Bali, biologists, bickering, bikes & blues

A mixed bag of goodies this week with one or two dull notes. Renewable energy targets get a welcome shift to give added incentive to investors in clean energy. A breath of fresh air and clearer skies for wind and solar. In St Louis, coal giant Peabody sings the blues, while Monsanto accepts the reality of climate change even if its GM seeding goes against the grain. Under the spotlight is Stewart Moore, EC3 Global and its new EarthCheck. Bickering abounds on the world climate stage so Bali has another soothing role. Down on the farm there are changes to face up to and on the crowded streets of China the air is electric with bikes. Green infrastructure needs Government backing for its innovative rating scheme and biologists identify species threatened by a warming world. Queensland draws attention to Great Barrier threats from the land and more that needs to be done for energy efficiency. If you cannot see the wood for the trees, think deforestation, while if you’re dying to see a comprehensive and heartening overview of the ups and downs of climate change action and inaction, stick it out until the Lucky Last. It’s worth the ride.
Ken Hickson

Profile: Stewart Moore
As Chief Executive Officer of EC3 Global, the international technology and environmental services company with origins dating back to 1987, Stewart Moore says “a seismic shift has occurred” – and its nothing to do with Chile’s devastating earthquake – as leaders in the sustainable travel and tourism industry moved to adopt EarthCheck, the next generation in benchmarking and certification.
The timely introduction of the EarthCheck Program, in addition to Scopes 1, 2 and 3 carbon reporting, is a welcome tool for all operators in the travel and tourism industry.
“EarthCheck will enable our clients to independently calculate their Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions,” explains Stewart Moore, CEO of EC3 Global. “The Program provides a framework to help increase operational efficiencies, maximise the impacts of Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives and minimise environmental footprints. These are all things that are now expected of market leaders and verifiable proof is often required by many organisations prior to booking conferences and making group reservations.”
Stewart Moore has over twenty years of experience in tourism operations and consulting to the private and public sector both within Australia and the Asia Pacific region. Stewart is a NIES accredited business consultant and specialises in sustainable tourism, climate change, regional planning, destination management and all issues to do with enterprise and product development.
A fellow of the Financial Services Institute of Australia and the Australian Tourism Research Institute, Stewart has served on the Tourism Forecasting Council of Australia for ten years, and was Chairman of the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) in Queensland for eight years.
For the past ten years, Stewart as assisted the Australian-based Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Center (STCRC), in commercialising its research.
He is one of the Asia Pacific’s most experienced destination management and strategic planning consultants. His latest book: “Tourism Risk Management, An Authoritative Guide to Managing Crises in Tourism” was released in April 2007.
Stewart has a Masters of Regional Science specialising in tourism planning and development, a Bachelor of Regional and Town Planning (Honours) and has completed post graduate studies in Finance and Investment from the Financial and Services Institute of Australia (FINSIA); and Conservation and Heritage from the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York, U.K.
Tourism Market Leaders Move to EarthCheck
1 March 2010, Brisbane, Australia – A seismic shift occurred this week when leaders in the sustainable travel and tourism industry moved to EarthCheck, the next generation in benchmarking and certification. Among them were hospitality giants such as InterContinental Hotel Group (IHG), Carlson Asia Pacific, Sandals Resorts International, Langham, Banyan Tree, Alila, Six Senses and Dusit.
Their decision will be keenly watched by others in the industry who are monitoring the impact of the emerging carbon economy and taking note of how new legislation is likely to impact on margins.
The EarthCheck Program was jointly developed by the Australian Government funded Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) and Brisbane-based company EC3 Global. It responds directly to the major environmental problems facing the planet, including climate change, waste reduction and non-renewable resource management.
With the tightening of regulations, new emissions trading schemes, and the implementation of mandatory reporting, producing Greenhouse Gas (GHG)emissions now comes at a very real cost to business. If left unchecked, the price can easily run into the millions of dollars and exposure to risk could balloon to debilitating levels.
“With legislative changes and increasing reporting requirements, it’s all a matter of risk,” states the corporate responsibility director of IHG’s Australasian operations, Frank Hubbard. “From our perspective, we see EC3 Global’s products and services as scientifically validated and useful solutions. The ongoing investment in the EC3 Global business, and the fact that it is trusted by the biggest in the trade, makes it a provider and partner we prefer to bet on.”
Hubbard’s sentiments are echoed across the Caribbean, where Sandals Resorts International has also selected EarthCheck as the most technologically advanced yet practical and realistic standard science based environmental standard.
“As the leading all-Inclusive accommodation provider in the Caribbean championing the charge of sustainability, we are happy to have EarthCheck as the engine behind our programs,” explains Wayne Cummings, Director of Business Processes & Administration at Sandals Resorts International. “Moving forward with its own branding and criteria under EarthCheck, we expect continued improvement in the offerings and effectiveness to the tourism industry with renewed credibility and focus.”
Asian properties are highly evolved when it comes to sustainable practices, and how to balance guest expectations with forward-thinking corporate philosophies. When Banyan Tree made the decision to upgrade the software and technology they use to measure, monitor and manage their operations, they had to be certain that the guests experience would in no way be compromised.
“We feel that EarthCheck is the most stringent and relevant benchmarking tool for us to first measure our performance, then systematically take actions for improvement,” says Michael Kwee of Banyan Tree Global Foundation Limited. “The robust system and strength of the underlying research have given us the confidence to entrust EarthCheck to provide us with accurate measures and benchmark intelligence.”
The timely introduction of the EarthCheck Program, in addition to Scopes 1, 2 and 3 carbon reporting, is a welcome tool for all operators.
“EarthCheck will enable our clients to independently calculate their Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions,” explains Stewart Moore, CEO of EC3 Global. “The Program provides a framework to help increase operational efficiencies, maximise the impacts of Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives and minimise environmental footprints. These are all things that are now expected of market leaders and verifiable proof is often required by many organisations prior to booking conferences and making group reservations.”
Although some managers continue to view the greening of business as merely a marketing strategy, for the more savvy operators the paradigm shift represents a welcome opportunity to streamline, maximize efficiencies and use science to make a direct (positive) impact on the triple bottom line.
“EC3 Global continues to gain significant traction in the travel and tourism industry and has become a leading authority on sustainability,” says Nicholas Blake from the Hong Kong offices of Langham Hotels. “Having the ability to access international trends in sustainable tourism and then extrapolate these findings into proven industry metrics provides customers peace of mind and an approach that’s consistent with leading international authorities.”
EC3 Global has built a solid reputation as an international environmental management and certification company with more than 1000 clients in over 60 countries. As such, developments at EC3 Global are likely to have a flow-on effect for National Park agencies, community organizations, Government regulators and leading hotel and travel groups across the globe.
About EC3 Global – the world’s largest certifier of sustainable travel and tourism operators, EC3 Global has more than 1000 clients in over 60 countries. EC3 Global provides a benchmarking, certification and performance improvement systems to help businesses improve their bottom line and achieve operational efficiencies.
Source: www.earthcheck.org and www.ec3global.com

Boost For Renewable Energy Investment
Government has changed Australia’s renewable energy target scheme to give industry groups more certainty, splitting it into two, so large-scale renewable energy projects don’t have to suffer investment disadvantage from smaller scale projects, such as solar panels and solar hot water systems. Clean Energy Council welcomes the move and WWF would like to see the renewables target increased from 20% by 2020 to 40% by 2030.
ABC News Report (26 February 2010)::
The Federal Government says it is making changes to its renewable energy target scheme to give industry groups more certainty.
The scheme will be split into two to separate large-scale renewable energy projects such as commercial solar plants, wind farms and geothermal from small-scale projects such as solar panels and solar hot water systems.
The Government says the changes mean the scheme is likely to exceed its target of 20 per cent of energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.
Small-scale projects will have a fixed price of $40 per megawatt hour for produced electricity.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the changes will address concerns that large projects were being crowded out by smaller-scale initiatives.
“We are being very clear with the large-scale sector. This target has to be met by you from your investment. That gives that market the investment certainty they want to drive the investments that the nation needs in clean energy jobs,” she said.
Greens Senator Christine Milne has welcomed the changes.
“The Greens have been pointing out since day one that there would be problems with this, with the collapse in the price by including energy efficiency measures inside the target,” she said.
“We had our own private member’s bill to fix it and I’m glad the Government has finally listened to people in the industry and the Parliament who saw the problem.”
Source: www.abc.net.au
WWF announced (1 March 2010):
WWF today welcomed the Australian Government’s proposal to split the Renewable Energy Target (RET) into two parts – the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target.
It is hoped the division will encourage investment in large scale base-load technologies, like solar thermal, geothermal and wave energy.
“The two schemes are a good starting point, however we would like to see the RET amended so that it encourages simultaneous development of all emerging large-scale zero emission technologies,” said Nicole Ikenberg, WWF’s Climate Change Policy Manager.
“It is vital the Government finds a way to level the playing field so that investment in renewable energy technologies can be spread evenly across the sector.”
Research commissioned for WWF consistently shows that developing all low emissions electricity – generation technologies simultaneously is essential to transform the economy quickly enough to avoid runaway climate change.
Indications the scheme could allow the renewable energy target to be exceeded were also welcomed by WWF. Achieving a renewable energy target of greater than 20 per cent by 2020 would put Australia in a strong position to continue to increase renewable energy generation out to 2030.
“We would like to see this target increased to 40 per cent by 2030,” said Ms Ikenberg.
“If we genuinely intend to transform our economy in a way that addresses the threat of climate change we have no choice but to increase our ambition. A 40 per cent target by 2030 is realistic, practical and affordable.”
Source: www.wwf.org.au
Clean Energy Council release (26 February 2010):
Renewable energy scheme changes ‘on the money’
NATIONAL: The clean energy industry says changes to the renewable energy target announced today will deliver stalled multi-million dollar commercial projects as well as supporting household scale technologies such as solar panels and solar hot water systems.

“The Rudd Government has got it right with this announcement,” said Clean Energy Council chief executive Matthew Warren.

“The clean energy industry has been discussing structural design issues with the current Renewable Energy Target since late last year. The Rudd Government has listened carefully to industry advice and today has acted decisively and effectively.

“Our main concern was to improve the design of the RET to ensure that it delivered both industrial scale generation projects as well as the continued development and deployment of household technologies like solar panels and hot water. Today’s announcement addresses this problem.

“We will continue to work with the government to ensure the final legislation is effective and efficient.

“These changes clear the path for the clean energy industry to play its crucial role in driving down the cost of clean energy whilst cutting Australia’s greenhouse emissions.

“This is good news for jobs and investment in the renewable energy industry,” Mr Warren said.
www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au

Stop Bickering & Start Acting on Emission Reductions
Environmental officials have urged industrialised and developing countries to stop bickering in climate change negotiations, as a Chinese delegate accused rich nations of reneging on commitments to fight global warming. This, as officials from more than 100 countries attended the annual UN environmental meeting on Indonesia’s resort island of Bali, location of the landmark “roadmap” conference of December 2007.
AP reports from Bali (27 February 2010):
Environmental officials have urged industrialised and developing countries to stop bickering in climate change negotiations, as a Chinese delegate accused rich nations of reneging on commitments to fight global warming.
Officials from more than 100 countries are attending an annual UN environmental meeting on Indonesia’s resort island of Bali.
They said trust must be restored among nations following the failure at the Copenhagen conference in December to forge a binding accord on cutting emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases which could threaten humanity.
‘There was a very strong message from many countries that this is actually an existential challenge,’ Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa told a news conference.
‘One overriding sentiment’ expressed by many countries ‘was the need to rebuild confidence, to address the question of trust deficit,’ he said.
At Copenhagen, nations agreed only on a voluntary plan to tackle climate change. The more than 190 nations will reconvene in Cancun, Mexico, later this year to try to reach a binding agreement.
The aim is to keep the Earth’s average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees celsius above preindustrial levels of the late 18th century.
UN scientists have said any temperature rise above that could lead to catastrophic sea-level rises, threatening islands and coastal cities. It would also kill off many species of animals and plants while altering agricultural economies.
Despite the call for harmony, Chinese foreign ministry official Guo Zaofeng accused developed countries of not living up to past commitments to cut greenhouse gases and provide funds and technology to poor countries grappling with global warming.
‘This way, they’ve broken the atmosphere of trust,’ Guo told AP. ‘This is why we did not get quicker progress during the negotiations.’
China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, would cut its ‘carbon intensity’ – a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of production – by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020, from 2005 levels, voluntarily, Guo said.
The head of the US delegation in the Bali meeting, Kerri-Ann Jones, refused to comment on Guo’s remarks. She said the Copenhagen meeting made progress, citing a plan for aid and technological support for poor countries.
‘It’s a very difficult challenge that we’re facing,’ Jones said. ‘We have to keep working on the positive side. I think we can advance.’
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer told AP it was unlikely that a binding agreement could be forged in the Cancun meetings.
‘It’s very close to the deadline and that’s a problem,’ de Boer said. The Cancun meetings are expected in November or December.
He said the focus should shift toward reaching an agreement at a summit next year in South Africa before the Kyoto Protocol, which set emissions targets for industrial countries, expires in 2012.
De Boer, who helped kickstart the climate talks in 2007 on replacing the Kyoto Protocol, last week announced he was resigning effective in July, but said his decision had nothing to do with the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting.
Since Copenhagen, 60 nations – including China, the US and the 27-member EU – last month submitted nonbinding pledges to the UN to reduce the heat-trapping gases.
The countries produce 78 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.
Source: www.bigpondnews.com

Farmers Must Adapt To Higher Temperatures & Reduced Water
Agriculture needs to adapt now to climate change according to a book launched this week entitled: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: Preparing Australian Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for the Future. Science highlights a clear urgency to act to prepare for future impacts and opportunities under climate change, says Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO, Dr Mark Howden.
CSIRO release (1 March 2010):

Australian agriculture must adapt to climate change
Australian agriculture needs to adapt now to climate change according to a CSIRO book launched this week entitled: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: Preparing Australian Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for the Future.
“Our science highlights a clear urgency to act to prepare Australian agriculture for future impacts and opportunities under climate change,” said the book’s co-editor, Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO, Dr Mark Howden.
“Australia is highly sensitive to climate change and we know enough to start preparing adaptation strategies now. Well-informed and forewarned by science, we have the opportunity to implement practices to minimise the risks and enable primary industries to survive and prosper.
“With effective adaptation, it is possible that agriculture will not be substantially worse off under the quite challenging climate change scenarios for Australia, but we need to start planning and acting now,” Dr Howden said.
The book’s findings are based on the expertise of senior researchers from CSIRO, state government departments, universities and other research institutions. It explains how climate change is likely to affect Australia’s primary industries and provides summary information on promising options for dealing with these challenges.
“It is the first publication that systematically outlines climate variability and climate change impacts and response options for Australia’s primary industries,” Dr Howden said. “This builds on substantial industry collaboration and I see this as a step in the journey together to deal with the challenges before us.”
Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change includes potential options for significant industries to survive and prosper in the face of climate variability and change. Industries include: grains, cotton, rice, sugarcane, wine grapes, horticulture, forestry, broadacre grazing, intensive livestock industries, marine fisheries, aquaculture and water resources.
Examples of adaptation options include: new breeds of crops better suited to higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, higher temperatures and reduced water resources; changing fishing practices to match changing species distributions and populations; and choosing more suitable sites and species for forestry plantations.
This book also includes information on greenhouse gas reduction options. The authors emphasise the significant need to develop the capacity within farm enterprises, communities and industries to adapt to global challenges. This includes considering social, economic and institutional constraints to adapting practices.
According to the Director of Primary Industries and Climate Change with the University of Melbourne and the Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Dr Michael Robinson, Australian farmers have always adapted to changing markets, new technologies and climate variability.
“Climate changes are likely to be far-reaching and will add to the substantial pressures that already exist for agriculture,” Dr Robinson said.
“Adaptive responses must be supported by good science and this science must be available and accessible. Furthermore, we will need to grow our research activities to match our growing understanding of the implications of climate change. A national effort is necessary, requiring good collaboration and coordination.
“This book is a critical contribution on the latest research and a start on the right path to assisting our primary industries. It is also an example of what can be achieved through collaboration.”
Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change was funded by the National Climate Change Strategy for Primary Industries (CCRSPI) and CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship.
The CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship research program addresses the urgent national challenge of adapting to a changing and variable climate.
Source: www.csiro.au

China Gets On Its Bike To Curb Emissions
As China spells out its greenhouse gas emissions goals and monitoring rules for regions and sectors in its next five-year plan, with monitoring to show it is serious about curbing emissions, Chinese commuters in their millions are turning to electric bicycles — hailed as the environmentally-friendly future of personal transport in the country’s teeming cities, making them already the top alternative to cars and public transport.
Chris Buckley for Reuters World Environment News (1 March 2010):
BEIJING – China said on Sunday it will spell out greenhouse gas emissions goals and monitoring rules for regions and sectors in its next five-year plan, with monitoring to show it is serious about curbing emissions.
The Chinese government said in November it would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activity, emitted to make each unit of national income by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.
That goal would let China’s greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, but more slowly than its rapid economic growth.
The policy was a cornerstone of Beijing’s position at the Copenhagen summit on climate change late last year when governments tried with limited success to agree on a new global treaty on fighting global warming.
The United States and other powers said China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases from industry and other human activities, should have offered to do more to bring its domestic “carbon intensity” goal into an international pact that would reassure other governments.
China said it and other poorer countries should not be obliged to take on internationally-binding emissions goals, and officials said Beijing would take steps to show the world it was serious about enforcing that goal.
Now the leading committee of China’s national parliament has gone some way to showing how the government plans, saying officials will carry out an “inventory” of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 and 2008, using that as a yardstick for setting emissions reductions goals across areas and sectors.
The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, or parliament, said the government would put in place a “statistical monitoring and assessment system to ensure greenhouse gas emissions goals are met,” Xinhua reported.
Those goals will be made part of the country’s next five-year development plan, starting from 2011.
“Relevant departments and regions will form action plans and medium- and long-term plans to cope with climate change and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, based on the targets and requirements set out by the State Council”, or cabinet, the report said.
Scientists widely believe China has passed the United States as the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter, but Beijing does not release any recent official emissions data.
China’s most recent official inventory of emissions was submitted to a U.N. agency in 2004 and covered the year 1994.
Source: www.planetark.org
By Joelle Garrus for AFP (20 February):
TIANJIN, China — Chinese commuters in their millions are turning to electric bicycles — hailed as the environmentally-friendly future of personal transport in the country’s teeming cities.
Up to 120 million e-bikes are estimated to be on the roads in China, making them already the top alternative to cars and public transport, according to recent figures published by local media.
“This is the future — it’s practical, it’s clean and it’s economical,” said manufacturer Shi Zhongdong, whose company also exports electric bikes to Asia and Europe.
The bikes have been hailed as an ecologically-sound alternative in a country which is the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, with their rechargeable batteries leaving a smaller carbon footprint than cars.
But some have expressed concerns about the pollution created by cheaper lead batteries, calling for better recycling and a quick shift to cleaner, though more expensive, lithium-ion battery technology.
More than 1,000 companies are already in the e-bike business in China, with many of them clustered in the eastern coastal provinces such as Jiangsu and Zhejiang, which both border Shanghai.
Another 1,000 firms are producing e-bikes on an ad hoc basis, Shi told AFP during a visit to his Hanma Electric Bicycles factory in the port city of Tianjin, about 120 kilometres (75 miles) north of Beijing.
“The business has exploded since 2006,” Shi says, while admitting that the company took a hit last year due to the financial crisis.
Some e-bikes can reach speeds of more than 35 kilometres an hour (21 miles per hour), and a few manufacturers boast their models can last up to 50 kilometres on a single battery charge.
Battery chargers are simply plugged into an electricity socket at home. Most e-bikes also have pedals, except for the bigger, scooter-like models.
Shi was an electrical engineer who worked for a state-owned firm for most of his career, but as he turned 55 and retirement was beckoning he founded Hanma in 1999, investing about 500,000 yuan (75,000 dollars) of his own money.
He is wary of giving exact production figures, but says Hanma is churning out between 50,000 and 100,000 e-bikes a year.
In his company’s icy, old-fashioned workshops, several models are lined up: from electric bikes with “green” lithium batteries, made especially for export, to some that look more like mini-scooters.
They are everywhere in the streets of Beijing — no licence plates, no driver’s licences needed. Enthusiasts say they are a godsend in a city where the number of scooter and motorcycle drivers is restricted.
“I get around traffic jams so easily,” said one Beijinger before speeding off from an intersection in the capital, where more than four million vehicles are clogging the roads and polluting the already thick air.
But not everyone is on the e-bike bandwagon — “real” cyclists have complained bitterly that their once peaceful lanes are now clogged with irresponsible, uncontrollable speedsters.
In December, authorities tried to re-impose a maximum speed limit of 20 kilometres (12 miles) per hour on e-bike riders, along with licence rules, but the plan caused such a public and industry uproar that it was suspended.
“The rules will never go through. Hundreds of factories would be forced to shut down. And what would those who already own e-bikes do?” Shi says.
In a report released last June, the Asian Development Bank said e-bikes could become “perhaps the most environmentally sustainable motorised mode available” in China.
But it called for the replacement of lead acid batteries and better regulations on the allowable weight and speed to keep accidents at a minimum.
Shi says nearly a third of his production goes abroad — to Asia, notably India, to the European Union and even to the United States.
“There is a big future for electric bikes in Europe, where people are very concerned about saving the environment,” he said, explaining that the models with safer but more costly lithium batteries are shipped to EU nations.
Shi says he sells the export models for 400 dollars, as opposed to just 240 dollars for those sold in China. But the bikes can sell for a whopping 1,200 dollars in France and Germany.
Source: www.skyscrapercity.com

Coalminer Peabody Blows Dirty Smoke on Climate Science
Bad business and climate disaster are bad for the rest of us, perhaps, but they are good business for Peabody. If carbon dioxide gas had an odour, it would smell like money to America’s largest privately held coal company. The Editorial Board of St Louis Today gets stuck into Peabody – which owns and operates eight coalmines in Australia – for trying to legally block US federal regulations that would limit emissions of greenhouse gases
From Peabody Australia’s website:
Peabody Energy Australia is one of Australia’s largest mining companies with 10 operations in Queensland and New South Wales. Peabody is actively pursuing growth plans with a view to being a long-term participant in the Australian coal industry.
Peabody Pacific operates 8 open-cut and underground coal mines in Queensland and New South Wales. The operations produce a broad range of metallurgical and thermal coals for a diverse range of domestic and international customers. Coal is exported through ports in the coastal cities of Mackay, Gladstone, Brisbane, Newcastle and Wollongong.
Peabody’s mission is to be a leading worldwide producer and supplier of sustainable energy solutions which power economic prosperity and result in a better quality of life.
Peabody supports the concept of sustainable development and in December 2005 joined Greenhouse Challenge Plus, which is part of the Australian Government’s comprehensive Climate Change Strategy. They are committed to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of the operations, accelerating the uptake of energy efficiency, integrating greenhouse issues into business decision making and providing more consistent reporting of greenhouse gas emission levels. Already they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, including major projects at Wilkie Creek and North Goonyella.
Source: www.peabodyenergy.com.au

St Louis Today (21 February 2010):
Peabody blows smoke on climate science
By Editorial Board
If carbon dioxide gas had an odor, it would smell like money to America’s largest privately held coal company.
St. Louis-based Peabody Energy operates mines that produce 600,000 tons of coal per day. Burning it releases millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every week, which fuels global climate change.
Peabody sued this month to block federal regulations that would limit emissions of greenhouse gases. It claims an “endangerment finding” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is flawed and relies on discredited science.
Peabody’s claims are wrong. But if they are sustained, the EPA would have to start over in laying the groundwork for regulations on greenhouse gases.
Any delay in addressing global climate change would be good for Peabody. It wouldn’t be good for the rest of the people who live on the planet.
Unfortunately, arguments like Peabody’s are gaining traction. Texas and Virginia filed suit last week using the same basic claims.
Like Peabody, their arguments are based on the content of stolen e-mails between leading climate scientists, which were posted online last fall.
Denialists have been trying for years to discredit the science of climate change. Those failed efforts have been replaced by a campaign of intimidation and personal attacks.
Using words and phrases cherry-picked from the pilfered e-mails, denialists have tried to portray the scientists as manipulating data and skewing their work.
In fact, the science is robust, based on temperature observations, increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, documented changes in weather patterns and natural phenomenon.
Peabody’s federal appeal reads as if it were lifted from denialist blogs and websites — because it is. Many of the claims the company makes are misleading or untrue.
The suit alleges that scientists “engaged in a wide variety of improper and indeed unethical tactics to manipulate” scientific information.
As evidence, it quotes a 2004 e-mail in which a researcher talks about a pair of studies that dispute key aspects of climate change.
The researcher says he will “keep them out somehow” from an important report being prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But both papers were discussed in that key IPCC report.
Elsewhere, the suit quotes a researcher who talks about using a “trick” to compile information for a paper. Denialists have seized on the term as evidence that the data was manipulated.
In fact, a University of Pennsylvania inquiry board cleared the researcher of that charge earlier this month.
“The so-called trick was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion,” the board wrote. It noted that the technique “has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”
Denialists lately have been quoting NASA scientist Andrew Lacis, who critiqued an IPCC report in 2005. They’ve used his words to cast doubts on the science of climate change.
But Mr. Lacis clarified his views in a New York Times blog earlier this month: “Failure to control atmospheric (carbon dioxide) is a bad way to run a business and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.”
Bad business and climate disaster are bad for the rest of us, perhaps, but they are good business for Peabody. The federal court ultimately will decide which it will be.

Letter to St Louis Today (1 March 2010):

Peabody is right to challenge science in climate change reports

The editorial “Blowing smoke” (Feb. 22) improperly criticizes Peabody Energy for calling into question what has become an almost daily litany of retractions, apologies and embarrassing admissions about the poor quality of science contained in the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change report.

The same day as the editorial, we learned of yet another revelation: researchers withdrew a claim that sea levels are rising drastically. This followed a separate retraction of the claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

The editorial said that Peabody is cherry-picking facts. But the mounting questions around the IPCC report suggest an orchard of flawed science. The authors of the U.N. report said they were put “under pressure” to present a “nice tidy” picture of unprecedented 20th century warming. They suppressed information and relied on material from advocacy groups that led them to embarrassing mistakes.

Peabody believes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should not outsource its obligation to apply rigorous science to policies that could reshape the U.S. economy. The agency needs to step back and begin a thorough review of the real state of science surrounding climate change. It needs to determine if we have man-made climate change or simply a man-made crisis.

We support continual emissions reductions toward the ultimate goal of near-zero emissions from coal. We believe in technology first, followed eventually by targets when the costs and regulatory regime are determined.

Peabody is joined by numerous states, business organizations and Congressional leaders advocating a common-sense approach. None of us should place blind faith in a flawed process that is sure to harm the economy, suppress investment and raise energy costs for every American.

Vic Svec — St. Louis Senior Vice President, Peabody Energy
Source: www.stltoday.com and www.peabodyenergy.com

Monsanto Bets That Global Warming Is Real for Business
Business executives are inherently conservative, ever-mindful of the bottom line. That’s why three years ago, Monsanto convened a panel of experts to investigate the science behind global climate change. They concluded “that climate change is occurring, and that its effects will be felt worldwide”. Monsanto, along with global leaders GE, Unilever, Sharp, Wal-Mart and Lafarge recognise the reality of climate change and have taken steps to address it by altering their product lines and/or reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Monsanto bets that global warming is real
By Editorial Board St Louis Today (26 February 2010):
Business executives are inherently conservative, ever-mindful of the bottom line. That’s why three years ago, St. Louis-based Monsanto convened a panel of experts to investigate the science behind global climate change.
It may seem an unlikely topic for a biotechnology company. But Monsanto’s $11.7 billion in annual sales are heavily dependent on agriculture. It’s hard to think of another Missouri company with more at stake in a warming world.
“We got a group of our best scientists together and started thinking about the impact on our business,” Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant explained.
The 25 scientists heard presentations from 10 outside experts and studied the considerable body of existing evidence.
They concluded “that climate change is occurring, and that its effects will be felt worldwide,” said Monsanto vice president David Fischoff, who supervised the review.
In the nation’s capital and in Jefferson City and many other state capitals, the reality of climate change is disputed. Not in Creve Coeur, where Monsanto has its world headquarters. Since the company completed its review, no new information has emerged that would change its position, Mr. Fischoff said last week.
Business consulting giant KPMG reached the same conclusion, writing in a 2008 analysis that the “business risks and economic impacts remain underestimated.”
GE, Unilever, Sharp, Wal-Mart and even cement maker Lafarge all have recognized the reality of climate change and have taken steps to address it by altering their product lines and/or reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
All of those companies have considerable skin in the game. They’re not just talking from the sidelines, and they’re not swayed by rhetoric or emotion. These are hard-headed executives placing bets — very large bets — on the future.
Corporations aren’t alone in looking ahead. On Feb. 1, the Pentagon released its Quadrennial Defense Review. For the first time, that wide-ranging document assesses the impact of climate change on national security.
Around the globe, the review concluded, climate change “will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.”
Such changes are easy to predict because challenges to food production and water supplies already are occurring. About 70 percent of fresh water removed from available sources around the world each year is used for agriculture.
It takes roughly one liter of fresh water to produce each calorie of food energy. For someone consuming 3,000 calories a day, that means 3,000 liters, or 791 gallons, of fresh water. Per day. Per person.
The world’s population topped 6 billion people just over a decade ago; it stands at about 6.8 billion today. That means global agriculture requires enough fresh water each year to fill a canal 10 feet deep, 100 feet wide and long enough to circle the planet 180 times.
The good news about climate change is that its worst effects probably are decades away. That’s “consistent with the pace of improvement we can make through plant breeding and biotechnology,” said Mr. Fischoff, who oversaw Monsanto’s climate analysis work.
Indeed, the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program considers agriculture “one of the sectors most adaptable to climate change,” thanks in part to the work of companies like Monsanto.
The bad news is that population growth and settlement patterns already are putting significant pressures on farmers’ ability to feed the planet. World population will top 8 billion people in 20 years, and 9 billion 15 years later.
Even with the technology available in North America, where farmers use about half as much water as the global average, growing that much food is going to take an awful lot of fresh water. And there’s only so much of it to go around.
That’s driving interest and investment in drought-resistant crops and techniques to conserve water. That includes everything from plant breeding and biotechnology to the use of methods like no-till farming that conserve moisture in the soil.
Last year, Monsanto opened a $6 million facility in Nebraska to research and demonstrate ways of growing crops using less water. The company’s goal isn’t humanitarian; Monsanto is looking for ways to sell more seed and agricultural chemicals to farmers.
Politicians and climate denialists can argue against it based on ideology, but in board rooms around the world, executives are making decisions grounded in science and its implications on business.
Corporate leaders have peered into the future. They’ve already seen enough to place their bets on what it will bring.
Source: www.interact.stltoday.com

The Global Company of Biologists Track Change for Vulnerable Species
It seems almost certain that we will see further rapid changes in the global climate. So how are we going to identify and protect the planet’s most vulnerable species at this time of unprecedented change? Leading researchers in the fields of biogeography and environmental physiology lay out the challenges that many organisms will face, changes that are already being documented and the possibilities of predicting which populations will be most threatened by climate change.
Public release date (26 February 2010):
The Company of Biologists
Tackling the challenges of survival in a changing world
With the failure of the Copenhagen summit to draft a legally binding agreement on the reduction of global CO2 emission rates, it seems almost certain that we will see further rapid changes in the global climate. So how are we going to identify and protect the planet’s most vulnerable species at this time of unprecedented change?
In a specially commissioned series of review articles published on 26 February 2010 in the Journal of Experimental Biology (http://jeb.biologists.org), leading researchers in the fields of biogeography and environmental physiology lay out the challenges that many organisms will face, changes that are already being documented and the possibilities of predicting which populations will be most threatened by climate change.
Edited by Malcolm Gordon (University of California, Los Angeles), Brian Barnes (The University of Alaska Fairbanks), Katsufumi Sato (University of Tokyo) and Hans Hoppeler (University of Bern), the collection covers issues ranging from the effects of climate change on vegetation distributions, bird, insect and marine populations to the responses of corals and amphibians to environmental change.
Considering the scale of the ecological disaster that we currently face and the role that environmental physiologists are playing documenting the effects, Gordon says ‘Environmental physiologists have never been better poised to influence global conservation policy.’
The collection includes contributions from
Glen McDonald (University of California, Los Angeles, USA): Global warming and the Arctic: a new world beyond the reach of the Grinnellian niche?
Frank La Sorte (Yale University, USA): Avian distributions under climate change: towards improved projections
Ary Hoffmann (The University of Melbourne, Australia): Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications
Hans-Otto Pörtner (Alfred-Wegener-Institute, Germany): Oxygen- and capacity-limitation of thermal tolerance: a matrix for integrating climate-related stressor effects in marine ecosystems
Shaun Wilson (Department of Environment and Conservation, Australia): Crucial knowledge gaps in current understanding of climate change impacts on coral reef fishes
Annette Broderick (University of Exeter, UK): Predicting the impacts of climate change on a globally distributed species: the case of the loggerhead turtle
George Somero (Hopkins Marine Station, USA): The physiology of climate change: how potentials for acclimatization and genetic adaptation will determine ‘winners’ and ‘losers’
Tyrone Hayes (University of California, Berkeley, USA): The cause of global amphibian declines: a developmental endocrinologist’s perspective
Laura Mydlarz (University of Texas at Arlington, USA) What are the physiological and immunological responses of coral to climate warming and disease?
Walter Tabachnick (University of Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, USA): Challenges in predicting climate and environmental effects on vector-borne disease episystems in a changing world
Ravinder Sehgal (San Francisco State University, USA): Deforestation and avian infectious diseases
Pieter Johnson (University of Colorado, USA): Diversity, decoys and the dilution effect: how ecological communities affect disease risk
Lars Tomanek (California Polytechnic State University, USA): Variation in the heat shock response and its implication for predicting the effect of global climate change on species’ biogeographical distribution ranges and metabolic costs
Jeff Bale (The University of Birmingham, UK): Insect overwintering in a changing climate
Brian Helmuth (University of South Carolina, USA): Organismal climatology: analyzing environmental variability at scales relevant to physiological stress
Source: www.jeb.biologists.org and www.eurekalert.org

Ministerial Reef Health Checked & Energy Efficiency Schemes Examined
Three Queensland Government Ministers witnessed first-hand earlier this week the effects of land-based activity on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, while a forum in Cairns in far north Queensland discussed ways of achieving national recognition for the energy efficiency of Queensland architecture. Meanwhile questions are being asked about the efficiency of energy saving programs, with a report saying that tens of millions of dollars funnelled into the State Government’s energy efficiency programs with little or no evidence to prove they are an effective use of taxpayers’ money.
Government release (2 March 2010):
Ministers get the facts on reef health
Three Queensland Government Ministers witnessed first-hand earlier this week the effects of land-based activity on the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Climate Change and Sustainability Minister Kate Jones, Primary Industries and Fisheries Minister Tim Mulherin and Tourism Minister Peter Lawlor visited an inshore reef south of Cairns along with Sheriden Morris, Managing Director of the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, and leading marine scientists Dr Katharina Fabricius and Dr Britta Schaeffelke of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
“We wanted to see the current state of the reef, where its condition is healthy and where it has been impacted by land-based activity such as cattle and cane production and urban development,” Ms Jones said.
“We also want see what farmers and graziers are doing to improve their operations so as to reduce their impact on the reef.”
Ms Jones said new legislation which took effect on 1 January 2010 was designed to ensure farmers and graziers reduce their impact on the reef.
“Farmers are required only to take all reasonable and practical steps to minimise their loss of soil, fertiliser and pesticides,” she said.
“Many were already doing this before the legislation took effect at the start of the year, because it is in the farmers’ interests, as well as the interests of the reef.
“We’ll continue to look at the uptake of good practices by farmers and graziers, so we know what is reasonable to expect of them, taking account of the wide variation in circumstances from the dry to wet tropics.
“The area visited today is a part of the reef where the impacts of agriculture are believed to be particularly serious due to the proximity of the reef to farmland, the quantity of runoff pollution and the very high rainfall in the region – up to 12 metres annually.”
Mr Lawlor said the health of the reef was vital to Queensland’s tourism industry and welcomed the response of industry organisations, farmers and graziers who were getting on with the job of implementing the required practices on their properties.
“As a government we are committed to all working together to save this Queensland icon,” he said.
Ms Jones said it was too early to tell if the reef protection legislation has had an effect, but she expected to see an increase in the area of catchment managed under best practice management systems, leading to reduced pesticide coming from properties, followed by reduced fertiliser nutrient runoff and finally reduced sediment over the next four years.
“We’ve funded 25 positions to provide extension and compliance support, and $1.1 million has been provided to industry to ensure farmers and graziers can get help when and where they need it,” she said.
“We are not taking a punitive approach, rather we are saying if you want to do the right thing we’ll do everything we can to help you.”
Mr Mulherin said good water quality was integral to the commercial and recreational fishing industry.
“It’s estimated that the commercial and recreational fishing industry combined are worth close to $1 billion a year for the Queensland economy when flow-on effects are taken into account,” Mr Muherin said.
“Therefore to protect this industry we need improved water quality because of the obvious impacts that has on fish stocks.”
The new legislation, the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009, amended the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Source: www.statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au

Call for energy efficiency code to recognise Qld design
ABC New Report (26 February 2010):
A forum in Cairns in far north Queensland earlier this week discussed ways of achieving national recognition for the energy efficiency of Queensland architecture.
Queensland Planning Minister Stirling Hinchliffe hosted the tropical design conference.
A national energy efficiency code for new homes comes into effect next year.
Mr Hinchliffe says climate-friendly architecture, such as Queenslander homes, should be recognised in the code.
“We can’t let southern-centric building codes drive expensive and incompatible design outcomes that aren’t compatible with the way we live,” he said.
Mr Hinchliffe will formalise a Queensland submission to the national code.
He told State Parliament there is concern some of the energy efficient features of Queenslander homes could be overlooked in the national review.
“The existing national guidelines suggest suspended floors be insulated to achieve six star ratings … anyone lucky enough to live north of the border … knows this is largely unnecessary and expensive,” he said.
Source: www.abc.net.au
Natalie Gregg in the Courier Mail (25 February 2010):
TENS of millions of dollars is being funnelled into the State Government’s energy efficiency programs with little or no evidence to prove they are an effective use of taxpayers’ money.
A report tabled in State Parliament has revealed none of the power-saving schemes were independently evaluated and the outcomes were “difficult to isolate”.
The bipartisan committee’s report also found few of the state’s 1.39 million households or 390,000 businesses were participating in the green initiatives, despite generous rebates.
The poor take-up of power-saving schemes comes as Queensland grapples with its status as the most energy intensive state in the country.
The report highlights the “enormous task ahead” to attract households and businesses to power-saving programs It found one in 780, or a fraction of 1 per cent of businesses, were taking part in the ecoBiz program, which encourages eco-efficient practices in the workplace.
Just one in five households have signed up for the much touted $60 million Climate Smart Home Service scheme.
The program is worth $450 per house, with a $400 government subsidy and includes 15 free energy-saving light bulbs plus water-saving shower heads.
Committee member and Opposition energy spokesman Jeff Seeney said despite costing millions of taxpayer dollars, there was no evidence the Climate Smart Home Service achieved its energy-efficiency goals.
“We have grave reservations about the expenditure of such amounts of public money with no attempt to quantify the outcomes achieved,” Mr Seeney said.
Other key concerns were that green initiatives were duplicated across government levels and that the large number of programs, guides, rebates and incentives was confusing and unnecessarily complex.
There were also questions about a lack of co-ordination across government levels and between agencies.
Energy Minister Stephen Robertson said he would respond to the report’s recommendations “in due time”.
Source: www.news.com.au/couriermail/