Cisco Asset Recovery and IT Disposal Services

Green groups cautiously welcome Bjørn Lomborg’s call for $100bn climate fund

Andrew — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:30:27 +0000

Self-styled “sceptical environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg’s call for a $100bn a year global fund for research into climate change solutions was today given a cautious welcome by some leading green groups and thinktanks, but was dismissed by others as politically naive.

A Greenpeace spokesperson welcomed the conversion but said it had come two decades too late for Lomborg to be taken seriously. “At least it confirms the happy maxim that nobody’s wrong all the time, apart from Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail,” the spokesperson added.

“It appears that the self-styled sceptical environmentalist is beginning to become less sceptical as he enters middle-age,” said Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Mike Childs, adding that Lomborg’s volte face would come as a “blow to some in the climate sceptics community”.

The controversial Danish statistician, who has never denied man’s role in global warming but who has provided an intellectual cover for hard-line climate sceptics, has previously argued that countering climate change should be a low priority for governments. But in his new book Smart Solutions to Climate Change he argues that it should now be addressed “as a priority”.

“Lomborg has acknowledged the need for public spending on man-made climate change. He is right that wind, wave and solar are the energy industries in the future and need much greater support from governments. A carbon tax to raise funds is undoubtedly part of the solution, but regulation and public spending also have their place,” said Childs.

“But he is still dangerously attracted to pursuing the cheapest, more risky geo-engineering solutions, is putting too much faith in future technologies and R&D, and is not giving enough support to the urgent need to reduce current emissions through rapid deployment of existing solutions and behavioural changes.”

Instead of being near the bottom of actions governments should take, as Lomborg argued in 2004, his new book proposes a global carbon tax to raise around $250bn a year to fight the effects of rising temperatures and sea levels. The money would be divided between clean energy research and development ($100bn); low cost geo-engineering solutions such as reflecting solar energy back into space ($1bn); and adaptation to the effects of climate change ($50bn). He further suggests $99bn of the $250bn should be held back to spend on traditional development activities such as clean water and better healthcare in poor countries.

Benny Peiser, director of the free market climate change thinktank Global Warming Policy Foundation said his proposals were more sensible than what those being negotiated at the ongoing UN climate talks which are expected to continue into 2011. “I am not surprised. He’s been saying more or less the same for years. The [UN] process is not working at all. This is better and more realistic. His proposals are much more sensible than any attempts to convince China and India to stop emitting,” he said.

Lomborg’s proposals are surprisingly close to those favoured by the governments of industrialised countries who have accepted that $100bn a year should be made available to poor countries to adapt and that there should be a heavy emphasis on research into clean energy. However, the idea of a carbon tax has proved politically unacceptable for many years partly because it is thought to penalise poor countries which depend more on carbon-intensive goods.

“We would agree that at least $250bn should be raised a year to counter climate change,” said one developing country analyst who asked not to be named. “But Lomborg seems to be saying that proportionately less money should go to developing countries and more to develop western technology. This looks like being totally unacceptable to most of the world.”

Source – www.guardian.co.uk 2nd September 2010

UK time change ‘would save CO2 emissions’

Andrew — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:28:02 +0000

Moving the clocks forward one hour would save hundreds of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, campaigners say.

A study for the 10:10 climate campaign suggested putting clocks forward during winter to an hour ahead of GMT could save almost 500,000 tonnes of CO2.

They say it would make evenings lighter and reduce peak electricity demands.

The study, conducted by Cambridge University, will be published in the journal Energy Policy.

Researchers say cutting carbon emissions by 450,000 tonnes would be the equivalent of taking 200,000 cars off Britain’s roads.

10:10, which is running a Lighter Later campaign to have the clocks permanently changed, also say that continuing to move the clocks forward in summer, so they become one hour ahead of British Summer Time – two hours ahead of GMT – could also deliver carbon savings.
Continue reading the main story

Dr Elizabeth Garnsey, who led the research for Cambridge University, said: “The carbon savings associated with this clock change are significant, equivalent to the carbon footprint of the production of 1,800 plastic bags for every home in Britain every year, or taking around 200,000 cars off the road.”

The research will be presented at an event at Parliament on Monday.

Eugenie Harvey, director of the 10:10 campaign, which aims to get businesses, government and individuals to help cut the UK’s emissions by 10%, said: “In the UK we love our long summer days.

“Lighter evenings make us happier, healthier and safe. After today the nights will start drawing in again. We’re renewing our call to the government for a trial of Lighter Later’s proposals.

“The research Dr Garnsey has presented only serves to strengthen an already overwhelming argument for change.”

The Lighter Later campaign also claims that moving the clocks forward an hour all year could save lives on the roads because there would be fewer accidents in the evenings.

Campaigners also say there would be a boost to leisure activities, which would create jobs in the sector.

Source – www.bbcnews.co.uk 20th June 2010

How I tried to save the world – from the comfort of my desk

Andrew — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:00:50 +0000

Michael McCarthy is given the chance to put his environmental policies to the test

Wednesday, 28 July 2010

It’s not quite being at the controls of the Starship Enterprise. But it’s on the way there.

As from today, you can sit at your laptop or your workstation and redesign UK energy policy for the next 40 years. That’s you. Yes, you.

It’s simple. You do it using the software the British Government is using itself, and you can pick your own range of policies and measures that will keep the lights on, in the face of looming global threats to energy supply, while simultaneously cutting Britain’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, by 80 per cent – as the Government has pledged.

Once you start doing it, as I did yesterday, you get a feeling of Titanic Power, as in “Hmm. I think I’ll close down all coal-fired power plants”. (Unspoken thought: And have my picture displayed on all public buildings).

You also get a real sense, deciding with the click of a mouse whether to install 10,000 or 17,000 offshore wind turbines by 2050, or to build 13 nuclear power stations, or 30, or none at all, that in planning the energy future there are necessary choices and trade-offs, and you can’t rule something out, without ruling something in. And it’s all rather more complex than you might think. Whatever mix you choose, or whatever “pathway”, as the Government prefers to term it, the endpoint must be the same: CO2 emissions have to be slashed by 80 per cent in four decades’ time – with the lights still kept on.

Doing it yourself gives an unusual and vivid insight into the difficulties faced by real policymakers in grappling with our energy future. The software tool that makes it possible is called the 2050 Pathways Calculator and it is the brainchild of the blue-skies thinker at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the chief scientist, Professor David Mackay.

When I began using the calculator yesterday – it’s available on the DECC website – I was quickly initiated into the frustrations, as well as the delights, of shaping the future.

The calculator has three lists of measures, which you can see in the columns on the screen, from left to right, under the headings UK demand for energy, UK supply of electricity, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The first has measures affecting demand, such as home heating and insulation, while the second lists power-supply sectors such as wind, solar and nuclear power, and fossil-fuel burning (combined with technology to store the CO2 given off). Each list has four ranges of effort, from one, which is doing virtually nothing, to four, which is doing everything short of breaking the laws of physics. You pick a series of measures and apply a range of effort to each one, and then column three works out for you what the result is, in terms of the percentage cut in CO2 by 2050. I decided to see how much I would cut if I put all the demand measures, and all the supply measures, on level two of effort (”effort described by most stakeholders as achievable”).

I did the clicking, and there was the result: Britain’s CO2 cut in 2050 by 42 per cent (a long way short of the target). So I ramped up onshore wind from effort level two (8,000 turbines covering the landscape by 2050) to effort level three (13,000 turbines).

Result: nothing. The CO2 cut stayed at 42 per cent. This can’t be right, I thought. Bloody government. Bloody software. So I ramped up the offshore wind sector from level two (10,000 turbines surrounding the coasts by 2050) to three (17,000). Result: nothing again. The CO2 stayed on 42 per cent.

Your calculator, I told the DECC press office indignantly, is broken on its first day. Washed up. Rubbish.

Five minutes later I had a call from a man at the DECC whom I can only describe as a boffin, called Jan, and when I explained to him that at the risk of permanent enmity from the Countryside Alliance, I had virtually doubled Britain’s wind turbines overnight, yet nothing had happened, he nodded – I can sense people nodding down the phone – and said: “But of course.”

He explained: “You are now merely oversupplying decarbonised electricity.” There was so much carbon-free electricity in the system I had chosen that adding more didn’t actually cut carbon emissions further. “However,” he went on, “if you move ‘electrification of individual transport’ from level two to level three, you will see that the CO2 emissions cut rises from 42 per cent to 43 per cent.”

“Ah,” I said. “Ah yes.” It was in other areas, he added, that the extra cuts needed to be found. Well, I never said it was simple, did I? All right. Maybe I did. But it’s fascinating, and you can try it yourself at

Source – www.independent.co.uk 17th August 2010

Chris Huhne urges local councils to lead ‘green energy revolution’

Andrew — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:25:01 +0000

Local councils will be allowed to sell renewable electricity to the National Grid from today, with the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, urging them to position themselves at the forefront of a power revolution. Huhne has lifted a ban on the sale of surplus electricity to the grid by councils, which say the scheme could raise £100m a year for cash-strapped local authorities in England and Wales.

At present only 0.01% of electricity in England is generated by local authority-owned renewables. In Germany the equivalent figure is 100 times higher.

The Local Government Association said council-owned wind turbines and solar panels on town halls, council homes, leisure centres and other municipal buildings could be money spinners.

Gary Porter, chairman of the LGA’s environment board, said: “This has the potential to cut energy bills, reduce emissions and raise millions of pounds.

“Councils have lots of buildings, from offices and leisure centres to houses and flats, depots and community centres that could be transformed into local green power stations.”

Huhne announced the plan to allow councils to sell electricity at the LGA conference in June, and has won praise for acting so quickly.

As things stand, the UK risks missing its EU commitment to produce 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Huhne said last night: “For too long, Whitehall’s dogmatic reliance on ‘big’ energy has stood in the way of the vast potential role of local authorities in the UK’s green energy revolution.

“This is a vital step to making community renewable projects commercially viable, to bring in long-term income to benefit local areas, and to secure local acceptance for low carbon energy projects.”

The idea has been promoted most heavily by Woking council in Surrey. The council’s chief executive, Ray Morgan, said he welcomed the plan but urged the government to make Ofgem, the energy regulator, go further in lifting restrictions.

Source – www.guardian.co.uk – 9th August 2010

76 months and counting … Why is the ‘greenest government ever’ slashing environmental bodies instead of pursuing tax avoiders to raise funds?

Andrew — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:55:58 +0000

A bonfire of the environment is being stoked methodically along government corridors. Yet, simultaneously, banks still refuse to renounce the bonus culture that blinded our financial system and created the conditions for cuts.

As expensive City PR firms brace to defend this year’s anticipated banker’s bonus trough, key offices and departments vital to intelligent, joined-up government on issues ranging from climate to health and food are being cut.

For a coalition that promised to be the greenest government ever, they are painting themselves the colour of the oil sludge currently washing around the Gulf of Mexico.

The axe is falling everywhere, as if policy has been left in the hands of a frenzied lumberjack. Little seems safe, from the neck of the Sustainable Development Commission to the emasculation of the Food Standards Agency, and the expected cull of projects and jobs working on climate change and related issues under the umbrella of the Foreign Office and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

DECC alone has had to find cuts of £85m from the budgets of the Carbon Trust, Energy Saving Trust, and offshore wind and geothermal energy projects.

Schemes on bio-energy and environmental obligations delivered through regional development agencies also stand to lose out. The cuts are part of the £6.25bn wave announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, in May. (Remember, £6bn was also the estimate for the collective bonus-package awarded to itself by bankers in the City of London last year.)

At the same time, new quangos with good-sounding names, but ill-defined briefs and expected outcomes, are being created, such as the “Office of Tax Simplification”.

To say that these cuts are “shortsighted” doesn’t quite catch the self-defeating recklessness of the coalition’s approach.

Good policy is about the intelligent allocation of resources. Today, the nation’s security and future prosperity depend on how well equipped we are to adapt to the new global landscape of energy and environmental change. The knowledge, expertise and emerging enterprises that will allow us to do so should be treated like next year’s seed stock – the very last to be eaten in times of crisis. They are ultimately what will get you out of trouble.

Before even considering such cuts (there are strong, practical and economic arguments to do the opposite, investing rather than cutting), every other avenue should be explored first.

Putting effort into tax simplification, for example, is obviously politically attractive. But tax is complicated partly because successive governments allowed an elaborate dance between accountancy firms and the tax authorities. Those who can afford the top accountants end up using increasingly elaborate schemes to avoid paying tax, in ways which are against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. The authorities, in response, look for new ways to catch the avoiders.

But, a more aggressive approach to collecting unpaid taxes, prosecuting evasion and clamping down on avoidance, perhaps with a general provision against it, could raise upwards of £50bn for the public purse.

This would change fundamentally the landscape of the cuts debate. Wondering why this course of action is ignored leads to unsettling speculation. Are elements of the coalition actually revelling in the seemingly incontestable opportunity to slash away at the public sector – settling unfinished business from the 1980s? Ironic, if so, as it was a private banking failure that created the problem, and the public who bailed them out.

That aside, there remain multiple possible wins for the coalition. If they can find the courage and common sense, there is a chance to reboot the economy on to a better, more secure, dynamic and employment-friendly path through green investment.

Today, 1 August, is the 10th anniversary of the start of the fuel protests that crippled Britain in 2000. Now there is worsening climate change, an increasingly unreliable global oil supply and a more vulnerable food system. The bonfire of the environment creates the impression that the coalition government is set to do worse than merely repeat the mistakes of the past: it seems to be preparing, deliberately, to make worse ones.

Source – www.guardian.co.uk – 1st August 2010

Emission cuts threatened by economic recovery

Andrew — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:55:12 +0000

Britain is not on course to meet its climate change targets for reducing carbon emissions, the Government is bluntly warned today.

Only a step change in effort, brought about by a range of new policies ranging from boosting numbers of electric cars to reforming the electricity market, will ensure that the UK’s legally binding “carbon budgets” can be complied with by 2020 and beyond, according to the independent Committee on Climate Change.

In its second progress report to Parliament, the committee cautions that the sharp fall in UK greenhouse gas emissions of 8.6 per cent seen last year is almost entirely due to the recession, and that the proportion of the drop due to actual climate policies is but “a fraction” of the total. When the economy recovers, the committee warns, the rate of reduction due will not be adequate to achieve the 34 per cent reduction in CO2 (on 1990 levels) by 2020, to which the Government is already committed – let alone the 42 per cent reduction to which Britain will move if a tougher target can be agreed with the rest of the EU.

“The recession has created the illusion that progress is being made to reduce emissions,” said the committee chairman, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, who as Adair Turner was the director general of the Confederation of British Industry.

“Although emissions have declined substantially, our analysis shows that this is almost wholly due to a reduction in economic activity, and not from new measures being introduced to tackle climate change. So we are repeating our call for new policy approaches to drive the required step change, in order that the UK can ensure a low-carbon recovery.”

The committee was set up to monitor the performance of the government in implementing the 2008 Climate Change Act, which made the UK the first country in the world to have a legally binding long-term framework to cut carbon emissions. Britain is doing this through a series of five-yearly carbon budgets which have to be met, by law.

Today’s report is a candid signal to the new coalition, both parties of which have stressed their commitment to tackling global warming , that unless it acts decisively and quickly with a range of new initiatives, it will fail. Four areas in particular are highlighted: electric cars, buildings insulation, agriculture and reform of the energy market. The committee would like to see Britain running a fleet of 1.7m electric cars, which have zero CO2 emissions, by 2020 – at present there are thought to be only a few hundred electric vehicles on the roads.

Yet it is concerned that £260m in the budget of the Department for Transport, earmarked for price support for buyers, and for setting up a battery-charging network, may be swept away on the forthcoming cuts to reduce the deficit. “We would like to keep that funding for the electric car market,” said the committee secretary, David Kennedy.

Secondly, the committee would like to see new rules for how farmers apply nitrogen fertilisers to the land – which can release nitrogen oxides, themselves greenhouse gases. Thirdly, it wants a comprehensive programme of home insulation, which addresses all the barriers stopping people investing in domestic energy efficiency.

And fourthly, it would like to see a reorganisation of the current, liberalised energy market to make it more attractive to investors to put their money in low-carbon power generation, including a government-supported minimum price for carbon.

Source – www.independent.co.uk 6th July 2010

How green are Feed-in-Tariffs?

Andrew — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:03:04 +0000

In China it is illegal to be without a solar panel on a certain-sized home. It’s the type of policy that works better in a totalitarian state, so here in Britain we are to be enticed to turn houses into energy-generating hubs courtesy of the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) system.

For every watt you generate you are paid a guaranteed sum – on a £12,500 photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system generating 2.5kW, this adds up to 41.3p per kWh generated. On top of that, you can export all unused energy back to the grid. Voilà – a house that generates power and income. Wall-mounted turbines in urban areas have been roundly rubbished as “eco bling” but still qualify under the FITs – be prepared for rigorous feasibility studies on wind speeds. You’ve got more chance in Orkney than Notting Hill.

It’s not quite all systems go. Hydroelectric and anaerobic digestion also qualify, but the former only works if you happen to own the rights to a fast-flowing river nearby (with the requisite drop), and the latter if you keep livestock. For most of us, micro-generation means solar PV – so you need a south-facing, non-shaded roof. You also need a lot of cash for the initial outlay. Much-trumpeted loans by the previous government appear to have been put on ice, and George Monbiot suggests this is an indirect and expensive way of reducing a tiny amount of carbon emissions. Feed-in Tariffs will not save the planet.

Source – www.guardian.co.uk 6th June 2010

Comply with the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme

Andrew — Thu, 27 May 2010 10:28:45 +0000

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC), formerly the carbon reduction commitment, is a mandatory scheme designed to:

* promote energy efficiency
* reduce carbon emissions
* help businesses save money by reducing their energy bills.

The CRC targets emissions that are not already covered by Climate Change Agreements (CCAs) or the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
Who does the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme affect?

The CRC mainly affects large private and public sector organisations, such as supermarkets, banks and local authorities. Sole traders and individuals, who are considered to be small emitters, are excluded from the CRC.

You are likely to be covered by the CRC if your organisation’s electricity is metered by at least one half hourly meter (HHM) and you buy on the half hourly market. Your electricity supplier can tell you if you buy electricity on the half hourly market.

You will need to:

* comply fully with the CRC if your half hourly metered electricity supply was 6,000MWh or more between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008
* make an information disclosure if your half hourly metered electricity was below 6,000MWh between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008.

The Environment Agency has written to all UK organisations they believe have an obligation under the CRC. If you have not received a letter but think you should have you can email CRChelp@environment-agency.gov.uk.

You are responsible for checking if the scheme applies to you. Stay informed about the CRC by signing up to the Environment Agency mailing list. Email: CRChelp@environment-agency.gov.uk.
Can your business claim an exemption from the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme?

You may be able to claim a full or partial exemption from the CRC if enough of your emissions are covered by a climate change agreement (CCA). To find out more, see the Environment Agency’s guidance on CCA exemptions.

CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: Guidance on EU Climate Change Agreements (Adobe PDF – 804KB)
When does the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme not apply?

Emissions from some activities are excluded from CRC including from:

* domestic accommodation
* caravan sites
* transport
* supplies you provide to another party (except where you are a landlord who is responsible for paying your tenant’s energy bill).

Who regulates the CRC?

The scheme is enforced by your environmental regulator: the Environment Agency in England and Wales, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and SEPA in Scotland.

The Environment Agency is the administrator for the scheme and will manage the online registry and administer the sale of carbon allowances for the whole of the UK.
How does the CRC work?

The CRC starts on 1 April 2010 and is divided into phases. The introductory phase lasts for three years and subsequent phases will each last seven years.

Each phase has a:

* Qualification period during which you must decide whether or not you are required to participate fully in the CRC or only make an information disclosure.
* Registration period during which you must register as a participant or submit an information disclosure.
* Series of compliance years which run from April to March like financial years
* Footprint year where you monitor your total emissions and decide what emissions must be included in CRC. This is the first compliance year of each phase. You must send the data, called a footprint report, to the Environment Agency.
* Series of annual reporting years during which you calculate your energy supplies that have been included in CRC. You must report your actual emissions by the end of July after each annual reporting year and surrender allowances to cover your reported emissions. In October, you will receive a revenue recycling payment based on your performance in the previous year.

The Environment Agency will produce a performance league table each year. The better you have performed, the higher you will be listed in the league table. The money raised from the sale of allowances will be recycled back to participants. The size of the repayment will depend on your performance in the scheme.

From April 2011, there will be a sale of allowances each year via an auction. The government will cap the total number of allowances available each year to ensure that overall emissions fall.
What do you have to do in the first compliance year?

The first compliance year runs from April 2010 to March 2011. This is also the footprint year and the first annual reporting year. You will not need to purchase or surrender any allowances until April 2011.

The qualification period is 1 January 2008 – 31 December 2008.

The registration period is 1 April – 30 September 2010.
If you need to participate in the first compliance year

If your half hourly metered electricity supply was 6,000MWh or more in 2008 you will need to register as a participant using the online registry between 1 April 2010 and 30 September 2010.

When you register you will need to pay the registration fee of £950 and provide:

* information about your organisation including details about any subsidiary companies
* identification information for the person(s) responsible for your organisation’s participation in CRC
* a list of all your organisation’s HHM settled on the half hourly market
* the total half hourly electricity you used between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008. You may estimate this quantity.

You will have to pay a subsistence fee of £1,290 for your online registry account.

If you qualify as a participant, and you fail to register between 1 April 2010 and 30 September 2010:

* you can be fined £5,000 plus a further £500 for each working day you do not register after 30 September 2010
* the name of your organisation may be published.

You will also have to measure and record your business’ half hourly electricity consumption between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011. You can ask your energy supplier to provide you with an annual statement of consumption that will help you do this. You must submit a footprint report and annual report on your emissions online between 1 April 2011 and 29 July 2011.
If you need to make an information disclosure in the first compliance year

If your half hourly metered electricity supply was below 6,000MWh in 2008 you will have to make an information disclosure between 1 April 2010 and 30 September 2010.

If your half hourly metered electricity supply was below 3,000 MWh you still need to make an information disclosure but you do not need to report any data on your electricity consumption. You only need to provide your organisation’s contact details and tick the appropriate box in the online form.

If your half hourly metered electricity supply was 3,000 MWh or more you need to:

* make a list of the meter numbers from your half hourly meters
* add together the electricity supplies from all the half hourly meters you have for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008
* make sure you did not receive qualifying supplies of more than 6,000 MWh through half hourly meters during that period – if you did, you must comply fully with CRC
* use the online CRC registry to submit your information disclosure.

If you are required to make an information disclosure between 1 April 2010 and 30 September 2010, but fail to do so you can be fined £500 for each settled half hourly meter you did not disclose and your organisation’s details may be published.
Further information on the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme

CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 SI 768
The CRC User Guide
DECC: CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
Environment Agency: CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme – what’s new
Environment Agency: CRC Short guidance notes
Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA): CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
SEPA: Carbon reduction
In this guideline

What is climate change
Calculate your business’ carbon footprint
Reduce your impact on the climate
Adapt to climate change
Offset your business’ carbon footprint
Comply with the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
Climate change levy (CCL)
Trade your emissions – emissions trading scheme
Further information on climate change
Climate change legislation

Chris Huhne backs European plan to raise target for emission cuts

Andrew — Thu, 27 May 2010 08:46:03 +0000

The Government promised yesterday to support a European plan to raise the target for cutting greenhouse gases this decade.

Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, urged other European Union members to raise their sights and increase the target from 20 to 30 per cent by 2020.

He said: “Global climate change is the biggest challenge the world faces and securing an ambitious deal is a priority for this Government. That’s why we will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership by supporting an increase in the EU emissions reduction target to 30 per cent by 2020.”

A European Commission report , published yesterday, said that the higher target could be met by imposing a tighter cap on industrial emissions and raising the price of allowances that companies must buy to emit carbon dioxide. It also proposed introducing border tariffs to protect European companies from foreign competitors manufacturing in countries with weaker controls on emissions.

It said carbon taxes could be introduced for heating and transport fuels. These new taxes would “generate considerable revenues for member states, which could be used for low carbon investments in order to create local green jobs”.

Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Commissioner, said she hoped the report would “inspire the debate in the member states on the way forward”. She said the decision to move to the 30 per cent target was one for EU leaders, “when the timing and conditions are right”.

The conditions were not right at present, partly because of the financial turmoil in the eurozone, she said, but added that there were economic advantages to adopting the higher target because it would result in the rapid expansion of low-carbon industries. She admitted the higher target would cost another €33 billion (£28 billion) a year by 2020, but said: “This is not lost money. This is the cost of an investment that will pay dividends.”

A commission spokeswoman said that the EU did not have to wait for an international deal on cutting emissions before adopting the higher target. She also said that the US proposal to cut emissions by 4 per cent by 2020, while much weaker, could still meet the EU’s condition that other major economies should take “comparable action” which, she added, would be “a political decision”.

Friends of the Earth Europe said the EU target should be raised even higher to 40 per cent. It said the commission’s own analysis had found that CO2 cuts of 25-40 per cent would be needed by 2020 to give a reasonable chance of preventing the global temperature from rising more than 2C above the pre-industrial average.

Mark Kenber, policy director of the Climate Group, a business-led environment campaign, said: “Many European business leaders are calling for bolder commitments from political leaders to guarantee greater energy security and economic growth, as well as new jobs and export opportunities.”

Sorurce – www.timesonline.co.uk 27th May 2010

Europe counts saved carbon emissions as flights stay grounded

Andrew — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:46:45 +0000

The grounding of 63,000 flights over the past four days has saved 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than the annual emissions of many developing countries.

Aviation is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions of CO2, but accounts for a much higher proportion of emissions in European nations, which have many frequent flyers. Aircraft are responsible for more than 6 per cent of Britain’s CO2 emissions.

On a normal day, the 28,000 flights in European airspace emit about 560,000 tonnes of CO2, or a third of the world’s aviation emissions.

The Aviation Environment Federation calculated that the CO2 saving over four days had been greater than the annual emissions of Malawi, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and about 50 other developing countries.

Jeff Gazzard, the federation’s spokesman, said: “The use of trains, ferries and video conferencing has skyrocketed as planes have been grounded. While volcanic eruptions are not an everyday occurrence, surely the take-away message from the past few days is that the world has not stopped revolving and people can find alternatives to air travel. We hope that this will prompt people to stop and think about whether their flight is really necessary.”

The total environmental benefits of the grounding of aircraft may be far greater because millions of business travellers have had to find alternative ways of communicating — and some are likely to change their working habits permanently.

Source – www.timesonline.co.uk 19/4/2010