Power companies make a mint from the ETS

Europe’s power companies have made well over €1 billion profits from the EU ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) to date and the sector will make net profits of €tens of billions during Phase II of the ETS, according to the Carbon Trust.

The EU-ETS needs reforming since it is perversely encouraging some signatories to increase carbon emissions.

Most National Allocation Plans (NAPs) offer free carbon allowances to new entrants. In around half of the NAPs, including the German plan, the new entrant rules actually give higher numbers of free allowances to more carbon intensive fuels, such as coal and lignite, which creates a perverse incentive to build new power facilities that emit high levels of CO2.

Professor Michael Grubb, Chief Economist at the Carbon Trust and Executive Director of Climate Strategies, says:
“Too many countries are using special provisions to try and protect carbon intensive investments. [Instead] policy, on a national and pan-EU level, should be focused on investing in low carbon alternatives.”

The Trust is arguing that Member States adopt a higher level of auctioning in Phase II.

They should also rapidly define a third Phase that addresses the problems surrounding new entrant rules and creates sufficient certainty to encourage long lived investments.

The Carbon Trust also found that:
• the EC last year turned a set of proposed allocation plans that represented a 5 per cent increase on CO2 emissions above verified 2005 levels, into a five per cent decrease below 2005 levels

• Carbon price remains uncertain

• if the carbon price remains positive, this will drive some abatement, particularly in power generation and cement manufacturing

• Power companies will still make big profits

• More auctioning will be important in Phase II and beyond - the current NAPs only propose a small amount of auctioning but governments retain the right to decide to auction more. This could be effective to improve incentives for low carbon investment by using auction revenues to support such investment; by reducing peverse incentives and by enabling a reserve auction price that would help to stabilise price expectations

• Attention to detail will be critical in Phase III – real focus needs to be placed on the details of scheme design that affect individual investment incentives, in particular new entrant and closure rules, in Phase III - going beyond the focus on volumes and prices that has dominated debate on Phase II allocations.

The future of farting

It's a fact: farts harm the planet. Everybody talks about carbon dioxide, but no one mentions methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas about 20 times more potent than the carbon dioxide we breathe out through our mouths.

Extreme offenders, in the post-Kyoto world, will be convicted of crimes against humanity.

Therefore I am founding a company called Fart Neutral.

Fart Neutral will neutralise the effect of your farting by investing the money you give us to compensate your farts in schemes to sequester methane under the earth, or burn it to generate heat and power, capturing the carbon dioxide instead.

We will also invest in educational programmes to teach people which foods - beans, lentils - cause the most methane production from rear ends.

Eventually such diets will be taxed out of existence.

We will also manufacture special rubber underwear, sealed tightly round the waist and legs, with a built in inflatable balloon at the rear. When the balloon has fully inflated from your methane production, it will be sealed, detached and replaced.

We will pay you for the return of full balloons and send you an empty one in return. We will then trade the balloons on the open market - methane trading, or, as the trade refers to it, the Fart Mart.

Variations on the underwear will be manufactured for farm animals and pets. Cows are well known as a major producer of this greenhouse gas.

Under post-Kyoto legislation it will be illegal for animals and humans not to wear such methane-capturing apparel. Eventually farm animals will be phased out for a compulsory vegetarian diet, which will, anyway, release more land for food and biofuel production.

This will give rise to a new age of fashion, a revival of the 18th Century style of exaggerated derrières. Men will wear pantaloons with large flaps at the back, and women long skirts with seams to accommodate the balloons at the rear. These will be considered sexy, and the smelling of farts, since they are forbidden, will provide sexual frissons.


Special offer: Send me £5 ($10) now to neutralise your farts for the next year. Hurry! After June 30 the cost will inflate.

Comments from the earlier posting on MySpace:

Lucy:
David, can I assume that a vaginal fart is harmless?

David Thorpe:
Assume nothing. I will have to come round and test this.

Lucy:
Well, I'll put the kettle on but I don't think I can do them to order ..

David Thorpe:
Thank you. I'll be over soon. Do not fret yourself about 'doing them to order'. The important thing is to be relaxed. I have been specially trained with techniques for just such a situation. And besides, in the disinterested pursuit of scientific truth we must above all have patience.

shell:
My boyfriend emits some right humdingers. It lingers for ages too.
Mine smell of roses so there is no way they can harm the environment.

David Thorpe:
I'm afraid that the delightful feminine smell is caused by your sexually aroused pheronomes, and has nothing to do with the methane, which is the carrier gas.
Therefore you both still need to be neutralised.
We do a special discounted deal for couples - £8 for a year.

Mr. Pillowcase:
Wow, you have certainly planned this out very well!

David Thorpe:
Well, thank you, but let's give some tribute to the European Union's Farting Directive (2007).

Poetica™:
You are a visionary! I will start working on my business plan to design the fluffiest Fartaloons and Firts the world has ever seen.

David Thorpe:
I look forward to seeing them. It's important for the designs to be cute and risque, don't you think.
I'm glad to see you are taking the positive attitude, following the Government's decisive leadership on global warming. Rightfully, they say climate change is not a threat, but an opportunity to make loads of money.
This is why we in the business community welcome climate change as a chance to reinvigorate our faded product lines, introduce new styles and fashions, and find new reasons why the public should continue to buy our products, even when they don't need them and can't afford them.
Let us celebrate climate change with a new line of fluffy, methane offsetted underwear!

Lucy:
We're all immature adults here!

David Thorpe:
Speak for yourself. I have the interests of the planet at heart. And making money. You can't get more mature than that.

Adam Horovitz:
Oh god, as a vegetarian I'm in deep trouble...

David Thorpe:
No, Adam, you are half way to salvation, for your meat-free diet is not dependant on the unseen emanations of distant ruminants.
The best way to narrow your methane footprint is to eat less beans and become anorexic.
The most selfless act would, of course, be suicide - that way you have no footprint at all, and we at Fart Neutral can give you a zero methane funeral, by offsetting the methane produced by your decomposing body - for a small fee of course.
However such martyrdom is for the saints amongst us only, and at Fart Neutral we know there are few of those - that is the reason for our existence - to provide guilt free farting for everyone.
Hence our motto: Supporting Farters with a Clear Conscience.

Adam Horovitz:
Beanless anorexia it is, then. No more being mistaken for a passing herd of cattle for me!! Thank you Fart Neutral - I don't know what I would have done without you...

Public opinions and market opinions

Some recent statistics on Employment and financial benefits of RE and public opinion on climate change policies

Public opinion

According to a Eurobarometer survey in all European Member States, 87% of Europeans are concerned about the climate change.

About the same number (82%) think that their energy use has an impact on the climate and 83% would support a minimum target for renewable energy sources.

Almost two thirds (62%) of the citizens think EU-agreed measures are the best way to tackle energy-related issues.

There is less agreement on how such measures should be implemented.

One third prefers taxing, one third thinks public funding of research would be the best option and the others think that prohibiting inefficient technologies would stimulate energy innovation best.

Nuclear energy is not generally seen as the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.

About 60% of Europeans want to decrease the share of nuclear energy, and only 30% want to build more nuclear power plants.

Employment and financial benefits of RE

The world is on the brink of an energy revolution that will dominate financial markets for years and provide a huge stimulus to global economic growth, according to the latest issue of Barclays Capital's influential Equity Gilt Study.

Investments in alternative energy sources are expected to grow to between $6.2bn and $8.8bn by 2009 as decades of U.S. and European research and development mature.

In 2005 Britain's environmental industries had a turnover of £25bn, according to the DTI, a figure projected to grow to £46bn by 2015.

With 13% growth last year, Germany’s renewable share in overall energy demand caused a renewed growth of jobs in the renewable energy sector.

In 2006 the number of employees working in the German renewables industry passed the 200,000 threshold.

Scottish Renewables has revealed the results of research into the economic impact of its members, the first study of its kind in Scotland.

The results show that 2,596 people are employed by SRF members in Scotland, and that the members of SRF had a combined turnover of £550m in 2006.

Employment in the 'renewables sector' is expected to grow sixfold by 2010 in the south west of England.

Meanwhile, a report from the investment bank Lehman Brothers, set out the position starkly - companies that adapt to the challenges of climate change will win friends and make money.

Those that do not will struggle to survive.

The value of concentrated solar power is underestimated

I'm taking the trouble to direct readers to n article by ProEnviro on this topic. I've mentioned it several times before and it keeps being ignored.

Nuclear power costs anywhere between 5p and 8p per kWh, with new power station under construction in the United States expected to deliver at half that price.

However in 2003 The National Academy of Sciences, through research from the engineering and analyst firms Sargent and Lundy, showed CSP, with a free, renewal and infinite supply to be viable with costs of 4-6 cents (US) per kWh for solar troughs.

Needless to say Bush vetoed the idea when he came to power.

Read more on ProEnviro's web site

Nuclear new build costs: prepare for fraud and deceit

I am revisiting the news that Dr. Tim Stone, chairman of KPMG's Global Infrastructure and Projects Group, has been appointed by Alistair Darling at the DTI to lead the development of arrangements for the costs associated with any decommissioning and waste management.

His brief is "to ensure that participants in nuclear new build deal with these costs". How effective will he be? Perhaps looking at his past might give us an idea.

KPMG and PFI

KPMG is an accountancy firm relied upon heavily by New Labour especially in connection with PPP/PFI schemes.

These are well documented (eg, in Private Eye) as being bad for public finances as they appear to be 'off the balance sheet' for the Treasury, yet commit taxpayers to decades of funding for what by then will be old infrastructure, eventually costing far more than they would have otherwise.

Stone's past

KPMG partner Dr Tim Stone was the Ministry of Defence’s adviser on the ‘Future Strategic Tanker’ PFI scheme, which is estimated to have a value in excess of £13billion. Under the scheme aerial tankers that enable planes from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to bomb targets in distant Iraq by refuelling them mid-air were supplied and partly staffed by private firms.

Stone is also a lead advisor on the £20billion Military Flying Training Services deal.

Stone advised the Department of Health on the PFI, while his company acts at the same time for firms bidding for hospital privatisation. KPMG advised on the first ever hospital PFI, at Dartford. The firm’s fees soared from an original £152,000 to £960,000.

The National Audit Office (NAO) found the scheme made no financial savings, but did reduce bed numbers.

In 2001, KPMG handled the figures on the PFI contract for the West Middlesex University Hospital in Isleworth. The NAO found that when KPMG worked out privatisation would be disproportionately expensive the accountancy practice discovered £12.5m of imaginary public-sector ‘risks’ so the sell-off could go ahead.

Stone has been heavily involved in many major acute hospital transactions, road and IT PFI deals, including the NHS' infamously wasteful and inefficient £3.2bn national IT programme and the similarly disastrous Department for Work & Pensions Accord deal which is the largest non-military IT procurement in Western Europe.

Involvement in fraud

In 2001 Xerox paid the US' Securities and Exchange Commission (Sec) $10m after admitting it had inflated its accounts by £3.9 billion between 1997 and 2000. Guess who passed the fraudulent books? Yep, KPMG, which was then also subject to a Sec investigation and in 2005 was ordered to pay $22m to settle the litigation.

In April 2002 a new auditor took over from KPMG at its client German software firm Comroad. It found that 97 per cent of Comroad's reported 2000 sales came from a non-existent company.

Also in 2002 KPMG paid $45m to creditors of German drilling firm FlowTex. A KPMG audit had approved the firm's books even though they were padded with pretend business.

Par for the course in the nuclear industry

Is this how the nuclear industry is going to appear to be dealing with all the costs of decommissioning?

It has a long and noble tradition of deceit and fraud, cover-up and evasion, not to mention cooking the accounts.

Darling evidently has found the perfect man to continue the tradition.

Nuclear energy continues to rise

Here's the global new nuclear picture:

Globally, nuclear power supplies are projected to grow 30% over the next 20 years with some two dozen power plants scheduled to be built or refurbished during the next five years.

China: eight new nuclear power stations under construction in 2006.

US & Russia: Presidents Bush and Putin announced significant new nuclear build programmes at recent G8 meetings.

These three countries will account for almost 38% of global nuclear output in 2010. By 2030, this is predicted to rise to over 45%. America’s share of total atomic production will slip to 26% during this period. China’s will increase from three percent to nine percent.

India: nine power plants under construction, including a fast-breeder reactor that generates its own fuel.

Pakistan: China is building its second of four power plants.

Canada: Last December, the Ontario Power Authority proposed plans to build 12 new nuclear plants. Bruce Power is to rebuild two other reactors.

Europe: New 1600-MW European PWRs are being built, one in Finland and one in France, with respective power-up dates of 2008 and 2012.

The failure of climate change initiatives will drive new nuclear power build, says Datamonitor.

The sham of a consultation

The Low Carbon Kid said from the start of the Energy Review 'consultation' that it was a sham and a foregone conclusion.

The Review was the reason for starting this blog. Now Greenpeace's courageous action in challenging the result has been vindicated by the High Court.

Greenpeace's Emma Gibson told the BBC: "The government's so-called consultation was a sham and we are very pleased the judge has agreed with us on that."

Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and radically wrong".

LibDem environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "It's a real slap in the face for prime minister's sofa style of government."

Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said: "The government has been shown up as fundamentally deceitful."

The government should immediately channel the money devoted to laying policy foundations and R&D in new nuclear power to the most promising emerging renewable technologies, in particular local power and marine energies.

There is no safe solution to nuclear waste.

Can I claim my £12m please Mr Branson?

The Low Carbon Kid has two ideas for reclaiming carbon from the atmosphere and locking it away - the subject of Richard Branson's technology challenge.

I'm afraid they're both fairly lo-tech, but hey, as long as they work, who cares? It makes them all the more easily implementable.

Here they are:

1. Grow trees, harvest the wood, turn it into charcoal, which is an inert form of carbon and won't decompose, and sell the charcoal as a soil conditioner to farmers and everyone with a garden. This solution is the subject of an article in the Jan/Feb issue of Renew, the publication of the Open University's NATTA, the independent national UK 'Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment' (Though maybe not the online version). The solution is basd on research conducted in the Amazon rainforest where charcoal hundreds of years old has been discovered and analysed, and its usefulness as a soil stabiliser revealed. The charcoal, as I say, is a permanent lock-up for the carbon, and by selling the charcoal the scheme becomes self-financing.
2. Grow hemp and use it as a building material, mixed with lime to form 'hempcrete'. Hemp is fast growing and a very good absorber of atmospheric carbon. Once secure in the lime concrete, it gives the material great strength, and locks the carbon up for as long as the house exists. A conference is being held in April to discuss the technology at the Centre for Alternative Technology.

Can I have my money please Mr Branson?

One day, will it be an offence to exhale CO2?

The EC want to make environmental offences criminal and Gore and Branson want to reward someone for a wheeze for taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

Soon it will be an offence to exhale!

Not to mention fart.

I jest perhaps. But animals breathe and fart, and there are two climate change questions associated with this:

1. Methane from animals for human consumption contributes 5-10% of GHG globally (source: FAO.
2. Land use - it takes about two to four times as much land area to support a meat diet as opposed to a vegetarian diet. [Different sources give different estimates depending on the type of meat, its feed, the alternative possible land uses, not to mention the amount of meat in the diet.]

With increasing pressure on land for biofuels, we should be encouraged to eat less meat, regardless of whether it is organic.

Branson - Green?

Finally, can the man who runs an airline and founded a space tourism company really be green? £10m of his own money is poultry feed (sorry) and, for him, an investment to continue his carbon-profligate Catch-23 lifestyle and businesses.

He thinks if someoone can take the carbon out of the atmosphere that he puts in, it lets him off the eco-hook.

Wil he succeed?

Don't hold your breath. (But on the other hand, if we ALL held our breath...]

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange;

America still has way to go with investment in renewables

A lot of fuss is being made over the fact that Bush is allocating in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal 2008 budget, approximately $1.2 billion to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - up $60 million or 5 percent from 2007.

But that's chicken feed to what Germany is spending. Germans invested more than $10 billion in new sources of renewable energy last year, using the country's pioneering electricity feed law.

Given the huge difference in populations between these two countries, Germany spent $122 per head compared to $3.36 - more than 36 times more.

The new Declaration of Energy Independence sponsored by Southern States Energy Board (and the so-called 'American Energy Security Partnership') is full of ironies. That the 'Project for an American Century' should so soon turn into for a project for independence from the world (most American wars have been fought over oil), is wonderful.

But if it means mass exploitation of American oil fields that's not good for the environment - although at least it's American biodiversity that will suffer, not that in victimised countries like Iraq and Nigeria.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Why carbon offsetting should be a last resort

I've published a revised article on this topic here: Cyberium website

Local energy, especially renewable heat, needs more support - Gov Committee

The government should do more to support local energy, according to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee.

Preferring the term "local energy" to “microgeneration” because it "is easier to understand and less restrictive", it argues that "there is too much emphasis on electricity production and not enough on local heating schemes - household or community-based." Roughly 1.3 million homes replace gas boilers each year, and Centrica estimates that micro-CHP systems could displace as many as 30% by 2015. It suggests that new housing schemes be fitted with CHP district heating. Furthermore it complains that Government payback figures, particularly for solar water heating panels, are far too pessimistic.

It urges energy suppliers to offer local energy systems with energy efficiency measures as part of a package of services to customers. Planning restrictions on rooftop wind turbines and solar panels should be removed, incentives streamlined, and the electricity distribution firms must pay a proper market rate for any surplus produced by such systems.

It acknowledges thast most forms of local energy are not suitable for all locations or uses. Micro-wind power's potential is "in danger of being oversold", according to one witness, so the government must ensure adequate information is available to consumers.

It says smart metering will be an excellent tool for promoting energy efficiency and export measuring, and calls for a deadline of 1 July 2008 for establishing standards and interoperability and a national roll-out scheme as in Italy.

However, local energy "cannot make a significant contribution in the next decade to closing the capacity gap created by the decommissioning of coal-fired and nuclear power stations—local energy is not a panacea that will 'keep the lights on'."

> Download the report

Free power for all of America - available now!

A new MIT report says there's more than enough feasibly extractable hydrothermal energy in the US to generate the entire 27 trillion kilowatt-hours of energy consumed in the US in 2005.

It can be tapped with current technology and would last at least 2000 years.

> Read the report here

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange;

Please arise, a UK visionary company like this

I've just stumbled across an American company that has the perfect business model for installing domestic or business renewable energy.

It's an Energy Services Company (ESCo) model, that goes two steps further than either WindSave's model or the Woking Council model, in taking ALL the hassle out of having a renewable electricity supply for your building, while guaranteeing a price for 25 years that's competitive with brown electricity. Here's the blurb on their web site:

Citizenrē REnU program packages solar power for you in a simple and smart way. Plainly put, the Citizenrē Corporation pays for, installs, owns and operates the solar installation.

You don’t have to worry about maintaining the equipment or any of the other concerns that come with making an investment into solar power.

All you are required to do is pay for the electricity generated from these panels, at a fixed rate that is at or below your current electricity price, for up to twenty-five years.

Well. Small print aside, I'd buy that. Who wouldn't? A no risk, no hassle, service arrangement.

I hope this business model can work (I assume they've crunched their figures) we'll soon see some British companies try and roll a similar offer out.

> Go to Citizenrē's web site

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange;

Renewable energy grants

Two recently announced grants:

Support for biomass heat

If you want help with the installation of biomass-fuelled heat and combined heat and power projects in the industrial, commercial and community sectors, including local authorities and schools, you have until 9 March to apply for support.

The £10-15m Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme is part of the Government response to the Biomass Task Force report.

> www.aea-energy-and-environment.com

Low Carbon Building grants

Applications for grants are now being accepted for Phase 2 of the DTI's Low Carbon Building Programme (LCPB) which will provide around £50M of grants over the next two to three years to encourage uptake of renewable energy technologies here in the UK.

Use this chickenfeed up fast and they'll see what demand there is.

> www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange;

Nuclear power stations are at risk from rising sea levels - official

The Low Carbon Kid has always worried about the effect of global warming's projected sea level rises on nuclear power locations, which are often by the sea for remoteness and access to cooling water.

In the past, it has been impossible to get official reactions.

But now we have one, from the most reliable of sources - the weather men.

The Met Office officially acknowledge that rising sea-levels, increased wave height and increased storm surge height must all be considered in the planning of the UK's future nuclear stations.

Their report was commissioned by the debt-ridden nuclear power company British Energy. It concludes future power plants will need to be further inland and may need added protection.

The government is likely to release its criteria for possible sites in March.

Flood risk

At Sizewell in Suffolk, for example, site of Britain's most modern reactor, the prediction is for the most severe storm surges to be 1.7 metres higher in 2080 than at present. But that's only if the Greenland ice sheet doesn't melt. If it does, much of it will be underwater.

At Dungeness in Kent, the storm surge increase could be up to 0.9 metres. Already this plant, which is sited on land only two metres above sea-level, is protected by a massive wall of shingle which needs constant maintenance in the winter. Waves erode so much of it that it needs to be topped up constantly with 600 tons of shingle every day.

Met Office researcher Rob Harrison told the BBC, "very large potential changes are in prospect; what we're trying to do is avoid a catastrophic effect.

The rise in storm surge heights will be most extreme along the coast of south-east England.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Petition the PM about Trident

There are now many petitions on the Downing Street web site. And you can start one of your own. Is this e-democracy in action, or a PR exercise?

Whatever, if you feel like asking the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system, whic currently has a lot of votes (9195) compared to other petitions, then please click here: petitions.pm.gov.uk/trident/.

More details from petition creator

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the greatest defense humanity has against a world in which many countries seek to acquire nuclear weapons, and in which the probability of nuclear accidents and even nuclear terrorism is unacceptably high.

However, this treaty is greatly under threat. Kofi Annan has said: "If we want to avoid a cascade of nuclear proliferation, we need a major international effort to strengthen the regime before it is too late."

The UK could lead this international effort. To do so, we would have to renounce our nuclear weapons system, Trident.

This would be an historic decision; it would rank among the few truly moral actions ever carried out by a nation-state; and it would give the UK the moral standing needed to champion the Treaty and help turn the world back from possible catastrophe.

This petition therefore calls on the Prime Minister not to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, and so to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Technorati Tags: Nuclear;

'Doomsday Clock' hands to be moved

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to underscore 'Most Perilous Period Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki'.

Maybe - in view of the following and with Blair wanting to build a new generation of Trident missiles, and a new generation of nuclear power stations (the Environment Agency has just published its criteria for evaluating the 'environmental impact' of new build nuclear so it can be sped up) - it's time to join CND again. What do you think?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), a top level group of concerned academics and nuclear scientists founded in 1945 that includes Stephen Hawking, will move the minute hand of the 'Doomsday Clock' on January 17, tomorrow. This is the first such change to the Clock since February 2002, and marks a serious cocnern about world stability.

They are worried about a 'Second Nuclear Age' marked by grave threats, including:

• nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea
• unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere
• the continuing 'launch-ready' status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia
• escalating terrorism, and
• new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks.

The BAS news event will take place simultaneously on January 17th at 9:30 a.m. ET at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., and at 2:30 p.m./1430 GMT in London at The Royal Society.

News event speakers will include:

• Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society;
• Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists;
• Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, and professor of cosmology and astrophysics and master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge;
• Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University; and
• Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the International Crisis Group.

A live, two-way satellite feed (with full Q&A) will connect the Washington, D.C., and London news events.

What is the clock?

In 1947 the Bulletin introduced its clock to convey the perils posed by nuclear weapons through a simple design. The Doomsday Clock evoked both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero).

In 1949 Bulletin leaders realised that movement of the minute hand would signal the organization’s assessment of world events.

The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.

The Bulletin's Doomsday Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to nuclear weapons and other threats. Additional information is available at www.thebulletin.org.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Chucking out the offsetting cowboys

Carbon offsetting is flavour of the month. As the Low Carbon Kid's always said, it's Catch-23 - having your cake and eating it.

Two reasons it doesn't work:

One: there are lots of scam compnies around, and it's unregulated.

The Government is expected to make an announcement on Thursday (day after tomorrow), setting standards for carbon offsetting schemes in the UK.

57 schemes are expected to fail and only 4 to comply with the new rules when they are announced.

Just goes to show how much green hot air there is around.

Two: It doesn't work anyway

I agree with those like Ed Gillespie who say cash payment to an offset company is actually counter-productive and represents a 'get out of carbon jail free' card.

I fear that carbon offsetting, rather than encourgaing 'carbon literacy' and increasing the transparency of our own personal carbon impacts, instead tends to absolve us of any moral responsibility or accountability to reduce our own carbon from air travel.

The end result being: "I've offset so it's OK to fly".

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Tackling nuclear NIMBYs like me

The Government (DTI) has published a number of future scoping research papers commissioned from MORI/Ipsos, to help tell it what to do. Among them is one on how to tackle the anti-nuclear power movement.

It actually doesn't tell you much that any of us couldn't have told them. For example it says:

"Public resistance towards radioactive waste may lead to there being few, if any, acceptable domestic sites on land for storage/burial Governments and the waste managers may have to find alternative ways of disposal."

and: "This could either force the minimisation of use of nuclear resources (therefore driving the development and use of alternative energy sources), or drive companies to dispose of their waste in other locations without public knowledge."

It warns specifically that James Lovelock and other pro-nuclear 'environmentalists' can help swing public opinion.

And that the government should watch out for "increasing membership of anti-nuclear NGOs and other groups; decreasing support for nuclear power plants; and radioactive waste disposal companies unable to find suitable locations due to public outcry" as indicators that they may not be able to reach their nuclear targets.

It therefore advocates "campaigns to educate the public on real risks of radioactive waste; improving management of radioactive waste; and development of new methods for its disposal."

In terms of 'Parallels & Precedents' it mentions: "Nirex exposed as having identified 12 secret sites for radioactive waste disposal in England and Scotland; a number of incidents have occurred when nuclear waste was improperly disposed of in some cases, these incidents involve people being injured or killed due to the release of radioactive contamination."

Well. No-brainer or what?

See: the paper here.

On the same site are a number of other interesting papers on global warming including, bizarrely, "What would Jesus drive?: the birth of green spirituality and creation care".

Perhaps Tony thinks God can save us.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;