Seeing What’s Best For the Soil, Energy & the Environment

Whereas crop residue removal reduces carbon concentration, dedicated energy crops can increase soil organic carbon concentration while providing biofuel feedstock. Growing dedicated energy crops in marginal and abandoned lands instead of prime agricultural fields will further benefit the soil and environment. Developing the next generation of biofuels will not only require new technologies to transform it into fuel, but new agricultural methods for growing it. This from the American Society of Agronomy
Released by the American Society of Agronomy (4 April 2010):

Energy crops impact environmental quality:

What happens to the soil when you remove the plants?

MADISON, WI, — Crop residues, perennial warm season grasses, and short-rotation woody crops are potential biomass sources for cellulosic ethanol production.

While most research is focused on the conversion of cellulosic feeedstocks into ethanol and increasing production of biomass, the impacts of growing energy crops and the removal of crop residue on soil and environmental quality have received less attention. Moreover, effects of crop residue removal on soil and environmental quality have not been compared against those of dedicated energy crops.

In the March-April 2010 issue of Agronomy Journal, published by the American Society of Agronomy, Dr. Humberto Blanco reviewed the impacts of crop residue removal, warm season grasses, and short-rotation woody crops on critical soil properties, carbon sequestration, and water quality as well as the performance of energy crops in marginal lands.

The review found that crop residue removal from corn, wheat, and grain sorghum can adversely impact soil and environmental quality. Removal of more than 50% of crop residue can have negative consequences for soil structure, reduce soil organic carbon sequestration, increase water erosion, and reduce nutrient cycling and crop production, particularly in erodible and sloping soils.

“Crop residue removal can make no-till soils a source rather than a sink of atmospheric carbon,” says Blanco, even at rates lower than 50%. Residue removal at rates of less than 25% can cause loss of sediment in runoff relative to soils without residue removal.

To avoid the negative impacts on soil, perhaps only a small fraction of residue might be available for removal. This small amount of crop residues is not economically feasible nor logistically possible. Blanco recomends developing other alternative biomass feedstock sources for cellulosic ethanol production.

An alternative to crop residue removal is growing warm season grasses and short-rotation woody crops as dedicated energy crops. These crops can provide a wide of range of ecosystems services over crop residue removal. Available data indicate that herbaceous and woody plants can improve soil characteristics, reduce soil water and wind erosion, filter pollutants in runoff, sequester soil organic carbon, reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases, and improve wildlife habitat and diversity.

Whereas crop residue removal reduces carbon concentration, dedicated energy crops can increase soil organic carbon concentration while providing biofuel feedstock. Because of their deep root systems, warm season grasses also promote long-term carbon sequestration in deeper soil profile unlike row crops.

Growing dedicated energy crops in marginal and abandoned lands instead of prime agricultural fields will further benefit the soil and environment. Warm season grasses can grow in nutrient-depleted, compacted, poorly drained, acid, and eroded soils. Herbaceous and woody energy crops cannot replace natural forest and native prairie lands, but well-managed dedicated energy crops may provide a myriad of benefits to soil and environment while supplying much needed feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production.

Developing the next generation of biofuels will not only require new technologies to transform it into fuel, but new agricultural methods for growing it.

The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/2/403.

A peer-reviewed international journal of agriculture and natural resource sciences, Agronomy Journal is published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy, with articles relating to original research in soil science, crop science, agroclimatology and agronomic modeling, production agriculture, and software. For more information visit:http://agron.scijournals.org.

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) www.agronomy.org, is a scientific society helping its 8,000+ members advance the disciplines and practices of agronomy by supporting professional growth and science policy initiatives, and by providing quality, research-based publications and a variety of member services.

Source: www.eurekalert.org

Lucky Last – Meat emissions from NZ. What’s there to beef about?

Down on the farm in New Zealand – where your intrepid roving reporter has been perilously close to over the past few days – they are seeing some consolation from the research into emissions from meat production and export. There’s apparently more release of greenhouse gases – predominantly methane – from the meat sold for the local dinner table than from that transported long distance. Over a delicious lamb roast – and an occasional barbecue beef – I contemplated all of this. I also read the report in the New Zealand Herald by Eloise Gibson on the subject.

By Eloise Gibson in New Zealand Herald (7 April 20101):

AgResearch scientists tracked lamb from paddock to plate.

The carbon footprint of a lamb chop has been revealed by a study which found that every 100g of New Zealand lamb exported to Europe creates 1.9kg of greenhouse gas emissions.

The study is relevant to New Zealand shoppers because most of the emissions – 80 per cent – are generated on the farm and just 5 per cent by shipping lamb to Europe.

Shoppers’ behaviour accounted for 12 per cent of emissions but if transport to and from the supermarket was counted, that would have risen to 19 per cent – nearly four times the emissions taken to get the lamb to Europe, said researchers.

AgResearch scientists tracked lamb from paddock to plate, measuring the gases produced by the sheep, cooking, refrigeration and transport.

They found shoppers could cut their impact by choosing chilled meat rather than frozen and avoiding microwave defrosting of meat.

Lamb’s greenhouse gas footprint was measured in CO2 equivalents, although only a small proportion of the emissions were actually CO2 – the majority was methane from cow burps and nitrous oxide from sheep excrement on the soil: short-lived but potent greenhouse gases which are multiplied several times over to get the equivalent in CO2.

Meat Industry Association, Ballance Agri-Nutrients, Landcorp, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paid for the study because they wanted to find out where in the lamb’s supply chain they could most easily cut greenhouse gases.

Report lead author Dr Stewart Ledgard said it was the first detailed study of the carbon footprint of a New Zealand meat product to cover the whole lifecycle.

The study was done in accordance with UK carbon labelling standards, so the information can be used on carbon footprint labels that are being rolled out by British food chains.

Lamb producers will welcome the finding that so little of lamb’s carbon footprint is from shipping, something that may be used to fight allegations that “food miles” drive up the environmental cost of New Zealand exports.

Unfortunately for farmers, the biggest portion of gases were also some of the most difficult to cut: livestock emissions, which the Government is heading a major international research mission to reduce.

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz

To those who celebrate Easter – whereever you may be – may it be a very happy, relaxing and rewarding time. This Express 102 comes to you not from Australia (Brisbane or Sydney as intended), nor halfway across the Tasman on Pacific Blue, where it has been compiled and completed, but from the New Zealand capital of Wellington.  As we enjoy a little R and R – recreation and reunion of the family and college kind – we will be also scouting for information and ideas, as well as doing a little book work (promoting, signing and selling more of them). As always hoped, this issue has a favourable blend of global and local starting with a profile on the boss of the IPCC with his latest pronouncements, wise words from the UK’s Peter Young on where Government and private enterprise is heading, a glimpse at Heathrow’s environmental challenges and some unusual outcomes of the peaceful kind from rising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal. Closer to home, we have Paddy Manning on energy efficiency, Tim Blue on electric vehicles and Lenore Taylor on where politics is getting us or not! Green Capital  tell us that “doing nothing is not an option”, while cities collectively now have the means to calculate (and care) about their carbon emissions. E-waste rears its ugly head and Greenfleet comes up with a sustainable transport plan. There’s news from Melbourne about the Carbon Reduction Conference and a new Carbon Compass to guide business. The Lucky Last words come from another notable KH – Treasury Secretary Ken Henry – and not the undersigned. Now that all adds up to something! 

Ken Hickson

Profile: Rajendra Pachauri

A mistake about glaciers does not negate climate change nor provide an opportunity to demonise scientists because of one error in 3000 pages of evidence. This from Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in The Guardian (30 March 2010):

To dismiss the implications of climate change based on an error about the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting is an act of astonishing intellectual legerdemain. Yet this is what some doubters of climate change are claiming. The reality is that our understanding of climate change is based on a vast and remarkably sound body of science – and is something we distort and trivialise at our peril.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published four comprehensive assessments of climate change and several important special reports since its founding in 1988. The last such document, the fourth assessment report from 2007, mobilised 450 scientists from all over the world. An additional 800 contributing authors gave specialised inputs and about 2500 expert reviewers provided 90,000 comments.

In this mammoth task, which yielded a finished product of nearly 3000 pages, there was a regrettable error indicating the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by the year 2035. This mistake has been acknowledged by the IPCC. Learning from this error, the panel has requested, in tandem with the United Nations Secretary-General, an independent review of its procedures and practices by the InterAcademy Council (formed by the world’s science academies to advise international bodies, such as the United Nations and the World Bank).

The review was requested in part so that the possibility of similar errors can be eliminated as much as is humanly possible.

It is important, however, to understand that irrespective of the error on Himalayan glaciers and a few other questions about some specific wording in the fourth report, the major thrust of its findings provides overwhelming evidence that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. To quote the report: ”Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

As inhabitants of planet Earth, our lives depend on a stable climate, and it is our responsibility to ensure that future generations do not suffer the consequences of climate change.

We cannot ignore the fact that the impacts of climate change – which are based on actual observations – are, as the fourth report makes clear, leading to ”increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global sea levels”.

An increasing number of researchers, and some official investigations by intelligence agencies, now point to the security implications of climate change.

If we do not carry out adequate mitigation and adopt sustainable development practices, global emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase, and their continuation at or above current rates will cause further warming and changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that will very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems.

Even more serious is the finding that human-induced warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible. For instance, partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with the greatest effects in river deltas and on low-lying islands.

Human society has some critical choices. It is to be expected that some of these would pose challenges for some stakeholders and sectors of the economy. But to ignore the IPCC’s scientific findings would lead to impacts that impose larger costs than those required today to stabilise the Earth’s climate.

Thousands of scientists from across the world have worked diligently to provide scientific evidence for action to meet the growing challenge of climate change. To obscure this reality through misplaced emphasis on an error in a nearly 3000-page, rigorous document would be unfortunate.

Even more unfortunate is the effort of some in positions of power and responsibility to indict dedicated scientists as ”climate criminals” (as called for by US senator and long-standing climate sceptic James Inhofe).

I sincerely hope the world is not witnessing a new form of persecution of those who defy conventional ignorance and pay a terrible price for their scientifically valid beliefs.

The IPCC will continue to learn from experience, including criticism of its work. Thankfully, with inputs from thousands of respected scientists, world governments and now the InterAcademy Council, the panel is in a better position than ever to provide a robust and reliable scientific basis for tackling climate change.

Source: www.guardian.com

No Man Is An Island: No More in the Bay of Bengal

In an unusual example of the effects of global climate change, rising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal have helped resolve a troublesome territorial dispute between two of the world’s most populated countries, India and Bangladesh, a leading Indian oceanographer says.

Matt Wade, Herald correspondent In New Delhi (25 March 2010):

In an unusual example of the effects of global climate change, rising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal have helped resolve a troublesome territorial dispute between two of the world’s most populated countries, a leading Indian oceanographer says.

Sugata Hazra, the head of oceanography at Kolkata’s Jadavpur University, says a flat muddy patch of land known as South Talpatti in Bangladesh and New Moore Island in India has disappeared under the Bay of Bengal. The landmass had been claimed by both countries but Professor Hazra says satellite images prove it has gone.

”It is now a submerged landmass, not an island,” Professor Hazra told the Herald.

”Only small parts can be seen in very, very low tide conditions.”

Sea-level rise caused by climate change was ”surely” a factor in the island’s inundation, Professor Hazra said.

”The rate of sea-level rise in this part of the northern Bay of Bengal is definitely attributable to climate change,” he said.

”There is a close correlation between the rate of sea-level rise and the sea surface temperature.”

The island was once about 3.5 kilometres long and three kilometres wide and situated four kilometres from the mouth of the Hariabhanga River, the waterway that marks a stretch of the border between south-western Bangladesh and India.

Scientists believe the disputed island was formed following a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal in 1970 and both countries laid claim to the land.

Bilateral negotiations were inconclusive and in 1981 the Indian government sent gunboats to the island and members of its Border Security Forces planted an Indian flag there.

The island was not inhabited but Bangladeshi fishermen were reportedly sighted there frequently during the dry season.

”This is a unique instance of how climate resolves a dispute,” said Professor Hazra.

”It also goes to show how climate can affect all of us beyond geographical boundaries.

”The Indian government had once sent ships with guns to guard the island.

”Now one will have to think of sending submarines to mount a vigil there.”

Professor Hazra said sea-level rise, changes in monsoonal rain patterns which altered river flows and land subsidence were all contributing to the inundation of land in the northern Bay of Bengal.

The low-lying delta region that makes up much of Bangladesh and the neighbouring Indian state of West Bengal are acutely vulnerable to climate change.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts rising sea levels will devour 17 per cent of Bangladesh by 2050, displacing at least 20 million people. More than 155 million people live in the country.

The Bangladesh non-governmental organisation Coastal Watch says an average of 11 Bangladeshis are losing their homes to rising waters every hour.

Professor Hazra predicts that 15 per cent of the Indian Sundarbans region on the northern shore of the Bay of Bengal will be submerged by 2020.

”A lot of other islands are eroding very fast,” he said.

The cyclone-prone region is also likely to experience more frequent and extreme storms as the sea-water temperature in the Bay of Bengal rises due to global warming.

Source: www.smh.com.au

With a Budget just announced and an election coming up, Peter Young, Chairman of the Aldersgate Group, tell us the Green Investment Bank is a reality, whichever party is in power in the United Kingdom, while a coalition opposed to a third runway at Heathrow claims that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper is obsolete, because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act of 2008.

Peter Young, Chairman of the Aldersgate Group described the Group’s priorities leading up to the budget and the forthcoming election, at a recent important gathering:

Peter Young  welcomed the commitment to a Green Investment Bank (GIB) by the Conservatives and noted that Labour and Liberal Democrats are also discussing banking models, “so we have an opportunity here with all the main parties supporting something of this nature to push it forward in the Budget.”

The GIB would be the cornerstone of a new fiscal strategy which will need to reduce the risk associated with investment, thereby allowing private sector investors to secure their returns and opening up unprecedented levels of capital flows. Mr Young was upbeat about the possibilities: “The money is there. It just has to be possible for the policy risks and the returns to be sufficiently tangible to allow the private sector to move.”

Mr Young specified that the GIB must provide access to capital without adding to the public sector borrowing requirement and must encourage private sector investment but not compete with it. Green taxation must also play a role in reshaping the economy, focusing on polluting areas and away from activities that are valued by society.

Lastly Mr Young commented that, “We have been particularly poor in the UK at converting the investment that we do make in green technologies, into jobs and into developing higher level skills within the UK economy.” HSBC revisited this topic at the end of 2009 and reconfirmed that we’re lagging behind key competitors like Germany, the United States and China in the amount of fiscal incentive being put into developing indigenous low carbon industries and services.

At the same Aldersgate meeting of minds, Greg Barker MP declared that “come the General Election, we are all in it together.”

It will be essential that “everyone that cares about a green future for Britain, about radical action to decarbonise our economy, joins this debate and ensures that more sustainable lifestyles for the people of Britain are absolutely at the heart of this General Election debate.” He warned, “there will be plenty of other voices trying to pull our political leaders of all parties off that platform and onto other topics.”

The Conservative Party is committed to that green future and believes that a genuine, long-term partnership with the private sector will be essential. A Green Investment Bank (GIB) will be central to this partnership and Mr Barker insisted, “It’s got to be a key part of the new financial architecture of the City of London”, to build “the global hub for green capital worldwide, and make the financial services industry here the first port of call for any global company looking to raise finances to power transitional investment policies.”

The Conservatives have established a Commission comprised of “mainstream financial services professionals”, to draw up proposals for the GIB and Mr Barker hinted that the final model is unlikely to be “a stand alone institution like the EBRD, with gazillions of its own executives and big offices. It’s more likely to be a strong sense of governance with the actual functions put out to tender with different investment criteria than you would normally expect to see.”

Mr Barker discussed, using illustrative figures, areas of potential innovation: for example, venture capitalists could provide investment for the best-in-class players, but rather than acquire a 25% IRR (Internal Rate of Return) they might only require 12%. Instead of an investment life of five years, they might be eight or ten, but fundamentally, all this would be carried out “working through the private sector and those experienced investment professionals.”

In terms of taxation, Mr Barker said the Conservatives are “absolutely committed [to] raising the proportion of green taxes as an overall proportion of the tax take”, although they would also aim to reduce the tax burden on businesses and individuals.

James Cameron, Vice Chairman of Climate Change Capital highlighted the “very powerful and somewhat alarming connection between climate change, energy security and natural resource depletion.”

The conjunction of challenges facing us will require unprecedented levels of investment, which can only be effectively achieved, Mr Cameron suggested, through the development of a new institution with the capacity to deal with the inherent complexities of these issues. We need an organisation that works on the long term, whose remit extends beyond the political cycle and which is independent of government. Mr Cameron noted that misaligned incentives in the banking sector are blamed for the credit crunch, but politicians are equally disincentivised to think and act in the long term.

To the challenges of climate change, energy security and natural resource depletion, we can add the fiscal issues of the low level of savings in the UK and colossal levels of personal, institutional and government debt. Mr Cameron urged that the UK must improve the savings culture and spend the consequent capital within the British economy on assets that will generate employment. Our Asian competitors, meanwhile, have high levels of savings and are therefore capital ready. How they choose to deploy that will be hugely influential for the world.

This creates a powerful agenda for the creation of a Green Investment Bank – whether or not it is labelled as such. But, “if we commit both public money and channel private capital into perpetuating the type of high carbon infrastructure that we have today we will lock in costs for future generations. It would be unforgiveable, an absolute dereliction of duty.”

A Green Investment Bank could help change the focus of investment: “Our equity markets are outrageously dependent on a tiny amount of dividend paying stocks, almost all of which are fossil fuel based.” Although there have been promising developments (such as the carbon price – although currently too weak – and a renewable energy policy that is starting to provide returns), no serious alternative exists to investment in these stocks. Mr Cameron urged, “we are desperately in need of a [new] set of investment products for the nation” that can produce long term value and yields. To produce the same sort of consistent yields as those possible with fossil fuels, will require intervention.

Mr Cameron acknowledged that the current public attitude towards climate change is unfavourable, with a backlash against the science of climate change. However, he remains confident it will pass and articles will start to appear reasserting the validity of the science. One example has already appeared in The Times, click here to read it. He warned, “you should expect this climate change debate to ebb and flow. You should never expect unanimity of view in science. Why would you ever? Science works by disagreement!”

Professor Paul Ekins, Director of the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC) argued that green fiscal reform “is an absolute cornerstone policy … without it the low carbon transition won’t come about.”

The forthcoming Budget must deal with reducing the deficit in an environmentally responsible manner, supporting environmental technologies and low carbon jobs, and stimulating the low carbon economy. Professor Ekins declared that, if these three questions were not explicitly addressed “then I think there is a dereliction of duty going on.”

To this end, he focused his comments “explicitly and unapologetically” on green fiscal reform, “because it is the only policy – the only one – that will do all three of those things.” Green fiscal reform is a tax shift, not an increase, so the overall revenues remain the same.  Professor Ekins pointed out that, “since 1999 the proportion of tax revenues coming from environmental revenues has fallen”. He voiced his consequent disappointment in the recent government proposals to increase National Insurance by 0.5% (to fund the deficit), because “at a time of high and rising unemployment, to increase the tax on jobs seems to me to be completely daft.”

The precise tax proposals can be found in the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC)’s report, accessible on their website. All the proposed taxes are already in operation elsewhere, for example many European countries have a tax on car purchase, which was widely criticised in the press as politically unworkable. Professor Ekins argued that this tax is vital to curb the trend towards larger vehicles, which has negated the efficiency gains made by engine designers.

“With this single policy of a green fiscal reform, our modelling suggests that we [can] hit the Government’s carbon target for 2020 of a 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.” This policy would, however need to be flanked by a raft of complementary policies to ensure that vulnerable households, for example, or UK competitiveness are not adversely affected.

In conclusion, Professor Ekins emphasised that green fiscal reform “will stimulate investment, it will bring about behaviour change. An absolutely key point is that efficiency measures by themselves do not reduce demand – the rebound effect will very easily gobble up efficiency measures unless they are accompanied by systematic price increases.”

Frances O’Grady, Deputy General Secretary, TUC referred back to Mr Barker’s speech, commenting “I hope that Greg is right when he says we’re all in this together. I fear that some may find themselves more in it than others.”

The TUC’s priorities for this Budget will be to ensure it helps growth, green jobs and green skills and makes available a £5bn Strategic Investment Fund, based on the French model. The TUC also advocate a Green Investment Bank.

Ms O’Grady urged that when considering government intervention, context is important: “when people worry about the Government interfering … I think we need to remind ourselves that governments interfere constantly in business and the markets and the question is not whether we should have big government or small government, but how can we ensure that we have intelligent government when it comes to industrial strategy.”

Ms O’Grady said she had encountered employers and unions alike asking for certainty, delivered by a policy framework from government which would allow them, in partnership, to do the rest. Certainty, for example, is needed in the energy market, not just in renewables but also nuclear and clean coal.

The Government should get to grips with the UK’s £220bn procurement budget, which could be better used to stimulate green behaviours and technologies. The TUC firmly supports a new green infrastructure, which would not only affect big companies, but would stretch down into an entire supply chain of SMEs.

However bearing in mind the estimation by Dieter Helm and his colleagues, that the UK infrastructure will require £434bn by 2020 of investment, the question must be asked: “what do we do if the money is not forthcoming from the markets? Because we’ve got a deadline, a literal deadline on this agenda, that we need to beat.”

Source: www.aldersgategroup.org.uk

By Amy Drew (29 March 2010):

It now appears that the High Court in London has ordered the UK government to consult with the public once again on the proposed construction of a third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport. A coalition of local councils, residents, and environmental groups sought a judicial review against the proposal. They argued that the government’s approval of the scheme was at odds with environmental targets. Some campaigners also argue that the first public consultation was unfair.

Despite the very good defense that was heard from the Department of Transport, Lord Justice Carnwath just recently ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper is obsolete, because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act of 2008. The judge also expressed some real concerns over the hardship that would be caused to the local community by the third runway.

Thus, the coalition, which brought up the successful legal challenge, is now calling on the government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plan for good. Of course, it’s not quite that easy. Supporters of the proposed development argue that a third runway at Heathrow is essential for the economic prosperity of south and east England. Not only that, but they say that it would create a ton of local jobs.

People who oppose the plan, including Greenpeace, said that it would be environmentally damaging. They also said that it would destroy local properties and increase noise pollution. Overall, they feel that the whole plan would bring nothing but trouble.

Either way, both sides of the argument have good points that they are trying to make. This is going to be one battle that rages on for quite some time.

Source: www.comparecarrentals.co.uk

Copper & Lithium Opportunities Along with Electric Vehicles

A study in the US estimated hybrid and electric vehicles could cut US oil consumption by up to four million barrels a day by 2050. It also found that switching to plug-ins for electric vehicles could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 450 million metric tonnes annually in 2050, equivalent to taking more than 82 million passenger cars off the road. Tim Blue has the story.

Tim Blue in The Australian Wealth Section (24 March 2010):

THIS month, German car company Daimler AG did a deal with BYD, the Chinese carmaker backed by American billionaire Warren Buffett, to jointly develop an electric vehicle to be sold in China, the world’s largest vehicle market.

Daimler, the world’s second largest maker of luxury cars, and BYD will share technology to develop electric vehicles for China and no doubt roll them out worldwide in time. Buffett, who has 10 per cent of BYD, already has tripled his money.

It’s not hard to see why this deal has excited the financial smarties and sent them scrambling for their calculators: it rings bells everywhere. Electric cars have less than 2 per cent of the world’s car market but, as LimeStreet Capital managing director Steve Bartrop says, “investors may be underestimating the growth potential”.

Should that be the case, investors may have opportunities to leverage off any growth in demand and profits among copper and lithium producers, shown in the table at right.

Most electric cars so far have a plug-in electric motor and a back-up petrol or diesel engine. In Australia, we have the Toyota Prius, while Mitsubishi expects to sell its MiEV electric vehicles in limited numbers from September. There is talk of a Honda Civic Hybrid and Lexus 400h, while Nissan has plans to introduce its Leaf model from 2012 with a price tag of $60,000.

It’s a different story in the US and Europe, where serious efforts are under way to ramp up the use of such vehicles. Mitsubishi Motors has struck an agreement with Peugeot on electric car development and supply where Peugeot would sell electric vehicles under the Peugeot and Citroen brands.

For investors, opportunities seem to be opening in two key areas, copper and lithium.

Electric cars will draw from coal-powered generating stations, not hydrocarbon liquid fuels. A fall in oil consumption could be on the cards.

That could mean a healthier trade balance in the US, less pressure on global oil prices and potentially less global warming. The Copenhagen climate conference last December was a dud, but US President Barack Obama appears keen to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. More hybrid and electric vehicles could be one way to address this issue.

A study in the US estimated hybrid and electric vehicles could cut US oil consumption by up to four million barrels a day by 2050. It also found that switching to plug-ins for electric vehicles could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 450 million metric tonnes annually in 2050, equivalent to taking more than 82 million passenger cars off the road. In San Francisco, new structures must be wired for car chargers and across from City Hall, some drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into charging stations.

LimeStreet’s Bartrop says: “In our research we were surprised at how advanced a number of western US cities are in promoting hybrid and particularly electric vehicles.”

The first mass-market electric cars in the US are expected to hit the market in December when Nissan introduces the Leaf, a five-passenger electric car that will have a range of 150km on a fully charged battery and be priced for middle-class families.

About the same time, General Motors will introduce the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle with a capacity to go 65km on electricity before its small gasoline engine kicks in.

The California Public Utilities Commission has brought together utilities, carmakers and charging station companies involved in the rapid development of the infrastructure required. San Francisco hopes to have 60 charging stations installed in public garages by end of this year, with 1000 more available across the Bay Area next year.

In Oregon an advisory group is working on charging stations and related issues. Part of an Obama $US200 million ($216m) stimulus package is permitting the installation of 13,000 charging stations across cities in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona and Tennessee during the next few years. Bartrop suggests the real driver for electric cars will be the running costs, estimated at 1.5c/km, compared with 12.5c/km for petrol.

“Many North Americans are used to plugging in cars in parking places in the northern cooler areas where the electricity is used to run heaters [that] prevent the radiator coolant from freezing and cracking the engine,” says Bartrop. “With the right cost structure and the ready availability of charging stations in business areas, why wouldn’t families use an electric `run around’ car?”

A second car could be a conventional petrol engine for long trips.

For investors, electric cars hold the promise of higher copper consumption. Most cars have 22kg to 28kg of copper and copper alloys, while electric and hybrid vehicles use about twice as much. Carmakers worldwide use about 50 million kg to 55 million kg of copper a year, and LimeStreet projects that to increase to about 70 million in 2020.

How big could the market grow? “The vehicle industry is projecting around a 10 per cent penetration by 2020 although we expect it may in fact be somewhat higher,” says Bartrop. “A 20 per cent penetration is equivalent to an extra 400,000 tonnes a year of copper consumption [until recycling kicks in]. The current copper market is around 24 million tonnes a year so it may not have the impact that some will suggest; at a 20 per cent penetration it is only consuming 1 [per cent] to 2 per cent of the current copper market.”

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Green Capital Speaks Up: “Doing Nothing is Not an Option”

The clear message is that doing nothing is costing business money.  Business and environment group leaders met in Sydney this week to review the collapse of the CPRS and how to manage risk in the face of climate change and a policy void. Green Capital and the Total Environment Centre organised the event. Melbourne has its chance to contribute on 14 April.     

Green Capital reports (30 March 2010):

Business and environment group leaders met in Sydney this week to review the collapse of the CPRS and how to manage risk in the face of climate change and a policy void, at Total Environment Centre’s Doing Nothing Is Not An Option event.  

Run by Green Capital, TEC’s business engagement program, the event also launched a Carbon & Energy Quick Check tool for business, CARB-EN.

The panel was chaired by the ABC’s Quentin Dempster, and speakers included Blair Palese, CEO, 350.org; Jon Jutsen, Executive Director, Energetics; Sean Macken, Director (NSW), Hawker Britton; Andrew Petersen, Partner, Climate Change Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers; Freddie Sharpe, CEO of Climate Friendly; Dr Tony Wilkins, News Limited’s Manager of Environment and Climate Change; and Matthew Wright, Executive Director, Beyond Zero Emissions.

“The clear message is that doing nothing is costing business money,” said Jeff Angel, Executive Director of TEC.

Jon Jutsen said, ““Energy efficiency, which is highly underrated, could deliver 53% of savings to every business and household. We can’t press the rewind button on the planet. Once the resources are gone they’re gone forever.”

Blair Palese called on business to “stop being nice and get ugly!”

“Politicians are not listening to the public,” she said, “and business is not telling government what it wants. We have the solutions and we need to get in the face of the people who are not acting to break this policy vacuum.”

CARB-EN sets out five areas ranging from greening the supply chain to staff green teams, where business can act now.  TEC called on companies to rank themselves from inaction/basic to excellent/inspirational as a way to help guide improvements in their performance.

“Companies that do take action now will be far better prepared when a carbon price does come in.  It’s not a matter of if, but when,” said Mr Angel.

As background, Jeff Angel of TEC sets this out:

Three years of build-up for a national emission trading scheme has collapsed. Global climate negotiations are in disarray. And now it’s an election year for Australia.

Where business had hoped for carbon certainty, it now faces prolonged policy confusion and frustration … all hopes of a bipartisan political solution appear to be lost.

So what happens now? With scientific alarm continuing to sound, public concern still burning, and investors looking desperately for clear signals, doing nothing is not an option!

Energy costs are going up rapidly even without an ETS or tax to put a price on carbon

State governments are still driving their own carbon and energy saving regulations and market-based solutions

Employees still want to work with environmentally and socially responsible companies

Consumers increasingly want to live and buy more sustainably

The Total Environment Centre and its corporate sustainability program Green Capital have shaped a special events and IP package to help answer the big carbon challenges for 2010. To be released at the events, our IP includes our latest issues paper, Doing nothing is NOT an option, and results of our own survey of sustainability professionals.

In the opening part of our Sydney and Melbourne events we’ll ask leading business practitioners of energy efficiency, renewable energy and carbon offsetting to tell us their experiences to date, the role their sector can play – and how they assess the challenges now.

Then, in the second half, our panel of engaged experts will debate the political and policy situation; offer their own perspectives on the future for business and the community; and answer questions from the audience.

At the close we’ll present our package of recommendations to help guide you towards practical solutions for your business.

A Melbourne event continuing the theme, “Doing nothing is not an option” will be held      Wednesday, 14 April, 2010 from 7:00 AM – 10:00 AM, The ANZ Pavillion at the Arts Centre 100 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004.

Melbourne Chair:  Liz Minchin, Saturday News Editor, The Age, and co-author of Screw Light Bulbs 

Pane:

Rosemary Bissett , Group Manager, Sustainable Business Practices, Group Corporate Affairs, National Australia Bank

Nathan Fabian , CEO, Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC)

Sheila Fitzgerald , Director Futures and Planning, Swinburne University National Institute for Sustainability

Jack Holden , Senior Manager, Sustainability, Climate Change & Water, KPMG

Victoria McKenzie-McHarg, Climate Change and Sustainable Transport Campaigner, Environment Victoria

Erin Simpson , Manager, Products and Services, Department of Sustainability Services, VECCI (Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry)

Source: www.greencapital.org.au and www.tec.org.au

Cities in Frontline to Care, Calculate & Reduce Emissions

The world’s cities now have a common method for calculating the amount of greenhouse gases produced within their boundaries. UNEP, UN-HABITAT, and the World Bank jointly launched a Global Greenhouse Gas Standard for cities at the World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro last week. Cities can be a key catalyst towards the international aim of keeping a global temperature rise to under 2 degrees C by 2050.

Cities Get Common Standard for Measuring Greenhouse Gas Emissions

UNEP reports from Rio de Janeiro (23 March 2010):

The world’s cities now have a common method for calculating the amount of greenhouse gases produced within their boundaries. UNEP, UN-HABITAT, and the World Bank jointly launched a Global Greenhouse Gas Standard for cities at the World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro today.

City mayors, other urban leaders, businesses and civil society all recognize the need to act to reduce the impacts of climate change on cities. While measurement should not delay action, a critical requirement to support policy and access to finance is the establishment of an open, global and harmonized protocol for quantifying the GHG emissions attributable to cities and local regions.

“The common standard is a critical first step for cities to better understand their greenhouse gas emissions, with this knowledge cities can better target policies and inform their citizens,” said Zoubida Allaoua, World Bank Director.

Anna Tibaijuka, Undersecretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of UN-HABITAT said: “In reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cities are part of the solution: city officials are discovering new ways to get people out of cars and into rapid transit buses; to harness the methane released by landfills and turn it into energy; to support compact urban development and not urban sprawl”.

The Greenhouse Gas Standard calculates emissions on a per capita basis, allowing cities to compare their performance and analyse the differences. For example, greenhouse gas emissions are 4.20 tonnes of CO2e per capita in Barcelona, Spain, 10.6 in Bangkok, Thailand, and 17.8 in Calgary, Canada. But emissions vary widely among cities depending on their primary energy source, climate, means of transportation and urban form. New York, a high-density city in the US, produces 10.4 tonnes of CO2e per capita while Denver, another US-city with a much lower density, produces more than double that at 21.3 tonnes. The new common standard also allows cities to compare their emissions over time, across cities and in specific sectors such as energy, transportation, or waste.

The Greenhouse Gas Standard builds on and is consistent with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) protocol and other greenhouse gas initiatives such as those by the World Resources Institute, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and the Clinton Climate Initiative. The Standard provides a common format to facilitate compilation by cities themselves, or through the academic community. It is now completed for more than 40 cities, but the goal of UNEP, UN-HABITAT and the World Bank is to eventually have all cities around the world represented.

UNEP, UN-HABITAT, and the World Bank recognize the importance of climate change for cities and are working jointly to produce tools, programming and resources for cities as they respond to climate change.

Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and UNEP Executive Director, said: “Cities can be a key catalyst towards the international aim of keeping a global temperature rise to under 2 degrees C by 2050. The Copenhagen Accord, for which 110 countries representing over 80 per cent of global emissions have expressed support, remains a work in progress. There remains an ambition gap between where we are and where we need to be in 2020 – bigger cuts by cities may be one route towards bridging this divide.”

The Greenhouse Gas Standard for cities, released today, is one of a series of tools that UNEP, UN-HABITAT and the World Bank are working on for cities. The joint work program is being carried out with the support of Cities Alliance.

UNEP

Created in 1972, UNEP represents the United Nations’ environmental conscience. Based in Nairobi, Kenya, its mission is to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics – based in Paris – helps governments, local authorities and decision-makers in business and industry to develop and implement policies and practices focusing on sustainable development. The Division leads UNEP’s work in the areas of climate change, resource efficiency, harmful substances and hazardous waste.

UN-HABITAT

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) is the United Nations agency for human settlements. It is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all. Its Cities in Climate Change Initiative seeks to enhance climate change mitigation and climate change preparedness of cities in developing and least developed countries. Building on UN-HABITAT’s long experience in sustainable urban development, the Cities in Climate Change Initiative seeks to provide support towards the development and implementation of pro-poor and innovative climate change policies and strategies; and to develop tools for enhancing capacities of local governments.

World Bank

The World Bank is a source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. Its mission is to help people help themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity and forging partnerships in the public and private sectors. The World Bank’s Urban & Local Government Strategy aims to be a key element in helping civic leaders and national authorities think through, and implement, policies and programs for the benefit of their people, their cities, and their countries. The Strategy will help governments at all levels make cities more equitable, efficient, sustainable, and environmentally friendly.

Source: www.unep.org

Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel?

One part of the defunct Rudd-Turnbull deal has survived last year’s devastation – the establishment of an “energy efficiency taskforce”, overseen in the Department of Climate Change by Howard Bamsey, who used to travel the world as Australia’s “special envoy” on climate, and has an advisory group that includes WWF, the Climate Institute, Energy Retailers Association.

Lenore Taylor in the National Times (27 March 2010):

Here’s a conversation starter for your candlelit party (for Earth Hour). Is climate change just too hard for our politicians? There’s strong evidence it might be.

Labor had its emissions trading scheme trashed in the Senate last year and responded by talking loudly about health in the hope the Christopher Monktons and Barnaby Joyces of the world would just go away.

The Coalition – after knifing its own leader in its determination to defeat Labor’s policy – came up with a ”direct action” policy embraced by the large number of Coalition members who don’t believe humans are changing the climate. That’s got to tell us something about the policy.

And the Greens continue to insist nothing is better than the something on offer in the form of the government’s emissions trading scheme, which means nothing is about as much greenhouse gas abatement as we’ll be getting.

Meanwhile, the energy industry is sitting on $50 billion or more of desperately needed new generation investment because it has no idea what’s going on. Big business keeps factoring a carbon price into its budgeting even though it might not have to pay one.

And the public, 73 per cent of whom still believe climate change is happening (and 96 per cent of them think its happening because of human activity), take symbolic and personal action to which no politician appears to be listening.

Late last year was a “perfect storm” that ripped through the federal government’s policy on climate. Senior figures refer to it more colourfully as a “clusterf—”. The Liberal leadership change ended not only the deal with Malcolm Turnbull, but bipartisan agreement that some kind of emissions trading scheme was necessary, which had been the starting point for all Labor’s political calculations. The disaster in Copenhagen and the mistakes uncovered in the report by the International Panel on Climate Change both fuelled and provided cover for the Coalition’s sudden change in direction.

One part of the defunct Rudd-Turnbull deal has survived last year’s devastation – the establishment of an “energy efficiency taskforce”. It is overseen in the Department of Climate Change by Howard Bamsey, who used to travel the world as Australia’s “special envoy” on climate, and has an advisory group that includes the chief executive of WWF, Greg Bourne, the head of the Climate Institute, John Connor, and the chief executive of the Energy Retailers Association, Cameron O’Reilly. It will soon release a “discussion paper”. It all sounds bureaucratic and boring until you compute that its final report is due midyear, right in time for big new policies to be announced on industrial and building energy efficiency, before the federal election.

The Climate Minister, Penny Wong, is technically still “in negotiation” with the Greens about a proposed compromise deal to try to get the emissions trading scheme through the Senate in May. But neither side holds out much hope a deal can be done that satisfies both the Greens and the two Liberals in the Senate who crossed the floor in support of Malcolm Turnbull’s deal and who might possibly do so again.

And that leaves Labor with a dilemma. It can’t abandon the emissions trading scheme as policy, but should it be one of those policies it hides in the back room or one of the ones it fights on? Some strategists strongly advise the former, unwilling to stare down Abbott’s assault on the “great big tax on everything” .Others say that while climate will not be as central to the campaign as the economy and health and education, Labor should not shy from the fight and couldn’t even if it wanted to. Their argument was strengthened when Abbott announced his own “great big new tax” to pay for more generous parental leave.

While Labor dithers, the Coalition keeps trotting out its attack. “The one thing you can be absolutely certain of is that we will oppose Mr Rudd’s great big new tax to the last breath,” Abbott said about the emissions trading scheme. That’s the great big new tax he was in favour of waving through the Senate unamended last year.

He also said the scheme would ”cost 126,000 jobs” in regional Australia. The source for that figure is an Access Economics report which found the scheme would see regional jobs grow by 1.413 million by 2020, 126,000 fewer than the 1.539 million extra jobs there might be without one. And that was before the policy was watered down two more times.

Even Labor advisers concede privately the emissions trading scheme, after all its amendments and compromises, is far from perfectly designed. And if they are going to “sell” it then one day they’ll have to get around to admitting that it will raise costs. That’s the point. The cost drives the change in behaviour.

But the Coalition’s “direct action” policy makes even less sense. It proposes a $3.2 billion government fund to “buy” emission reductions. As the Coalition’s own modeller, Danny Price from Frontier Economics, has said, that could be a reasonable way to start emission reductions – a sensible “short- to medium-term stop gap” – but to change the economy there has to be some kind of carbon price in the end. And if you read the fine print, the Coalition does say it would reconsider a carbon price in 2015.

Most of the Coalition’s planned emission reductions are supposed to come from storing more carbon in soil. The only major industrial reductions envisaged appear to be from closing the dirtiest brown coal-fired power stations. The idea seems to be that the government pay hundreds of millions a year to the operators of those plants to close them, rebuild gas-run stations and then subsidise those new plants so they can provide power into the grid at the same price as black coal.

It would reduce emissions, for sure. But for how long would taxpayers subsidise a couple of operators? And on what basis should the rest of the industry make investment decisions?

Senior business figures regard the policy as something stitched together to cover up the gap between the majority of the community who want sensible government action and the majority of those who installed Abbott who agree that the “settled science” of climate change is “crap”.

One is the South Australian senator Cory Bernardi, appointed by Abbott as a parliamentary secretary. A conservative youth organisation Bernardi has set up is promoting “human achievement hour” – an anti-Earth Hour movement urging people to turn on every light at 8.30 tonight. “Don’t be stuck in the dark with the communists. Turn your lights on”, reads its poster. Asked about the campaign, Abbott says people should make up their own mind what they want to do.

It seems voters are short of any major political party with a viable solution that they can actually implement. And short of any major party with the courage of its convictions, whatever they might be

Source: www.nationaltimes.com.au