least it got off the ground. It is safe to assume his ETS will not pass this Senate, so he must commit to passing it in his second term.

If Rudd wimps out, climate-conscious voters may well be left with the conclusion that the environment would have been better off had they voted for John Howard in 2007. He would have been in a better position to wrangle his party’s climate sceptics into delivering the Liberals’ promised scheme. He would have been helped by a treasurer who floated the idea in cabinet in 2003 and an environment minister who, to the end of his political career, remains a passionate supporter.

I know, I know, we’re all tired of debating the appropriate response to climate change. Public support for a trading scheme – while still in the majority – has waned since the failure at Copenhagen. Rudd has made it clear he would much rather talk about health and hospitals, where polling shows Labor is in a clear election winning position.

But while there has been a cooling in the atmospherics surrounding climate action, nothing in the science has changed. In fact, evidence of climate change, and the contribution of humans to it, keeps getting stronger.

Evidence released recently by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO shows atmospheric and sea temperatures continue to rise, along with sea levels and carbon dioxide concentrations in the air. In Australia the average number of days posting record hot temperatures has jumped to about 23 days a year over the past decade, up from an average of about 13 days a year in the 1990s. Conversely, the incidence of record cold days has fallen.

”Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real,” conclude the authorities, which between them have more than 160 years experience observing atmospheric changes. They predict a hotter and drier Australia, with average temperature rises of between 0.6 and 1.5 degrees by 2030 and between 2.2 and 5.0 degrees by 2070.

The Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Dr Martin Parkinson, recently argued it was time to get ”back to basics” on climate change. Copenhagen may have disappointed, but if man-made climate change is real, and most scientists say it is, it is only a matter of time before pressure for action mounts again.

Parkinson says: ”In contrast to some reports in the media, new scientific findings are tending to suggest more, not less, serious consequences. Such a trend will provide increasing pressure on the global community to act. This issue is not going to go away, even if there is a weariness in certain quarters of the Australian community.”

Perhaps our waning interest in the climate action debate comes down to its look of ”spinning wheels”, identified by Parkinson. ”In some areas debate is traversing back and forth over old ground as if the issues have not been examined before, and without signs of an emerging consensus.”

As for the Liberal Party’s new embrace of direct government regulation to bring about emission cuts, Parkinson points out this relies to a large degree on ”bureaucratic clairvoyance”.

There is a deep irony in Tony Abbott’s position as he lambasts the bureaucrats responsible for implementing the home insulation scheme – the same people he wants to identify projects for reducing emissions.

But consistency is not a priority for a man who dismissed the ETS as a ”great big new tax” then proposed a great big new tax on business to pay for his proposed scheme for expanding paid parental leave.

Meanwhile, as the politicians fiddle, the scale of the task to curb Australia’s growing carbon footprint grows. Australia is expected to belch about 570 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere this year, an increase of about 3 per cent since 2000.

Both the Coalition and Labor share a commitment to cut carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 from 2000 levels. The Greens dismiss this as inadequate. But it is beginning to look like no small feat. On current trends, and without the government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme, annual emissions are projected to rise to almost 670 million tonnes in 2020.

Already, meeting the target means we need to find abatements worth 144 million tonnes by 2020. Parkinson points out if every Australian household were to install a 1.5 kilowatt solar panel on their rooftop overnight it would only save 13 million tonnes a year in 2020, less than a tenth of what is needed. Moreover, doing so would cost about $200 billion, more than two-thirds of annual federal revenue.

Fortunately, we have a better solution. It’s called an emissions trading scheme. It sets a cap on pollution and allocates permits up to that amount. Polluters are required to surrender enough permits to cover their annual emissions. If they fall short, they can buy them from other polluters. It is a continuation of the narrative of market-based reform that turned Australia’s economy into the envy of the advanced world.

It may still not be enough to save the Great Barrier Reef, but it will do more good than simply watching the problems from the air.

Source: www.smh.com.au

The price Australia pays for its reliance on coal-fired electricity is highlighted by the release of the National Pollutants Inventory. Coalmines and coal-fired power stations again featured among the big polluters, emitting millions of kilograms of pollutants into the atmosphere, with the potential to be a hazard to both health and the environment. Nationally, Mt Isa Mines in Queensland, which mines copper, zinc and lead, is right up there among the biggest polluters.

Jennie Curtin in Sydney Morning Herald (3 April 2010):

THE price Australia pays for its reliance on coal-fired electricity is highlighted by the release of the National Pollutants Inventory.

Coalmines and coal-fired power stations again featured among the big polluters, emitting millions of kilograms of pollutants into the atmosphere, with the potential to be a hazard to both health and the environment.

In NSW, the Hunter Valley and the Lithgow regions rated as the state’s most polluted areas because of the number of coal-based activities there. Singleton is one of the worst towns, surrounded by at least seven mines which together produced more than 18 million kilograms of dust, 7.4 million kilograms of nitrogen oxides and 4.9 million kilograms of carbon monoxide in the 2008-09 year.

Inhalation of low levels of carbon monoxide can cause headache, dizziness, light-headedness and fatigue. Nitrogen oxides, which can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, may irritate eyes, nose, throat and lungs. And inhaled dust is also an irritant to the eyes, throat and lungs.

The figures also reveal the state’s six largest power stations – Bayswater, Liddell, Mt Piper, Eraring, Wallerawang and Vales Point – produced more than 160 million kilograms of nitrogen oxides, 5 million kilograms of carbon monoxide and a massive 235 million kilograms of sulphur dioxide, which also irritates eyes and throat and can cause headaches and anxiety.

In contrast, renewable energy produced only a fraction of those emissions. The Eastern Creek renewable energy facility, for example, reported 100,000 kilograms of carbon monoxide, 32,000 kilograms of nitrogen oxides and 10,000 kilograms of sulphur dioxide.

Apart from coal, the other major emitters in NSW were the BlueScope Steel plant at Port Kembla, which produced 300 million kilograms of carbon monoxide, as well as lesser amounts of other pollutants, and the Tomago aluminium smelter north of Newcastle, with 44 million kilograms of carbon monoxide.

In Sydney, the OneSteel steel mill at Rooty Hill was one of the big polluters, as were the Caltex Kurnell refinery and Shell Clyde refinery which also produce hundreds of thousands of kilograms of volatile organic compounds. A build-up of these compounds in indoor environments has been associated with the so-called ”sick building syndrome”.

The water suffered, too. Sydney’s three main sewage treatment plants – at Malabar, North Head and Bondi – produced more than 15 million kilograms of nitrogen, 12 million of ammonia and 2.5 million of phosphorus.

Nationally, Mt Isa Mines in Queensland, which mines copper, zinc and lead, was possibly the biggest polluter, emitting 260 million kilograms of sulphur dioxide, 16 million kilograms of carbon monoxide and 2.9 million kilograms of dust.

Source: www.smh.com.au