Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Ethical shopping is just another way of showing how rich you are

The middle classes congratulate themselves on going green, then carry on buying and flying as much as before

It wasn't meant to happen like this. The climate scientists told us that our winters would become wetter and our summers drier. So I can't claim that these floods were caused by climate change, or are even consistent with the models. But, like the ghost of Christmas yet to come, they offer us a glimpse of the possible winter world that we will inhabit if we don't sort ourselves out.

With rising sea levels and more winter rain - and remember that when the trees are dormant and the soils saturated, there are fewer places for the rain to go - all it will take is a freshwater flood to coincide with a high spring tide and we have a formula for full-blown disaster. We have now seen how localised floods can wipe out essential services and overwhelm emergency workers. But this month's events don't even register beside some of the predictions circulating in learned journals. Our primary political struggle must be to prevent the breakup of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The only question now worth asking about climate change is how.

full article

Will EU see the light?

Peter Mandelson, never far from controversy if he can help it, is at the centre of a jolly little row ... over energy-saving light bulbs.

The EU has decreed that Europeans should switch from common incandescent bulbs by 2020 as the latest as part of its "world-beating" campaign against climate change and the European Lamp Companies Federation has pledged that it will phase them out by 2015, reducing CO2 emissions by 60% or 23 megatonnes and giving consumers a €7bn (£4.7bn) windfall by saving 63,000 gigawatt-hours of juice - and 27 fewer power stations.

But there's a snag, and it's not just Greenpeace, which says they can be done away with by 2010. ("When products become trendy, markets can move very quickly to meet demand," says its Sharon Becker, pointing to digital mobile phone cameras and iPods.)

The lamp-makers are falling out over Mandy's plans to end anti-dumping duties on Chinese bulbs which push up prices by as much as two-thirds.

Osram, part of Siemens, complained to a meeting of trade officials this week about Mandy's plans to eliminate the tariffs; its fellow federation member, Philips, wants them removed. So no decision until after the summer break.

But what lies behind this spat?

The Dutch group, Europe's biggest producer, happens to import a lot of energy-efficient bulbs from China, many of them its own; so does Osram but a lot less. So Mandy's snouts smell a rat: Osram wants the duties to stay because it will hit Philips even harder than itself so it's all about market-share, really.

As if that weren't enough, America's GE and Sylvania are lined up behind the Dutch. But Osram can count on Günter Verheugen, the EU's industry commissioner and German industry lobbyist within the Berlaymont, as well as Michael Glos, Germany's economy minister.

But Philips' crucial backing may come from white knight Tesco (and other retailers, including the Foreign Trade Association which has just written to consumer minister Gareth Thomas asking him to vote the Osram proposals down).

Britain's - and increasingly Europe's - biggest grocer will buy the "green" bulbs from wherever and slash prices. That too is good for market share.

If the wheels of policy-making turn slowly in Brussels...?

In the German capital's stunning new Hauptbahnhof they won't even turn at all as traindrivers vote on an all-out strike over their modest 31% pay demand. (The German economic crisis is over so, bitteschön, let's stop penny-pinching wage-cuts).

But, at least, after years of shillyshallying and backbiting, the grand coalition government has agreed a Fahrplan for part-privatisation of Deutsche Bahn, the state-owned rail and logistics company.

The timetable will see a stake "below or around 25%" worth €3bn floated off to private investors by the end of next year at the latest - if Bundestag and Bundesrat, the two parliamentary chambers, approve (not proven).

Eventually 49% could be in free float though that is in doubt, according to Wolfgang Tiefensee, transport minister. Even so, the initial IPO would be the biggest for seven years: since Deutsche Post raised €5.8bn in November 2000.

The idea has been around for almost two decades - and delayed by fears over repeating the British experience with the rushed and botched privatisation of British Rail and its division into several businesses, with services completely separated from the network of tracks, stations etc.

The German constitution or Basic Law lays down that the infrastructure must remain in state hands and it will remain heavily subsidised (€2.5bn a year) for at least 15 years while DB will stay an integrated company. Tiefensee says: "No investor will get a single kilometre of track."

But few are convinced it will work. Critics, like Michael Bauchmüller in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, says this is the worst of all worlds, bringing no competition and no benefit for travellers.

Claus Matecki of the DGB, the German TUC, says: "The central aim of rail reform, namely putting more traffic on the tracks, risks landing in the sidings." And the upper chamber, the Bundesrat, is majority opposed.

Still, the plans suggest that Germany, with its new squeaky-clean budget, could sell off further chunks of Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Post in the coming months. As long as none of the shares ends up in the hands of the new "locusts" - the state-controlled investment or sovereign funds so beloved of Alistair Darling.

It's only a game, isn't it?

Europe's gambling industry is on the warpath against protectionist measures to expand the scope of state monopolies in the new era of online gaming and betting that sees millions watch high-powered poker tournaments on TV screens in countless bars.

It has just notched up a victory in Danish courts which could bring further legal action across Europe and the US. A Copenhagen judge has ruled that tournament poker - Texas Hold'em in this case - is a game of skill, not chance.

The Danish Poker Association, prosecuted by the police for violating the criminal code which forbids "non-licensed" gambling in public places and for commercial gain, is celebrating.

Its lawyer, Anders Hansen of Danders & More, says this is the first time anywhere in the world that the rules of poker have been scrutinised and the court has recognised that "a poker tournament played over many hours requires a range of strategic, analytical and mathematical skills".

He points out that similar cases are pending in Holland, Germany and France.

But British lawyers doubt whether prudent, po-faced Gordon Brown will support a similar EU-wide ruling on the regulation of poker clubs after his decision to ban super casinos and UK court rulings at variance with the Danes.

And the Danish casino operators, acting against the poker players through their lobby Horesta, are even sourer now...

full article

Renewable energy could 'rape' nature

Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead. So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.

Ausubel says the key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.

Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."

Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power."

'Massive infrastructure'

Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of power per square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as renewable energy use increases, this measure of efficiency will decrease as the best land for wind, biomass, and solar power gets used up.

Using biofuels to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometres of prime Midwestern farm land, Ausubel says. "We should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars and trucks," he adds.

Solar power is much more efficient than biofuel in terms of the area of land used, but it would still require 150 square kilometres of photovoltaic cells to match the energy production of the 1000 MW nuclear plant. In another example, he says meeting the 2005 US electricity demand via wind power alone would need 780,000 square kilometres, an area the size of Texas.

Part of the land used in Ausubel's calculations is for storage and transportation: "Any renewable energy supply needs a massive infrastructure, including steel, metal, pipes, cables, concrete, and access roads."

'Heretical demagogue'

However, other experts who have seen Ausubel’s study are highly critical, both of its conclusions and its inflammatory rhetoric.

"To have a debate on the various issues is good, but setting himself up as a demagogue with this heretical stuff, takes away from the focus and value of the debate," says John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Turner says that even if the US got all of its power from solar energy, it would still need less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways. Further, it need not take up additional land. “We could get a quarter of our energy just from covering rooftops of existing buildings,” he says.

The same "dual use" also applies to wind power. "The footprint for wind is only 5% of the land that it covers," says Turner. "Farmers can still farm the land that the turbines are on."

Turner says looking solely at land use is an oversimplification of the issue. "I’m not sure I’d want to build one of these nuclear plants in Afghanistan, but we could certainly put in wind and solar power," he adds.

'Taboo subject'

Turner also highlights the risks of nuclear waste storage. "It has to be safely stored for 100,000 years," says Turner. "To dismiss that as a simple waiting game is totally irresponsible."

However, public perceptions of nuclear energy are changing. A new study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that 35% of the US population wants to increase nuclear power use. The figure has risen from 28% in 2002.

And not everyone disagrees entirely with Ausubel. The land argument is valid, says David Keith, of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

“I think the argument is crucial and correct and something the environmental community hasn’t wrapped its head around,” Keith says. “I don’t see any scenario where we won’t have an environmental holocaust from biomass if we rely on it for more than a third of global energy production. But this doesn’t apply to all renewables.”

Keith notes that solar power has 10 times the energy density of biomass and its cost is likely to drop as the technology advances.

Ausubel thinks he represents a silent majority of scientists concerned about renewables. “I think I’m saying what many of my colleagues know, but have felt its taboo to say,” he says.

full article

Call to stop patio heaters sale

People are being told to wear jumpers instead of relying on patio heaters, in an attempt to cut carbon emissions.

The Energy Saving Trust has urged retailers to stop selling the heaters after a report suggesting their use will almost double over the next year.

It says the number of privately owned units in the UK will rise from 1.2 million to 2.3 million.

Each heater uses the same amount of energy in six months as a kitchen gas hob does in a year, the Trust said.

Chief executive Philip Sellwood said: "Why don't people just wear a jumper?"

After interviewing 1,192 UK households, researchers found that Yorkshire and Humberside had the highest rate of current or intended patio heater owners, on 18%.

'Responsible'

The lowest rate was in the East of England, on 3%.

Two-thirds of patio heater owners said they used theirs once or twice a week.

Half of owners switched theirs on during the hottest months of the year, July and August.

Mr Sellwood said: "We are calling for responsible retailers to reconsider the sale of patio heaters in light of the substantial amount of carbon emissions they produce."

It is thought that the recently imposed smoking ban in enclosed public places in England will lead to more outdoor smoking and an increase in commercial patio heaters.

Mr Sellwood said: "People are also influencing the larger, more damaging commercial sector, with a third of pub-goers choosing pubs where there is a patio heater.

"Landlords are helping to make patio heaters desirable - which they are not."

Some 31% of people who responded to the survey said they liked to sit outside pubs and would choose one with outdoor heating.

Last month, London Mayor Ken Livingstone called for a halt in the spread of "wasteful" patio heaters and urged retailers not to promote them.

full article