Tag Archives: javascript
Biofuel Crop Mix ‘Not Favourable For Environment’
A report by the European Environment Agency found benefits vary significantly depending on the source of crops Rayhan Uddin guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 3 July 2013 16.46 BST When sourced from agricultural residues or waste, bioenergy is more efficient than fossil fuels both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on ecosystems. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images[/color] The current mix of crops used for energy are “not favourable to the environment”, according to a report published on Wednesday by the European Environment Agency. It said that the environmental benefits of such bioenergy vary significantly depending on the source of crops. When sourced from agricultural residues or waste, bioenergy is more efficient than fossil fuels both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on ecosystems. But growing crops for energy has knock-on environmental impacts such as deforestation, the EEA warned. The report comes as the EU continues to debate a plan cap the percentage of biofuels made from food crops , with a final vote due to occur on 10 July. Proponents say the cap is needed because of environment concerns over the EU’s biofuel policy – which sets a target of 10% of transport fuels coming from biofuel by 2020, but the proposed cap has come under fierce criticism from biodiesel companies and farmers. The industry says the EU is destroying a booming £14bn sector while farmers feel demand is being taken away from them at a time of increasing volatility in global food prices. Hans Bruyninckx, director of the European Environment Agency, said “We see huge potential for bioenergy in the transition of the energy system that will occur over the coming years, but our research shows that this potential must take into consideration resource and climate efficiency. For example, food crops and other first generation pathways are a particularly inefficient use of biomass.” Most of the environmental impacts cited in the EEA report are a result of deforestation, draining of peatlands and other land clearance for biofuels , together known as indirect land use change (ILUC) . The report notes that adverse environmental effects associated with ILUC, such as an increase in carbon emissions or reduction in biodiversity, currently fall outside of the EU bioenergy policy framework, and believes that this needs to be addressed. Friends of the Earth Biofuels campaigner Kenneth Ritcher said: “This report is a stark warning to lawmakers about the urgent need to differentiate between the types of bioenergy, based on their real impact on climate change. If the European parliament is serious about cutting emissions it must support proposals next week to penalise biofuels that increase emissions through deforestation.” Continue reading
How Might The US Engage At The UNFCCC?
Posted July 3, 2013 President Obama’s recent speech on climate change marks a welcome shift for an Administration that has been largely silent on the issue for some time now and puts into context the climate teasers that were dropped into the Inauguration and State of the Union addresses. As many commentators have now discussed, the speech focused mainly on the steps that the USA will take to deliver on its Copenhagen pledge. Whether theses steps will be sufficient remains to be seen, but they are nevertheless concrete and doable, which are two important prerequisites for success. But the very end of the speech was perhaps the most important turning point for me, in that it marks the first real attempt by the USA to guide the global political process on climate change since, perhaps, the mid 1990s when the Kyoto Protocol was hammered out. Of course the Administration put tremendous effort into the process in the lead-up to Copenhagen and President Obama went to the negotiations along with many other leaders, but at that point in time his Presidency was less than a year old, which in the context of the UNFCCC process is really not very long. There just hadn’t been enough time for the new Administration to really make its mark. On the back of the following three short paragraphs are we now going to see the USA in the driving seat, and what will that mean? With over three years left in the Obama Presidency, there is certainly time to guide the international climate process. And finally, my Administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action. Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020. Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries. What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious — because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands. We need an inclusive agreement -– because every country has to play its part. And we need an agreement that’s flexible — because different nations have different needs. And if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation. The current state of the international post 2020 discussion remains lacklustre at best. Although there is some progress on items left over from the Copenhagen era, for example the Green Climate Fund, almost nothing has transpired on what might happen in the period after 2020. Further, a series of national pledges under some sort of international umbrella of ambition is highly unlikely to deliver any real shift in global emissions, more structure is needed. In the mid 1990s the USA did set the agenda and drive the pace with its idea of building a global carbon market, starting with clearly defined ambition in developed countries, supported by carbon pricing instruments (most notably the AAU) and strong compliance. Many countries adopted this approach and the EU embraced it by cascading its own obligations into an internal carbon market, as did New Zealand and eventually Australia. Although such a Kyoto style framework is not on the agenda now, there is still much to learn from its implementation as I have discussed in earlier postings . In particular, a new market mechanism which mimics the role of the AAU for those that wish to link their domestic carbon is one possible option. This could at least lay the foundations for a global carbon market. Difficult though it may be, key architecture questions are on the table today, yet progress in addressing them is at a standstill. This is where American (and European) leadership is required. Simply trying to coax ever greater pledges out of the likes of China and India isn’t a route to success, rather a clear and robust framework needs to emerge that will drive energy investment down a lower emissions pathway and trigger one technology in particular, carbon capture and storage (CCS). Love it or hate it, carbon pricing remains a key deliverable . CCS will eventually be triggered by a carbon price, but in the interim an international agreement needs to ensure that this technology appears on a near commercial scale in a dozen or so countries / regions (e.g. North America, EU, Russia, Oceania, Gulf States, South Africa, China and India). Continue reading
EU Vote Shows Carbon Pricing Not Dead Yet
Yesterday the European Union’s parliament voted in favour of a proposal aimed at reviving the flagging EU carbon market (For: 344, Against: 311), after previously rejecting a similar proposal in April. It led the price of EU carbon allowances to rise in yesterday’s trading by 9 per cent to €4.67 or $A6.67. This was on top of earlier rises in the lead-up to the vote as the market priced-in an expectation of a ‘yes’ vote. This proposal, commonly referred to as ‘backloading’, will involve withholding the sale of 900 million emission allowances over the next few years, and then returning them into the market towards the latter years of 2020. However, for the measure to be implemented, it still needs to receive approval from the European Council (the government ministers for each member country of the EU). The EU’s emissions trading scheme is currently suffering from a very large oversupply of emissions allowances, thanks to Europe’s deep recession. This has led to carbon prices slumping to such low levels that they become almost irrelevant to investment decisions in carbon intensive sectors such as power supply. In a normal physical commodity market like metals or grains, when there is a large oversupply and prices plummet, firms curtail production. However government-designers of the EU carbon market, as well as the Australian scheme, failed to incorporate in-built features that would act to automatically mimic these self-adjusting features of normal commodity markets. The end result is prices can plummet in quite a volatile manner once an oversupply is reached, and then become stuck. This backloading proposal, by reducing the level of new allowance supply in the short-term, aims to temporarily address this shortcoming. However because the issuance of allowances has merely been delayed, rather than permanently withdrawn, the carbon market is still stuck with a large, long-term oversupply. Consequently carbon prices are still not expected to rise to levels that would provide a strong incentive for investment in low carbon technology. For the backloading proposal to be implemented it still needs at least 255 of the 345 votes held by member countries (votes per country are listed at bottom) in the European Council. Energy ministers of countries representing 180 votes issued a joint statement a few days ago strongly supportive of the EU ETS and backloading (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK were signatories). The statement argued the EU carbon price is too low, stating: “We remain deeply concerned that the ETS as currently designed cannot provide the price signals needed to stimulate the low carbon investment needed now, because the supply of allowances substantially outstrips demand, leading to a very low carbon price. This also threatens the credibility of carbon markets as the most flexible, cost-effective way to achieve emissions reductions.” Importantly it argued in favour of more permanent solutions beyond backloading to address the oversupply of allowances and low carbon prices, “Targeted interventions may be necessary and we are convinced that only through proper structural reform and by giving investors a clear signal on Europe’s low carbon ambition beyond 2020 can the EU ETS be restored to its original purpose of driving down carbon emissions and stimulating low carbon investments.” However there is resistance to reform of the EU ETS, from Poland in particular. This parliamentary vote, on top of Obama’s recent commitments and China commencing its pilot emissions trading schemes represents a very positive development. But hurdles still remain before the European and therefore the Australian carbon price outlook materially improves. Read more: http://www.businesss…t#ixzz2Y4jMgsWK Continue reading
