Monday, December 17, 2007

As Temperatures Rise, Health Could Decline

Washington Post Staff Writer

Depending on where you are, this is going to be a hotter, wetter, drier, windier, calmer, dirtier, buggier or hungrier century than mankind has seen in a while. In some places, it may be deadlier, too.

The effects of climate change are diverse and sometimes contradictory. In general, they favor instability and extreme events. On balance, they will tend to harm health rather than promote it.

That is the majority view of scientists trying to solve an equation whose variables range from greenhouse gas concentrations and the El NiƱo weather pattern to mosquito ecology and human cells' ability to withstand heat.

"We are not dealing with a single toxic agent or a single microbe where we can put our finger with certainty on an exposure and the response," said Jonathan A. Patz, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "Climate change affects everything."

Predictions of how global warming could affect people's health are crude. They are based on the experience of the past several decades, when there has been a small, well-documented rise in the temperatures of the planet's atmosphere and oceans. What that says about the future -- a time when warming is expected to accelerate, but people may be able to prepare for it -- is quite uncertain.

In the last quarter of the 20th century, the average atmospheric temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. By 2000, that increase was responsible for the annual loss of about 160,000 lives and the loss of 5.5 million years of healthy life, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. The toll is expected to double to about 300,000 lives and 11 million years of healthy life by 2020.

The biggest tolls were in Africa, on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia. Most of that increased burden of death and disease was from malnutrition, diarrhea, malaria, heat waves and floods. But those diseases will play a minor role, at best, in many regions that nevertheless will feel the effects of global warming.

To organize their thinking -- and to focus the attention of policymakers -- researchers tend to put the health effects of climate change into five groups.

Heat Stress


The most obvious effect of global warming is hotter weather.

Scientists predict that heat waves will be longer and more frequent in the future. Their worst-case effects may have been glimpsed in Europe's summer of 2003, the hottest spell there since the 1500s. About 30,000 people died of heat-related illness, including 14,800 in France in three weeks in August.

People who were old, very young, ill, immobile or poor were at highest risk. Although the human body can adapt somewhat to chronically higher temperatures, those groups will remain vulnerable -- and they are likely to make up a bigger slice of the population in the future.

About 20 percent of people in industrialized countries are over age 60 today. That figure will rise to 32 percent by 2050. More people will also live in cities -- 61 percent of the world's population by 2030, compared with 45 percent now. Cities are "heat islands," 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer on average than surrounding rural areas and resistant to the cooling effects of night.

Aging and urbanization -- and possibly more obesity -- will put people at greater risk for heat-related illness. Nevertheless, that consequence of global warming may be easier to avoid than others, as a study published three years ago suggests.

It examined mortality on hot days in 28 cities in the last third of the 20th century. Death rates were lower in the 1980s and 1990s than in the 1960s and 1970s in most places, with the least reduction in cities of the Northeast and the Midwest. (A heat wave in Chicago in 1995 caused more than 500 deaths, the biggest U.S. toll in years.)

This steady decline in heat-stress death was almost certainly the consequence of air conditioning, better awareness of the problem and improved medical care.

"If there is a very effective response system, then even in hotter temperatures you may not see more deaths," said Kristie L. Ebi, an epidemiologist and consultant in Alexandria. She helped write the health chapter of the most recent report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner along with Al Gore.

Extreme Weather


Climate change is expected to increase the severity of storms, especially ones associated with cyclical events such as the El Ni¿o Southern Oscillation.

Flooding is the most common weather disaster, responsible for the deaths of about 100,000 people and the displacement of 1.2 billion from 1992 to 2001. The worsening of this hazard will vary by region. It is expected to change little in Southeast Asia by 2030, but it may increase 50 percent in West Africa and quadruple in Central and South America.

In addition to storms, rising oceans threaten coastal populations. Of the world's 20 megacities, 13 are at sea level. Storm surges, while short-lived, can cause permanent damage, eroding land and damaging water supplies and cropland with saltwater.

Greater variability in weather patterns along with higher temperatures may lead to droughts and water shortages. Today, 1.7 billion people -- about one-third of the world's population -- live in places that have periodic water shortages. That number is expected to increase to 5 billion by 2025.

When it comes to food production, climate change will have varying effects. Overall, it will tend to slow the long historical decline in the number of hungry people.

In 1990, there were 520 million people at risk of hunger, according to a study by British and American scientists published in 2005. In the absence of global warming, that number was predicted to fall to 300 million by 2080. With global warming, it is expected to fall to 380 million, although under various scenarios of greenhouse gas reductions it could drop to 320 to 340 million, according to recent mathematical modeling.

Air Pollution


Climate change affects air pollution in two ways.

Heat speeds chemical reactions and consequently may worsen pollution from ozone and airborne particulates, or soot. It may also spur pollen production by some plants, which could in turn worsen asthma and allergies in some people.

One model of global warming's effects on air pollution in 15 eastern U.S. cities predicts that the number of days exceeding ozone standards will rise from the current average of 12 to 20 per summer by 2050. Deaths linked to that pollutant -- nearly all in people who have lung or heart ailments -- could go up 5 percent under that scenario.

Waterborne and Food-Borne Disease


Higher temperatures and torrential rains are likely to cause outbreaks of some diarrheal diseases.


The incidence of cholera -- a bacterial infection whose home is South Asia but that circles the world in slow epidemics -- depends in part on water temperatures in the Bay of Bengal and on monsoon rains. A recent study of waterborne-disease outbreaks in the United States in the past 50 years found that 67 percent were preceded by heavy rainfall.

Researchers in Australia have shown that the number of food-borne infections from salmonella bacteria goes up in hot weather.

Overall, climate change is expected to increase the burden of diarrhea, mostly in developing countries, by 2 to 5 percent by 2020.

Vector-Borne Disease


Scientists suspect that many diseases transmitted by insects and animals will become more common, although there is more uncertainty about this than other consequences of global warming.

Dengue and malaria, carried by mosquitoes, are most likely to increase. Under some projections, Africans will be exposed to malaria 25 percent more of the time in 2100 than they are now.

That risk, however, could be offset by controlling mosquitoes with pesticides, the use of bed nets by children and pregnant women, and better medical care.

Other diseases that may become more prevalent are yellow fever (also carried by mosquitoes), schistosomiasis (by snails), leishmaniasis (sand flies) and Lyme disease (ticks).

The Role of Planning


In the United States, most public discussion of global warming has been about ways to slow the phenomenon, and not about ways to dampen or prevent effects that are already inevitable.

"We are a good decade behind Europe in designing and developing adaptations that will decrease our vulnerability and increase our resilience," said Ebi, the epidemiologist.

Such planning is wise not only for the federal government and states, but for cities and towns as well, Ebi believes.

"The impacts of climate change really do depend on your local context," she said

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Scientists to Monitor West Antarctica 24/7

From: International Polar Year Newswire

Scientists to Monitor West Antarctica 24/7

/wildlife/article/27471

COLUMBUS, Ohio—In a mission of unprecedented scale, scientists are about to cover West Antarctica with a network of sensors to monitor the interactions between the ice and the earth below—24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) just awarded the collaboration, called POLENET, $4.5 million to plant global positioning system (GPS) trackers and seismic sensors on the bedrock that cradles the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Lead institution Ohio State University will receive more than $2.2 million, and the rest will be divided among partners in the United States as part of an International Polar Year project.

As scientists have tried to understand how climate change is affecting the WAIS, they have long wished they could gather information from the entire region, explained POLENET leader Terry Wilson. But Antarctica contains the coldest and windiest sites on the planet—locations inhospitable to scientific instruments and the scientists who would deploy them.

In a presentation Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco , she described how her team will overcome the harsh environment. They’ll fly ski-equipped aircraft to remote locations, and plant rugged instruments that will send signals back to the United States via satellite. “We’ll be able to do systems-scale science in Antarctica . That wasn’t possible before,” said Wilson, associate professor of earth sciences at Ohio State. “This instrumentation is designed to run and record data year-round, through the dark polar night. Previous instrument deployments have largely operated only for a few months, or less, each year. This allows us to do new science.”

In a related project over the summer of 2007, POLENET scientists installed two dozen GPS trackers in Greenland . By the end of February 2008, the scientists plan to have 17 new trackers installed around the WAIS, along with about 11 new seismic sensors. The first expeditions began arriving in Antarctica early in December, 2007. The network will be complete in 2010 and will record data into 2012. Selected sites may remain as a permanent Antarctic observational network.

Scientists around the world will be able to access POLENET data online, and schools will be able to access educational resources.

Ohio State’s POLENET partners in the United States are Pennsylvania State University, the University of Texas at Austin, New Mexico Tech, Washington University, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the University of Memphis. A host of international partners are part of the effort as well.

Report Examines Impact of Climate Change on Drinking Water Supplies

From: Paul Schaefer, ENN

/business/article/27478

WASHINGTON - Warming of the earth's atmosphere will continue to put mounting pressure on America's drinking water sources, leading to diminishing supplies in some regions and flooding in others, according to an analysis released today by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), a nonprofit organization of the largest publicly owned drinking water systems in the United States.

AMWA's report, Implications of Climate Change for Urban Water Utilities, forecasts the likely impacts of climate change on water supplies in different regions of the U.S., such as an accelerated hydrologic cycle of evaporation and precipitation, water contamination, rising sea levels and pressure on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The report is available for viewing and download at AMWA's new climate change webpage, www.amwa.net/cs/climatechange.

The national debate on climate change has so far been limited to the effects of greenhouse gases," said AMWA Executive Director Diane VanDe Hei. "For community drinking water systems, climate change has broader implications. The question we ask is: 'To what extent will our water supplies be affected?'"

This report shows that climate change may pose great challenges to delivering limited amounts of clean and safe water to a rapidly growing population," added VanDe Hei.

Among the actions that the report suggests water systems take to prepare for the impacts of climate change are vulnerability assessments to identify short-term adaptation needs; cooperative planning and modeling efforts among utilities to devise strategies addressing likely regional water resource issues; and efforts by utilities to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

"The ramifications identified in the report point to at least two key needs," said VanDe Hei. "Scientific research is needed to better understand the impacts of climate change on existing fresh water resources and to help develop and assess the affordability of alternative water sources -- such as reuse, recycling, conservation and desalination."

"In addition, an increased federal investment in water infrastructure is needed to help offset the costs of new supply development and capital projects to ensure that all Americans continue to have access to safe and affordable drinking water," she said.

In conjunction with the release of the report, AMWA's new climate change webpage will serve as a resource for water utility managers and policy makers seeking the latest information on the impacts of climate change on drinking water supplies. The page includes fact sheets and presentations on local impacts of climate change, and can be viewed at www.amwa.net/cs/climatechange.

Source: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

At last, some wisdom on global warming

Leader
The Observer


Delegates at a United Nations conference in Bali last week reached a last-minute agreement on tackling climate change. Or rather, they narrowly avoided failure to reach agreement. They established a 'Bali roadmap', charting a course towards a deal on cutting carbon emissions. But since even the best navigators with the clearest maps sometimes get lost, the Bali deal still leaves ample scope for scepticism.

The global scientific consensus is that man's habit of belching greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is destabilising the climate. To save ourselves from catastrophe we must urgently cut those emissions. Governments must set binding targets to achieve those cuts. That is broadly the international political consensus too, with two caveats. The US does not want to commit to targets independent of the developing world, which is catching up fast in terms of carbon output. And developing countries, chiefly China and India, reserve the right to catch up with the West before subjecting themselves to the same level of carbon austerity.

The Bali compromise, roughly speaking, is that rich nations agree to transfer green technology to poorer ones and specific targets for emissions cuts - championed by the EU - are relegated to a footnote.

The US, China and India, are labouring under a false assumption - that cutting emissions means surrendering economic virility. But once the disastrous consequences of inaction are taken into account - natural disasters; refugee crises; food shortages - it becomes clear that, aside from the moral imperative, there is a huge competitive edge available to the countries that first make the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Thankfully, American public opinion, and some individual US states, which have set unilateral emission targets, are closer to understanding this than George Bush and his administration. The next US President, whether Republican or Democrat, will surely take note of that

Sceptics are right to worry that Bali did not deliver a carbon-cutting breakthrough. But as a statement of intent it signals real progress. At least politicians are catching up with the basic science of climate change. Now they just need to catch up with the scientists' - and increasingly the public's - sense of urgency.


Thursday, December 13, 2007

US accused of trying to halt global climate change deal

· Americans call for targets to be made voluntary
· Agreement at Bali unlikely amid fierce EU opposition

The US was last night accused of trying to derail a global agreement on climate change by proposing that it becomes a voluntary agreement where countries set their own targets and timetables for reductions of greenhouse gases, rather than a legally binding one.

With just one day left of the 14-day talks in Bali, it looks increasingly likely that no agreement will be reached by ministers. The proposed text, tabled late last night and leaked at around midnight local time, would effectively allow any nation to opt out of the next round of the Kyoto agreement. Observers last night said it could take climate change negotiations back more than a decade.

"These are wrecking tactics," said Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change at WWF-UK. "The stakes are now very high and they are proposing to destroy the protocol completely. The Bush administration is trying to kill real progress."

"This is an extraordinary attempt by the Bush administration to kill off the fight against climate change," said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK. "If they get this text through, then it will give a free pass to any nation that wants to keep polluting."

The proposed US text uses phrases like "as appropriate", "depending" and "may" in reference to emissions cuts, which would effectively make any agreement reached voluntary. Last night it was understood that the US move was being supported by Canada but fiercely opposed by the EU and Britain.

Commenting on earlier American intransigence, James Connaughton, the senior US negotiator in Bali, said: "The US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow."

Negotiators will now have an almost impossible task to reach consensus on the so-called "road map" for a new deal to come into force by 2013. Discussions in the past few days between the representatives of more than 180 countries have been overshadowed by an increasingly bitter row over carbon targets between the US and Europe, which escalated all day yesterday when EU officials demanded that Washington "wake up" over global warming.

In what was taken as a threat to boycott US-led talks on climate change between the world's biggest polluters next month in Hawaii, they warned that attending that meeting would be "senseless" unless the Bali agreement contains clear targets.

The US does not want a suggestion that industrialised countries cut emissions by 25% to 40% by 2020 included in the final document, which will provide the foundation for a new treaty on global warming after the Kyoto deal expires in 2012.

Stavros Dimas, the European commissioner for the environment, said that the cut in emissions for rich countries was an "indispensable" part of the text.

The Portuguese environment secretary, Humberto Rosa, said the EU was disappointed that the US was not prepared to accept the targets but he denied it was boycotting the US-led meeting. "We're not blackmailing anyone," he said. "No Bali, no meeting - we take it as logical, not blackmail."

Earlier, the former US vice-president Al Gore urged delegates to take urgent action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," he said, calling for the new treaty to be implemented two years early, in 2010. He suggested the US stance might change, telling delegates to "save a blank space in your document" which could be filled later by a more amenable president.

EU officials argue the targets are crucial, because the world needs an idea of where it is heading; whereas Washington feels countries have been quick to agree targets and then failed to meet them.

The UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said he was worried that a final "Bali road map" would contain an agreement to negotiate a new climate deal by 2009, but no specific targets for emission reductions.

"What is a road map without a destination?" said Dimas. "Europe has long been leading the fight against climate change. Now is the time for other industrial nations to wake up and show leadership, not only in words but in deeds."

The US delegation said that although it rejects specific targets, it hopes to reach an "environmentally effective" and "economically sustainable" agreement.

American sabotage

The Bali summit: The US is trying to sound constructive at the latest climate talks, but its aim is to put the boot in

Tony Juniper

Guardian, UK

Alongside the more familiar themes here at the Bali climate talks are some quite new ones. Perhaps the most surprising is the apparent constructive cooperation of the Bush administration. Unlike previous climate negotiations I have attended, at this one the Americans say they want a deal, that they want to talk and that new negotiations should begin under the auspices of the United Nations climate change agreement. What a change! Last time I came to one of these they were even disputing that we had a problem, questioning the science of global warming.

But all is not what is seems, or what the US team would like it to seem. Behind the more conciliatory front the Bush crew are running a systematic wrecking operation, seeking to undermine the prospect for an agreement here.

For example, the US has enraged the developing countries by blocking any financial support for the transfer of environmentally sound technologies from richer countries to poorer ones. They have further provoked developing countries by weakening commitments to help with climate change adaptation. This of course requires money, for example to build sea walls, but here the Bush crowd removed words from the draft agreement that said how the rich countries should be "ensuring sufficient, predictable, additional and sustainable financial resources" for adaptation. They did this on the same day that the UN Development Programme published its annual Human Development Report in which it was estimated that many tens of billions of pounds are needed each year to help poor countries cope with the pollution of the rich. If you want to provoke an angry response, that's the way to do it.

The Americans have also sought to create friction with Europe, for example in seeking to strike out any idea of how much emission cuts are needed by when. They have resisted references to the need for a cut of between 25%-40% from rich countries and have tried to delete any mention of the need for emissions to peak and decline within about a decade. This is clearly a direct contradiction of their own view that any future agreements should be based on the latest science. They have muddied the waters on deforestation as well, deliberately creating confusion and thus the prospect of more misunderstanding and potential friction.

So far the Americans have done quite well, ably assisted by their supine henchmen: Japan and Canada. But the way they have been forced to act this time is quite different from the more public resistance they have demonstrated in previous meetings.

Perhaps the most important factor leading to this more sophisticated strategy is the dramatic shift in public opinion back home. Over the last two years US opinion has moved very far. No longer does the denial of global warming work, neither does the economic scaremongering that Bush and his backers have peddled through junk assessments as to what would be the cost of implementing the cuts mandated under the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush team know that the American people expect them to be positive, and that is why they have a smile on their face while putting the boot into the prospects for agreement.

The US is being cleverer still, however. Last summer President Bush announced just before the G8 Summit in Germany that he planned to start his own new climate change process. It would be about technology rather than targets and would include the big emitters. It was received with derision. I heard President Bush set out the proposal live while sitting in a Sky TV studio, where I gave an instant response as to what it meant. My first reaction was that it was a deliberate attempt to derail the UN and G8 climate change processes. Here in Bali it is clearer than ever that this is exactly what that process was set up to do.

Although it lacks support from just about anyone, the "major emitters initiative" l is being presented here as an alternative to new international laws. It is clear that the Bush team are seeking to hollow out the agreement here and to take the potentially most interesting areas and to hijack them into their non-binding process. High on the list in this respect is the technology transfer discussion. And on this subject the UK needs to be careful that it is not suckered into inadvertently helping the US.

Recently the Bush Administration dispatched people to the UK and Japan to encourage support for a new technology initiative that would be linked to the US-led major emitters process. The idea would be to mobilise some money to assist with technology in developing countries. Of course, if the money goes there and not (as the Americans intend it won't) through the UN process, then the UN track will be empty of resources while the non-binding process finishes up with the cash. Of course global political attention will follow the money and if the resources go to the non-binding process that could help deliver another blow to a long term climate change treaty.

Its quite clever, but it can be stopped.

Hilary Benn, who now leads the UK team at the talks, needs to make sure that he keeps his wits about him and is not fooled into believing that there is any sincerity behind the new and more kindly face of the American team. Margaret Beckett saw them off at the Montreal talks in 2005, diplomatically slapping the US chief negotiator in the chops. She could see that they were vulnerable to public opinion back home and knew that they could not be seen to be the people who brought the house of cards crashing down. It's the same now, only more so. If the Americans are exposed at home, they can be forced to stop blocking.

Under these circumstances, Benn now needs to find a way of helping to expose the US plan. He needs to find some key allies, among them China and Brazil, and to jointly flush out the Bush plot so that the American people can see what is going on. If he did that, he might help save these talks. If he sits on his hands, if he does only the diplomatic thing, then perhaps we will not get what we need from here.

The Americans have a new aim and different tactics, but in the end they are shooting for the same outcome: no meaningful international deal on climate change. I wonder if there will be some governments who will be prepared to challenge them in public. I wonder if Hilary Benn will lead the charge?

Germany and China tells US to WAKE UP! - "We may not get carbon deal", warns Benn.


Emissions wrangle 'should not overshadow progress'
· US resistance criticised by Germany and China

David Adam in Bali The Guardian, UK,

A stand-off between the United States and Europe over carbon reduction targets should not overshadow the "significant" progress made on a new climate deal, Hilary Benn said yesterday. The environment secretary said the so-called Bali roadmap, which negotiators hope to produce tomorrow as the first step towards a new treaty, did not need a fixed target to be considered a success. He said: "Of course there are people who hoped it would all be sorted out this week. But the roadmap will give us the means to get where we want to go, and we haven't had that previously, and that's a significant step."

The US is trying to remove a reference to 25-40% cuts in carbon pollution by 2020 for developed countries, which remained in the draft roadmap released by the UN yesterday. Harlan Watson, US chief negotiator, said: "The reality in this business is that once numbers appear in the text, it prejudges the outcome and will tend to drive the negotiations in one direction."

The target is supported by Britain and Europe, which say it is necessary to avoid a 2C rise in global temperatures, and by developing countries such as Brazil and China, which want the US to show it is now serious about global warming.

Germany's environment minister Sigmar Gabriel said the Bali conference would be meaningless if it did not set clear targets. He said: "I do not need a paper from Bali in which we only say, 'OK, we'll meet next year again'. How can we find a roadmap without having a target, without having a goal?" The roadmap aims to set the framework and timetable to agree a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the existing global treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, which expires in 2012.

The dispute came as heads of government and senior ministers took charge of the discussions for the first time, after a series of speeches that urged the world to quickly impose deep cuts in emissions, to head off scientific predictions of rising seas, worsening droughts and famines, and melting ice sheets. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, urged countries not to "betray our planet and our children". But he said it might be "too ambitious" to include fixed emission goals in tomorrow's roadmap.

Benn said the talks had agreed progress on how to avoid deforestation and how to help poor countries adapt to the consequences of global warming. He said a "clear majority" of countries had agreed to launch formal negotiations on a new treaty. Sources said Saudi Arabia, a regular obstructor at such talks, was still holding out. Talks on a way to transfer clean technology from rich to poor countries collapsed late on Tuesday night, but Benn insisted they could be revived.

China highlighted its efforts to control emissions despite rocketing economic growth and energy use. Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the National Development Commission, said $20bn (£9.7bn) had been invested this year in renewables. He said rich countries should "show political will" by committing to cut emissions.

Musical interlude

A formal session to open the high-level section of the UN climate talks was interrupted by an invitation to enjoy one of the Indonesian president's songs. Heads of government squirmed in their seats as the song's video, complete with smiling children and burning forests, was beamed on to a screen and an aide urged them to sing along. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is a minor pop star in Indonesia. Asked if he had enjoyed the performance, Hilary Benn said: "I've enjoyed all of it so far but I don't plan to sing."

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Study details how U.S. could cut 28% of greenhouse gases

The United States is said to be brimming with untapped potential to cut gas emissions.

By Matthew L. Wald

International Herald Tribune, France

WASHINGTON: The United States could shave as much as 28 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations, according to a new report.

A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries and individual consumers, the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change. But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm.

The report said the country was brimming with "negative cost opportunities" - potential changes in the lighting, heating and cooling of buildings, for example, that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels even as they save money. "These types of savings have been around for 20 years," said Jack Stephenson, a director of the study. But he said they still face tremendous barriers.

Among them is that equipment is often paid for by a landlord or a builder and chosen for its low initial cost. The cost of electricity or other fuels to operate the equipment is borne by a tenant or home buyer. That means the landlord or builder has no incentive to spend more upfront for efficient equipment, even though doing so would save a lot of money in the long run.

Another problem, the report said, is that consumers often pay no attention to energy use in choosing gear. Computers, for instance, can be manufactured to use less power, but with most users oblivious to energy efficiency when they are shopping for a computer, manufacturers perceive no competitive edge in spending the extra money on efficiency.

"What the report calls out is the fact that the potential is so substantial for energy efficiency," said Ken Ostrowski, a leader of the report team. "Not that we will do it, but the potential is just staggering here in the U.S. There is a lot of inertia, and a lot of barriers."

The country can do the job with "tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies," the study found, but doing the work "will require strong, coordinated, economywide action that begins in the near future."

The report focused on describing the problem, rather than on advocating fixes. But it did mention some possible solutions. Rules for utilities could be rewritten so they make as much money in promoting conservation as in selling electricity, the study said.

The task might also require emissions limits and other government mandates, as well as incentives like tax breaks to promote efficient buildings, cars and appliances, the study said. The McKinsey report said "lifestyle changes" by Americans could play a role in improved efficiency, even though they were not a major factor in the potential gains the report cited.

"A broad public education program around wasteful energy consumption could be mounted," the report said. Modeled on the "Keep America Beautiful" campaign of the 1960s, it could promote reduction in "carbon littering" by increasing people's awareness of the problem.

In contrast to improved efficiency, measures like capturing carbon dioxide from coal power plants and storing it would be relatively costly, and they account for less than 10 percent of the potential to cut emissions, the study said. The potential contributions from new nuclear plants and renewable energy supplies from wind or solar sources are also relatively modest, the report said.

The study, released Thursday in Washington, was conducted by McKinsey for DTE Energy, the parent company of Detroit Edison; Environmental Defense; Honeywell; National Grid; the Natural Resources Defense Council; Pacific Gas & Electric; and Shell.

Its release comes five days before a United Nations climate conference is to convene in Bali, Indonesia, and as the U.S. Congress approaches a vote on proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

Bikes for ministers at Bali talks

Indonesia plans to make ministers from around the world use bicycles to get about at the UN talks on climate change in Bali to help offset the event's carbon emissions, an Environment Ministry official said Friday, Reuters reported.

Delegates from nearly 190 countries will gather on the resort island on Monday to launch a concentrated effort to hammer out a new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, a pact to curb global warming that expires in 2012.

To help offset an estimated 47,000 tons of carbon dioxide expected to be emitted during the 12-day event, the government will clear the conference site of cars and provide about 200 bikes instead to help people move around the area, said Agus Purnomo, the ministry official.

US resists setting target on cutting carbon pollution

· Call to reduce emissions by 25-40% is key issue
· Democrats would back limits, says Kerry

The environment secretary, Hilary Benn, will today begin attempts to persuade the US administration to agree firm targets on carbon pollution as part of a new deal on global warming. Benn arrived at UN climate talks in Bali last night, as the US said it was unwilling to approve a draft agreement which called on developed countries to reduce emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020.

The US said the proposal, which is backed by Britain and the EU, was "totally unrealistic" and "unhelpful". Other countries, including Japan and Canada, are also believed to be against the idea.

The US said it was in Bali to be "constructive" and wanted the meeting to agree a roadmap to a new agreement on climate change which would be concluded by 2009. But it said it would not agree a firm target, presented either as an emissions reduction or as a maximum temperature rise. European negotiators argue that a target is needed to reflect the urgency of the problem and to encourage industry to invest in green technology. The high-level segment of the talks begins tomorrow, when senior ministers replace civil servants at the negotiating table.

In an unusual step, the UN published the text of the four-page draft agreement, based on the first week of informal discussions, on its website over the weekend. It is now being argued over by the 190 countries present. Observers said the draft would be repeatedly modified and updated through the week, until a final version is agreed on Friday.

The initial draft agreement calls for a response to the "unequivocal scientific evidence that preventing the worst effects of climate change will require [developed countries] to reduce emissions in a range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and that global emissions of greenhouse gases need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years".

The senior climate negotiator for the US, Harlan Watson, said: "We have problems with defining the numbers up front. In our view, that pre-judges the outcome of the negotiations over the next two years." He said the US supported the concept of a "shared global goal" to address climate change, but did not want the Bali meeting to discuss exact numbers.

The 25-40% figure is based on the work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was formally awarded the Nobel peace prize jointly with Al Gore yesterday. Watson said the IPCC calculation was based on "many uncertainties". The head of the UN climate secretariat, Yvo de Boer, said the 25-40% figure would be a "critical issue" at the talks, an important signpost in the fight against global warming. British officials said they expected the US to object to the proposal, but that the Bush administration had engaged in the talks more than in previous years. However, leaked papers revealed that US opposition to the 25-40% figure may be having an effect, with the target removed from a separate document on the future commitments of countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol.

John Kerry, the US senator and losing presidential candidate in 2004, told the Bali event that a Democratic successor to George Bush in 2009 would bring the US fully on board. "Every single Democratic candidate for president has embraced mandatory caps ... and expressed their willingness to immediately be part of the Kyoto discussions and try to find a successor agreement to Kyoto," he said.

China has already said it may wait for 2010 before signing up to a new deal, to see how the new US president responds.

Bali negotiations

The Bali talks are aimed at agreeing a way to develop a new global treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012. That goal is made more complicated because some countries, including the US, have refused to join Kyoto. So there is a twin-track approach.

The simplest way would probably be for Kyoto members to agree new targets and timetables, which in time would draw in large developing countries such as China and India - the Kyoto track. But that would exclude the US, the largest polluter of all. So there are parallel negotiations on a broader new treaty to include them - the Bali roadmap track.

However it is achieved, a new treaty needs to be agreed by 2009-10, in time for it to come into force in 2013.

The real answer to climate change is to leave fossil fuels in the ground

All the talk in Bali about cutting carbon means nothing while ever more oil and coal is being extracted and burned

George Monbiot
Tuesday December 11, 2007
The Guardian


Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technology which will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart, I offer it to you for free. No patents, no small print, no hidden clauses. Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. It is cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straight away. It is called ... leaving fossil fuels in the ground.

On a filthy day last week, as governments gathered in Bali to prevaricate about climate change, a group of us tried to put this policy into effect. We swarmed into the opencast coal mine being dug at Ffos-y-fran in South Wales and occupied the excavators, shutting down the works for the day. We were motivated by a fact which the wise heads in Bali have somehow missed: if fossil fuels are extracted, they will be used.

Most of the governments of the rich world now exhort their citizens to use less carbon. They encourage us to change our lightbulbs, insulate our lofts, turn our televisions off at the wall. In other words, they have a demand-side policy for tackling climate change. But as far as I can determine, not one of them has a supply-side policy. None seeks to reduce the supply of fossil fuel. So the demand-side policy will fail. Every barrel of oil and tonne of coal that comes to the surface will be burned.

Or perhaps I should say that they do have a supply-side policy: to extract as much as they can. Since 2000, the UK government has given coal firms £220m to help them open new mines or to keep existing mines working. According to the energy white paper, the government intends to "maximise economic recovery ... from remaining coal reserves".

The pit at Ffos-y-fran received planning permission after two ministers in the Westminster government jumped up and down on Rhodri Morgan, the first minister of the Welsh assembly. Stephen Timms at the department of trade and industry listed the benefits of the scheme and demanded that the application "is resolved with the minimum of further delay". His successor, Mike O'Brien, warned of dire consequences if the pit was not granted permission. The coal extracted from Ffos-y-fran alone will produce 29.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide: equivalent, according to the latest figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to the sustainable emissions of 55 million people for one year.

Last year British planning authorities considered 12 new applications for opencast coal mines. They approved all but two of them. Two weeks ago, Hazel Blears, the secretary of state in charge of planning, overruled Northumberland county council to grant permission for an opencast mine at Shotton, on the grounds that the scheme - which will produce 9.3m tonnes of CO2 - is "environmentally acceptable".

The British government also has a policy of "maximising the UK's existing oil and gas reserves". To promote new production, it has granted companies a 90% discount on the licence fees they pay for prospecting the continental shelf. It hopes the prospecting companies will open a new frontier in the seas to the west of the Shetland Isles. The government also has two schemes for "forcing unworked blocks back into play". If oil companies don't use their licences to the full, it revokes them and hands them to someone else. In other words, it is prepared to be ruthlessly interventionist when promoting climate change, but not when preventing it: no minister talks of "forcing" companies to reduce their emissions. Ministers hope the industry will extract up to 28bn barrels of oil and gas from the continental shelf.

Last week the government announced a new tax break for companies working in the North Sea. The Treasury minister, Angela Eagle, explained that its purpose is "to make sure we are not leaving any oil in the ground that could be recovered". The government's climate change policy works like this: extract every last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it.

The same wishful thinking is applied worldwide. The International Energy Agency's new outlook report warns that "urgent action is needed" to cut carbon emissions. The action it recommends is investing $22 trillion in new energy infrastructure, most of which will be spent on extracting, transporting and burning fossil fuels.

Aha, you say, but what about carbon capture and storage? When governments use this term, they mean catching and burying the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. It is feasible, but there are three problems. The first is that fossil fuels are being extracted and burned today, and scarcely any carbon capture schemes yet exist. The second is that the technology works only for power stations and large industrial processes: there is no plausible means of dealing with cars, planes and heating systems. The third, as Alistair Darling, then in charge of energy, admitted in the Commons in May, is that the technologies required for commercial carbon capture "might never become available". (The government is prepared to admit this when making the case, as he was, for nuclear power, but not when making it for coal).

Almost every week I receive an email from someone asking what the heck I am talking about. Don't I realise that peak oil will solve this problem for us? Fossil fuels will run out, we'll go back to living in caves and no one will need to worry about climate change again. These correspondents make the mistake of conflating conventional oil supplies with all fossil fuels. Yes, at some point the production of petroleum will peak then go into decline. I don't know when this will happen, and I urge environmentalists to remember that while we have been proved right about most things we have been consistently wrong about the dates for mineral exhaustion. But before oil peaks, demand is likely to outstrip supply and the price will soar. The result is that the oil firms will have an even greater incentive to extract the stuff.

Already, encouraged by recent prices, the pollutocrats are pouring billions into unconventional oil. Last week BP announced a huge investment in Canadian tar sands. Oil produced from tar sands creates even more carbon emissions than petroleum extraction. There's enough tar and kerogen in North America to cook the planet several times over.

If that runs out, they switch to coal, of which there is hundreds of years' supply. Sasol, the South African company founded during the apartheid period - when supplies of oil were blocked - to turn coal into liquid transport fuel, is conducting feasibility studies for new plants in India, China and the US. Neither geology nor market forces is going to save us from climate change.

When you review the plans for fossil fuel extraction, the horrible truth dawns that every carbon-cutting programme is a con. Without supply-side policies, runaway climate change is inevitable, however hard we try to cut demand. The talks in Bali will be meaningless unless they produce a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground.

· monbiot.com

Big Oil lets sun set on renewables

Shell has quietly shed most of its solar power, while BP is buying into dirty tar sands

Shell, the oil company that recently trumpeted its commitment to a low carbon future by signing a pre-Bali conference communique, has quietly sold off most of its solar business.

The move, taken with rival BP's decision last week to invest in the world's dirtiest oil production in Canada's tar sands, indicates that Big Oil might be giving up its flirtation with renewables and going back to its roots.

Shell and BP are among the biggest producers of greenhouse gases in the world, but both have been keen to paint themselves green through a series of clean fuel initiatives.

BP, under its former chief executive, John Browne, promised to go "beyond petroleum" while Shell has spent millions advertising its serious interest in the future of the environment.

But at a time when interest in solar power is greater than ever, with the world's first "solar city" being built at Phoenix, Arizona, a small announcement from Environ Energy Global of Singapore revealed that it had bought Shell's photovoltaic operations in India and Sri Lanka, with more than 260 staff and 28 offices, for an undisclosed sum.

The sell-off, to be followed by similar ones in the Philippines and Indonesia, comes after another major disposal executed in a low-key way last year, when Shell hived off its solar module production business. The division, with 600 staff and manufacturing plants in the US, Canada and Germany, went to Munich-based SolarWorld. Shell has however formed a manufacturing link, with Saint-Gobain, and promised to build one plant in Germany.

The Anglo-Dutch oil group confirmed yesterday that it had pulled out of its rural business in India and Sri Lanka, saying it was not making enough money.

"It was not bringing in any profit for us there so we transferred it to another operator. The buyer will be able to take it to the next level," said a spokeswoman at Shell headquarters in London.

The oil group said it was continuing to move its renewables interests into a mainstream business and hoped to find one new power source that would "achieve materiality" for it. Shell continues to invest in a number of wind farm schemes, such as the London Array offshore scheme, which has government approval. Shell has also been concentrating its efforts on biofuels, but declined to say whether it had given up on solar power even though many smaller rivals continue to believe the technology has a bright future.

Environmental groups have always accused Shell of using clean energy initiatives as "greenwash" to deflect criticism from its core carbon operations, especially tar sands. The latest pull-out has annoyed rival business leaders at London-based Solar Century and local Indian operation, Orb Energy, who fear the impact of a high-profile company selling off solar business. Jeremy Leggett, chief executive of Solarcentury and a leading voice in renewable energy circles, said Shell was undermining the credibility of the business world in its fight against global warming.

"Shell and Solar Century were among the 150 companies that recently signed up to the hard-hitting Bali Declaration. It is vital that companies act consistently with the rhetoric in such declarations, and as I have told Shell senior management on several occasions, an all-out assault on the Canadian tar sands and extracting oil from coal is completely inconsistent with climate protection.

"This latest evidence of half-heartedness or worse in Shell's renewables activities leaves me even more disappointed. Unless fossil-fuel energy companies evolve their core activities meaningfully, we are in deep trouble," he said.

Damian Miller, former director of Shell Solar's rural operations and now chief executive of Orb Energy, said Shell was missing an opportunity by pulling out at a time when renewables markets were starting to mature in the developing world. He alleged some customers were complaining of being abandoned by Shell and worried about the servicing of equipment they could expect from Environ. "We see former Shell customers who are highly disappointed not to be receiving proper service for the solar systems they have invested in. These customers have often invested 20-30% of their annual income in a system to ensure they have some minimum amount of lighting and access to radio, TV, or a fan," said Miller.

He added that the oil majors, including Shell, had invested time and energy in promoting their plans for renewable energy in the press and on TV, but were not able to lead the transformation the world needs towards renewable energy and energy efficient solutions.

Shell declined to comment on these criticisms or talk about where its priorities lay. But the chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, did make a number of comments last summer which could have paved the way for a change in policy. Alternative energy sources such as renewables will not fill the gap, he argued, forecasting that even with technological breakthroughs they could give supply only 30% of global energy by the middle of the century. "Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver bullet that will soon solve all our problems," he said.

Meanwhile, BP has been accused by Greenpeace Canada of lining itself up to help commit "the biggest environmental crime in history". This follows its decision to swap assets with Husky Oil, giving it an entrance ticket to the Alberta tar sands, which are said to be five times more energy-intensive to extract compared to traditional oil.

John Browne, the group's former chief executive, had said BP would not follow Shell into tar sands as he established an alternative energy division and pledged to take the group "beyond petroleum." The new boss, Tony Hayward, has pointed the corporate supertanker in a new direction although his public relations minders insist BP remains committed to exploring the potential of renewables.

"Tony Hayward has been part of the management team at BP for many years and has endorsed the low-carbon strategy that involved BP creating its alternative energy business late in 2005. We are spending $8bn (£4bn) over ten years and are pressing ahead with 450 megawatts of wind production capacity in the US," said a spokesman. "The tar sands deal in Canada does not represent a change in direction, it was just a very good opportunity which represents a broadening of the portfolio."

Greenpeace climate campaigner Joss Garman said: "If Shell is to survive the climate change age... it needs to become not just an oil company but an energy company. One wonders if Shell's executives have noticed what's happening in Bali or if we'll see slick adverts on TV boasting about their retreat from renewables. Probably not."

California greenhouse gas law may stand: judge

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's landmark law requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may stand, a federal court judge in Fresno, California ruled on Wednesday, rejecting arguments by car makers that federal law should preempt the state's effort.

A spokesman for the auto industry, which had argued that California's law is unconstitutional, said an appeal is uncertain. "We're still reviewing the decision and a decision on whether or not to appeal hasn't been made yet," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

(Reporting by Jim Christie, editing by Richard Chang)

Video

"Manufactured Landscapes" SEE THIS BRILLIANT MOVIE! You'll never have the same shopping experience again.