news20091110gdn1

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[Environment > Waste]
Britain bins £12bn of food and drink every year, report reveals
Liquid waste – milk, soup and soft drinks – included in figures for first time, taking total of discarded food to 5.3m tonnes a year
Rebecca Smithers
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 14.55 GMT Article history

More than £12bn worth of food and drink that could have been consumed is thrown out every year by householders, according to new figures today that reveal the scale of the UK's food waste mountain.

The new statistics from Wrap, the body set up to advise the government on reducing waste and packaging, are the first to include liquid waste – including vast amounts of milk, soup and soft drinks – which are being poured down the sink.

They are published in a new report – Household Food and Waste in the UK (pdf) – which shows that while the amount of food we waste has broadly stabilised, the addition of liquids has boosted the amount of avoidable food waste from 4.1m tonnes to 5.3m tonnes every year.

The cost of the avoidable food and drink waste is typically £480 per household per year – rising to around £680 a year for families with children – while the potential damage to the environment is huge. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with avoidable food and drink waste are the equivalent of approximately 20m tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – equivalent to 2.4% of greenhouse gas emissions associated with all consumption in the UK. Most discarded food reaches landfill sites, where it emits methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. But more effective composting, as well as reduced waste, would slash this.

The two main reasons that we throw food out have not changed, the report says. We cook or prepare too much and we let food go off, either completely untouched, or opened and started but not finished.

Of the avoidable food and drink waste, 2.2m tonnes is left over after cooking, preparing or serving and 2.9m tonnes is not used in time.

Avoidable drink waste costs us £1.6bn annually, the report reveals. Britain discards around £250m of fizzy drinks and £190m of fruit juices and smoothies every year. We also chuck out around £110m of tea (most likely to be half-drunk cups), while we are also extraordinarily wasteful with dairy products. More than £280m worth of milk is thrown away per year – not just milk we throw away from the fridge but also that which is leftover from serving too much, such as milk from breakfast cereal. More than 90% of the milk that is thrown away is in amounts of 50g or more – the equivalent of at least a quarter of a glass each time.

Since its launch by Wrap in November 2007, the Love Food Hate Waste campaign led has helped around 2.1m homes to take steps to cut back on the amount of food they throw away, resulting in a reduction of 162,000 tonnes of food waste; an overall saving of £400m a year that has prevented the emission of 725,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Wrap's objective is to reduce household food waste being sent to landfill by 250,000 tonnes by March 2011, with the saving 1.1m tonnes of CO2.

A Wrap spokesperson commented: "These new figures published today show that we throw away a staggering £12bn of food and drink that could have been consumed, either because we cook or prepare too much, or because we let it go off. Love Food Hate Waste has some great tips on simple planning, portioning and storing our food and drink that can help us save as much as £50 a month."


[Environment > Wind power]
Spain's windfarms set new national record for electricity generation
High winds over the weekend supplied 53% of Spain's electricity – equivalent to the power output of 11 nuclear plants
Giles Tremlett
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 16.27 GMT Article history

Wind energy provided more than half of Spain's total electricity needs for several hours over the weekend as the country set a new national record for wind-generated power.

With high winds gusting across much of the country, Spain's huge network of windfarms jointly poured the equivalent of 11 nuclear power stations' worth of electricity into the national grid.

At one stage on Sunday morning, the country's wind farms were able to cover 53% of total electricity demand – a new record in a country that boasts the world's third largest array of wind turbines, after the United States and Germany.

For more than five hours on Sunday morning output from wind power was providing more than half of the electricity being used. At their peak, wind farms were generating 11.5 gigawatts, or two-thirds of their theoretical maximum capacity of almost 18GW.

The new record, which beat a 44 % level set earlier last week, came as strong winds battered the Iberian peninsula.

The massive output of wind turbines meant the Spanish grid had more electricity than was needed over the weekend. In previous years similar weather has forced windfarms to turn turbines off but now the spare electricity is exported or used by hydroelectric plants to pump water back into their dams — effectively storing the electricity for future use.

José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind.

"We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020," he told El País newspaper.

Windfarms have this month outperformed other forms of electricity generation in Spain, beating gas into second place and producing 80% more than the country's nuclear plants.

Experts estimate that by the end of the year, Spain will have provided a quarter of its energy needs with renewables, with wind leading the way, followed by hydroelectric power and solar energy.


[Environment > Wildlife]
Why the red deer failed to rut
There has been no deer rut in the New Forest this autumn
David Adam
The Guardian, Tuesday 10 November 2009 Article history

For centuries, the autumnal red deer rut has been one of the stunning sights of the British countryside. The annual event sees giant stags chase rivals, bellow warnings and lock horns in a fight for supremacy. To the winners, the female spoils. To the losers, the consolation that they may appear in a nice photograph.

According to the website of the New Forest, which has some of the most established red deer herds in England, "Early on autumnal mornings, during the annual red deer rut, testosterone-charged stags with thickened manes make a fearsome sight as, muscles rippling, flanks caked in mud, breath billowing white against the dark heather, they roar their welcome to the dawn." Enough, you might think, to make anyone grab their digital SLR camera and head for the forest.

Unfortunately, the only flanks caked with mud at the New Forest rut this season have been those of the eager deer-spotters. For the first time that anyone can remember, this year there has been no deer rut.

Ian Young, a New Forest keeper, says there have been too many people hanging around with cameras. He blames well-meaning programmes such as the BBC's Autumnwatch and wildlife websites that alert the public to the arrival of a stag. "We had one stag who walked all the way here from Bournemouth and as soon as he got here he was surrounded by 29 people with cameras. There are so many people coming now that they disturb the animals." Local farmers who shoot stags when they wander on to private land are also to blame, he says.

One stag arrived last week. "The next day we had 50 or 60 people here. They came from Bristol, Devon and Cornwall after they read about him on a website." With no rival to fight, the stag wandered off again.

When the Guardian discovered the rut was in doubt several weeks ago, the Foresty Commission, which runs the site, was desperate to avoid extra publicity. "The last thing we need is a bunch of film crews coming down to make the situation worse," a spokesperson said at the time. The rut season is now effectively finished.

The failure of the rut does not threaten the herd, Young says. Deer will still breed, though it is more likely to be younger males, which do not rut. "There is too much public pressure on them, so they will do it at night."

news20091110gdn2

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[Environment > Glaciers]
India 'arrogant' to deny global warming link to melting glaciers
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of 'arrogance' for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers
Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 16.17 GMT Article history

A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal" shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.

Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would "challenge the conventional wisdom" about melting ice in the mountains.

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could "disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner".

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".


However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

Ramesh said he was prepared to take on "the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and the IPCC".

"My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added.

The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.

Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."

Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".

"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."

In a remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier, the main source of the River Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977 – and is today "practically at a stand still".

Some scientists have warned that the river beds of the Gangetic Basin – which feed hundreds of millions in northern India – could run dry once glaciers go. However, such concerns are scotched by the report.

According to Raina, the mistake made by "western scientists" is to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas. "In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is completely different system."

"As long as we have monsoons we will have glaciers. There are many factors to consider when we want to find out how quickly (glaciers melt) … rainfall, debris cover, relief and terrain," said Raina.

In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".

"I cannot see what the minister's motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening."

Many environmentalists said they were also unconvinced by the minister's arguments. Sunita Narain, a member of the Indian prime minister's climate change council and director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said "the report would create a lot of confusion".

"The PM's council has just received a comprehensive report which presents many studies which show clear fragmentation of the glaciers would lead to faster recession. I am not sure what Jairam (Ramesh) is doing."


[Environment > Copenhagen Climate change conference 2009]
Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen if he can clinch climate deal
Daniel Nasaw in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday 10 November 2009 Article history

President Barack Obama will travel to the climate summit in Copenhagen next month if the countries involved are on the verge of a deal and he thinks his presence will help to clinch agreement, he said in an interview last night.

It is Obama's strongest assertion yet that he will attend the meeting in Denmark to help secure a binding treaty in the fight against climate change, and comes after weeks of pessimism and a significant downgrading of the summit's goal.

"If I am confident that all the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge, then certainly that's something that I will do," the US president told Reuters.

Obama made clear he considers his talks with Chinese leaders during an Asia tour later this month to be crucial in clearing remaining obstacles to an accord.

"The key now is for the United States and China, the two largest emitters, to come up with a framework that, along with other big emitters like the Europeans and those countries that are projected to be large emitters in the future, like India, can all buy into," he said. "I remain optimistic that between now and Copenhagen that we can arrive at that framework."

He spoke as progress on legislation in the US remains halting, and just days after the last formal international negotiations in Barcelona in the run up to the summit collapsed in acrimony. On Friday, developing countries threatened to walk out of the Copenhagen summit unless wealthier states commit to great cuts in their own emissions, and to more aid. Meanwhile, the UN, EU and some NGOs have accused the US of holding up the talks by refusing to show up at Copenhagen with firm emissions targets.

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill setting a 17% reduction in America's emissions from 2005 levels, and a version currently in the Senate aims for a 20% cut by 2020.

It became clear on Friday that the best hope for Copenhagen is a "politically binding" agreement, which rich countries hope will have all the key elements of the final deal, including specific targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions cuts and money for poor countries to cope with climate change.

A British government official said: "It would be substantive. It would set timelines, and provide the figures by which rich countries would reduce emissions, as well as the money that would be made available to developing countries to adapt to climate change." But, she said, a legally binding agreement "could take six months, up to a year, but we would want it to be [signed] as soon as possible."

If Obama shows up next month, he will join more than 40 heads of state, including prime minister Gordon Brown and others from Europe, Africa and South America who have said they will attend the talks.

In Washington, Republicans and some Democrats have resisted emissions legislation, saying it would hinder job growth as the country claws its way out of recession. The White House has said global climate negotiations should continue while the US domestic political debate plays out.

Republicans are little inclined to allow Obama a victory on climate change, which they see as a liberal issue in the US, and the entire Congress is embroiled in a bitter fight over his health care reform plans.

In a dramatic display of intransigence, Republicans on a Senate committee tasked with approving emissions control legislation boycotted a hearing last week on the bill. The bill passed and will now be further shaped by Senate Democratic leaders before a floor vote.

Complicating the situation are next year's congressional and Senate elections, when Democrats will be more concerned with voters' economic woes than with demands from Copenhagen participants.

On Monday, Obama said he was optimistic he could convince American businesses and the public of the "enormous amount of benefits" of emissions control.

"In meeting with world leaders, I've repeatedly explained that America is not a speedboat," he said. "We're a big ocean liner. And you can't reverse course overnight."

news20091110gdn3

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[Environment > Oil]
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT Article history

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.

The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.

John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.

"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.

The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.

But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.

A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".

But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."


[Environment > Nuclear power]
Nuclear power: A blow to the cheap coal option
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 20.21 GMT Article history

Today's announcements are meant to bring clarity to an otherwise murky situation. The government is trying to pave the way for an energy system in which electricity generation is more or less fully decarbonised by 2050. The three technologies that can help achieve this are renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

With renewables – already healthily subsidised – the main obstacle to investment has been planning and getting access to the grid. The new Infrastructure Planning Commission is an attempt to depoliticise the planning hurdle, and today's remarks are intended to make it clear that energy projects such as these are in the national interest.

For nuclear, the industry is still more or less sticking to the line that it doesn't need a special subsidy. But it has needed public underwriting of decommissioning costs and, to avoid the two-year planning delay that Sizewell B faced, it too needs the planning system to be overhauled. Today's statement again moves in that direction.

On the coal front it is not so much planning that is an issue as the lack of commercial confidence in the technology and the high costs of building the infrastructure and operating the equipment. Today's announcement effectively rules out the possibility of any new coal stations being built without around a quarter of the station being fitted with fully operational capture and storage technology from the outset. This is a blow to anyone thinking that current cheap coal technologies are on their list of options when it comes to building new capacity.

The government has recognised the role clear regulation can play in getting what it wants. The big question is: are the policies clear enough to get companies investing in the right technologies? I hope the answer is yes.

Bryony Worthington is a green campaigner and founder of Sandbag.org.uk

news20091110nn1

[naturenews] from [nature.com]

[naturenews]
Published online 9 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1074
News
African academies show how science can save lives
First joint report highlights importance of African scientists' advice to policy-makers.
By Linda Nordling

{{Four million lives in Africa could be saved by adopting science-based health policies}

African governments could save millions of lives relatively cheaply by adopting science-based health policies, according to a report published today by seven African science academies.

The report, which focuses on child and maternal health in sub-Saharan
Africa, was unveiled at the fifth annual conference of the African Science Academy Development Initiative (ASADI) that is taking place from 9–11 November in Ghana's capital Accra.

It is the first joint policy briefing produced by the initiative. Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ASADI brings together the science academies of Nigeria, South Africa, Senegal, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and Cameroon.

"This is a product of Africa, produced by its best and brightest minds," says Roseanne Diab, executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa, based in Lynnwood, Pretoria.

How to save four million lives

The report divides African countries into three categories based on the percentage of births that are overseen by a skilled person, such as a midwife or health worker: less than 30%, 30–60% and more than 60%. It uses the Lives Saved Tool, or LiST — a computer model developed by an international team of researchers — to make policy recommendations for the three scenarios.

Across all three categories, improving infectious-disease care for children under five years of age would save the most lives. Nearly 150,000 children could be saved in northern Nigeria alone by raising by 20% the number of children with access to care for diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria and measles.

However, when it comes to mothers, the scenarios differ. In places with less than 30% 'skilled attendance', helping mothers to plan their pregnancies has big potential to save lives. But in countries with higher levels of skilled attendance at birth, the report suggests that policy-makers should focus on improving access to emergency obstetric care, such as Caesarean sections and blood transfusions.

If the interventions recommended in the report were to reach 90% of Africans, its authors estimate that the lives of 4 million African mothers and children could be saved each year — avoiding 85% of deaths on the continent.

The cost of implementing the policies is "extremely affordable" the report says, ranging from US$0.50–$3 per head. In Uganda, the total cost of the interventions would be around $90m per year.

Active advice

There are signs that African academies are beginning to transform from mainly honorific societies to become active advisers on policy. Giving advice to government is the raison d'être of the Academy of Science and Technologies of Senegal, says Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye, vice-president of the Dakar-based institution. "The fact that this report is issued by a group of African academies adds value to what academies are doing at the national level," he says.

Grouping together also adds credibility to the advice, says Oladoyin Odubanjo, executive secretary of the Nigerian Academy of Sciences in Lagos. "If it comes from many academies, there is less chance that it is wrong," he says.

African governments, meanwhile, seem to be warming to the idea of taking advice from scientists. "There is some evidence that African governments are ready to start basing their policies on this type of evidence," says Joanna Schellenberg, an epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Tanzania is leading the way, she says, but other countries, such as Ghana, are also showing an interest.

The academies are now working on their second joint policy briefing. It will look at improving access to energy and is due to be launched at the next ASADI annual conference in South Africa in November 2010.


[naturenews]
Published online 9 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1069
News
Whale-song recording goes deep
Underwater glider eavesdrops on cetacean communication.
By Rex Dalton

Silently slipping to 1,000 metres below the ocean surface, an undersea glider equipped with a recording device is cruising off Hawaii to capture unprecedented detail on the sounds made by whales.

The experiment represents the first time that an acoustic-equipped glider has been deployed to this depth in the open ocean to record data from a specific marine mammal. Whales make distinctive clicking sounds or vocalizations both for communication and for echolocation, allowing them to navigate and forage for food, but traditional acoustic devices on the ocean surface typically can't record whale sounds emitted at lower depths.

The glider is designed to collect acoustic data from beaked whales (Ziphiidae), which can dive down to 2,000 metres. These whales seem to be particularly sensitive to man-made noise, and there have been a number of beaked whale strandings associated with the use of military sonar equipment¹.

The data will help to improve our understanding of whale biology, researchers say, but the glider is also being considered as a more effective way of monitoring marine mammals when airguns are deployed for seismic studies of the seafloor (see 'Airgun ban halts seismic tests'). Such tests have been linked to whale strandings or deaths, but when observers try to monitor whales by sight during the studies, "they miss about 85% of the whales present," says whale-acoustics expert Dave Mellinger of Oregon State University's Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Oregon, who works on the glider project.

Since the glider's deployment on 27 October, it has made more than 50 dives — some lasting up to 6 hours — during its first week of operations off the coast of Hawaii. It is due to be retrieved on 17 November.

"We believe we have identified beaked whales," says Mellinger. "It was pretty exciting. You work a couple of years on a project, hope it will succeed, but you don't know until the equipment is wet."

The US$1.5-million project began in 2007 and is funded by the US Office of Naval Research, based in Arlington, Virginia. Mellinger and a postdoctoral researcher, Holger Klinck, also at the Hatfield Marine Science Center, developed the software for the glider so that it could distinguish beaked whale noises from the cacophony of other ocean sounds. At the University of Washington in Seattle, engineers Neil Bogue and Jim Luby conducted the glider engineering research. Mellinger and Klinck's studies are in conjunction with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington, part of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Sonic search

Developed more than a decade ago, autonomous underwater gliders were initially used by oceanographers to study ocean conditions, such as temperature, salinity and currents. They were dropped off in waters around the world to capture data that were then either recovered with the glider or beamed to a satellite.

A glider can cost around $150,000–200,000 and typically includes a bladder to control its buoyancy. Powered by an internal battery, a device shifts oil, deflating the bladder or filling it with air, and prompting the glider to descend or ascend accordingly.

The two-metre-long, torpedo-like glider used in the beaked whale study is steered by an internal computer to follow a pre-programmed course while travelling at around 0.25 metres per second. After diving, the glider comes to the surface to take its bearings, beams a summary of its data to an Iridium satellite and then cruises to the next programmed location. Cruise distance is dictated by battery life, but as technology has improved, gliders can now travel from the mainland United States to Hawaii.

"The technology — like the acoustic system — wasn't available to do this five years ago," notes Mellinger.

Characteristic click

Two species of beaked whale have been targeted in this particular study — the Cuvier's and the Blainville's. Beaked whales emit around three clicks per second, whereas other marine mammals, such as dolphins, click as often as 100 times per second. Still, recording the beaked whale sounds will result in enormous amounts of information — the current glider cruise is expected to produce a half a terabyte of data.

To identify the characteristic sound of a beaked whale, Mellinger and Klinck's software must take into account the click's frequency in kilohertz, the rate of clicks and the frequency spectrum of the clicks. The click spectrum emitted by a beaked whale is 25–100 KHz — inaudible to the human ear, which can detect up to a maximum of 20 KHz.

"We have not done detailed analysis, but we are pretty sure we have encountered beaked whales four or five times," says Klinck. Once the glider has finished its cruise, further analysis of the entire data set will confirm and expand that finding.

References
1. Jepson, P. D. et al. Nature 425, 575-576 (2003).

news20091110nn2

[naturenews] from [nature.com]

[naturenews]
Published online 9 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/462152a
News
Report row ousts top Indian scientist
Ruckus over call for reform at national science agency raises questions about attracting expatriate talent.
By K. S. Jayaraman

{{Shiva Ayyadurai says he returned to India on a “mission” to help his homeland.}
D. Coveney/MITBangalore}

The first appointment in a scheme to recruit expatriate scientists to senior positions in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) — India's largest science agency — seems to have misfired badly.

A US scientist of Indian origin has been dismissed just five months after he was offered the position of 'outstanding scientist' and tasked with helping to commercialize technologies developed at CSIR institutes.

Shiva Ayyadurai, an entrepreneur inventor and Fulbright Scholar with four degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, was the first scientist to be appointed under the CSIR scheme to recruit about 30 scientists and technologists of Indian origin (STIOs) into researcher leadership roles.

"The offer was withdrawn as he did not accept the terms and conditions and demanded unreasonable compensation," Samir Brahmachari, director general of the CSIR, told Nature.

yyadurai denies this. In a 30 October letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is also president of the CSIR, he claims that he was sacked for sending senior CSIR scientists a report that was critical of the agency's leadership and organization. The report, published on 19 October, was authored by Ayyadurai and colleague Deepak Sardana, who joined the CSIR as a consultant in January. Ayyadurai says that the report — which was not commissioned by the CSIR — was intended to elicit feedback about the institutional barriers to technology commercialization.

"Our interaction with CSIR scientists revealed that they work in a medieval, feudal environment," says Ayyadurai. "Our report said the system required a major overhaul because innovation cannot take place in this environment."

Ayyadurai says that he came to the CSIR with a "mission" to apply his scientific and entrepreneurial experience to help his homeland, and that Brahmachari had promised him the authority, budget and resources to execute the mission. But Ayyadurai's relationship with Brahmachari soured after the report went public. Ayyadurai claims that on 23 October he was barred by the CSIR from speaking to council scientists or directors, and was denied Internet and e-mail access. His appointment offer was withdrawn on 26 October, and on 7 November he was given three days to vacate his residential accommodation provided by the CSIR. Brahmachari confirms this chain of events.

Sardana shares Ayyadurai's views. Describing their report as an in-depth study of the management of the CSIR, he wrote to science minister Prithviraj Chavan on 19 October saying that "it is not possible for me to continue working without your immediate direct intervention" because of the problems triggered by the report.

Impervious to criticism

"I have seen many cases of vindictiveness in the CSIR, but this is the worst," says Pushpa Bhargava, founder director of the CSIR's Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB). Bhargava, who has also written to Singh supporting Ayyadurai, says: "Ayyadurai's report tells the truth about how the CSIR is being run today. The fact that CSIR administration is impervious to healthy and fair criticism is bound to send the wrong message not only to expatriates but also [to scientists] within the country."

"I am more worried that the incident will dampen the enthusiasm of Indian institutions to hire expatriates in the future," says Valangiman Ramamurthy, the former science secretary of the government's Department of Science and Technology, who recommended Ayyadurai's selection.

But others think that Ayyadurai's case will not set a precedent. Gangan Pratap, director of the National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, a CSIR institute in New Delhi, says that most returning expatriates will focus on research and teaching, rather than getting involved with policy issues, and are unlikely to face similar conflicts. Rajan Sankaranarayanan, who returned from the Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cell Biology in Strasbourg, France, to join the CCMB in 2002, agrees that the episode should not discourage other Indians from returning, as long as they are prepared to work within the existing systems.

Brahmachari is also optimistic. "Serious scientists from top institutions around the world have shown their willingness to join the CSIR's STIO programme, not because of perks or position, but because of the intellectual environment that the CSIR offers," he says. "Right now we have requests from several top people from the United States wanting to work in the CSIR."

news20091110reut1

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Green Business]
Britain unveils nuclear energy expansion plans
Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:15pm EST
By Daniel Fineren

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set out plans Monday to speed up the planning process for big wind farms and new nuclear power plants and named 10 sites where reactors could be built.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear plants, combined with cleaner coal plants and more renewable energy, would help Britain to secure its energy supplies and cut its greenhouse gas emissions.

About 20 percent of Britain's electricity was generated from existing nuclear power reactors in the second quarter of 2009, but all except one of them is due to shut by 2025.

Previous attempts to build new nuclear plants have been delayed by the exhaustive planning process. It took six years and cost 30 millions pounds ($50.33 million) to secure planning consent to build the Sizewell B reactor in southern England.

Under the new proposals, decisions on plants bigger than 50 megawatts, or 100 megawatts for offshore wind, will be cut to one year.

"The current planning system is a barrier to this shift (to low carbon)," Miliband said.

"It serves neither the interests of energy security, the interests of the low carbon transition, nor the interests of people living in areas where infrastructure may be built, for the planning process to take years to come to a decision."

The list of possible new nuclear power stations includes Kirksanton, a site in Cumbria, northern England, proposed by German utility RWE which is not close to any existing nuclear facilities and overlaps a small wind farm.

The government rejected EDF Energy's Dungeness power station on the south coast of England as a possible site for new reactors because of environmental and flooding concerns.

But it approved EDF sites at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk where the French energy giant plans to build four reactors.

"It means we can prepare to take the next steps in our plan for a multi-billion pound investment in the UK," EDF Energy Chief Executive Vincent de Rivaz said in a statement.

"It is in the public interest for the UK to build at least 15 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity which would be sufficient to meet at least 30 percent of our electricity demand by 2030."

Britain currently has about 11 GW of nuclear power plants.

EDF plans to get its first new reactor in Britain running by the end of 2017, but said the multi-billion pound new build program remained subject to the "right investment framework being in place."

Ten of the 11 sites which had been proposed by some of Europe's biggest utilities for building new nuclear power plants are next to existing atomic installations.

But they want significant and long-term charges on rival climate-warming power plants to support their multi-billion pound investments in low-carbon nuclear because current carbon emissions prices are not high enough.

Miliband told journalists Monday there would be no "specific" public subsidy for nuclear. A stronger carbon price would support nuclear and renewable energy development over dirtier coal plants.

THREE SITES

Three other sites, at Kingsnorth, southern England and Owston Ferry and Druridge Bay, both in northeast England, may be suitable for new nuclear plants to be built after 2025, Miliband said.

The opposition Conservative Party, expected to win an election due by June 2010, said the announcement had come 10 years too late to replace existing capacity before it closes.

"What we have heard...is a declaration of a national emergency for our energy security," Conservative energy spokesman Greg Clark told parliament. "Why did they leave it so late to act?"

The Trades Union Congress, an umbrella body which represents Britain's unions, said the new nuclear plants and other energy measures would create up to half a million jobs at a time of fragile economic recovery.

"It will create many new job opportunities and a more streamlined planning process will avoid lengthy delays," said TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber.

The government also announced plans to fund the development of new technology to capture climate-warming carbon from coal fired plants.

For reaction to the energy proposals, click on

(Writing by Peter Griffiths, editing by Anthony Barker and Sue Thomas)


[Green Business]
Poland sells surplus carbon permits to Spain
Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:18pm EST

WARSAW (Reuters) - Warsaw signed an agreement on Monday to sell its surplus carbon emission permits under the Kyoto Protocol (AAUs) worth 25 million euros ($37.5 million) to Madrid, Polish and Spanish prime ministers said on Monday.

Earlier in November Warsaw said it would sign its first such deal and that more were to follow since it had some 500 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent to sell under the global climate pact.

"Today we also sign a very important, unprecedented agreement for Poland, on the sales of emission permits," Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk told a joint conference with his Spanish counterpart Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Tusk and Zapatero spoke after bilateral government's consultations in Poland's northern city of Sopot, which also encompassed European Union affairs and a proposal to enhance the bloc's security forces.

They also recalled the fall of the Berlin Wall as world leaders gather in Berlin 20 years after the unification of Germany which marked the symbolic end of communism in central and eastern Europe.

(Writing by Gabriela Baczynska)


[Green Business]
EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House
Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:23pm EST
By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA's final finding, if it follows the agency's earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

"We sent the final proposal over to OMB on Friday," Jackson said in an interview at her EPA headquarters' office.

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

"We've briefed them a couple of times. So we're hoping for an expedited review," Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency's final finding on whether cars and trucks "cause or contribute to that pollution," Jackson said.

Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.

Jackson said the government is facing a "hard deadline" of next March to let automakers know of any required increases in fuel economy standards that would affect vehicles built for the 2012 model year.

She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.

(Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by Marguerita Choy and Lisa Shumaker)


[Green Business]
Trading Emissions, Leaf in merger talks
Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:42pm EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Trading Emissions and Leaf Clean Energy are in early merger talks in a move that would create the largest carbon-focused company listed in London.

Any deal would likely be in shares and constitute a reverse takeover of investment company Leaf, but the valuation basis has yet to be agreed, the two firms said in a joint statement on Monday.

"There can be no certainty that an offer will be made for either Trading Emissions or Leaf nor certainty as to the terms of any such offer, if made," they said.

The announcement comes a week after JP Morgan completed its takeover of Trading Emissions' smaller peer EcoSecurities.

Trading Emissions specialises in renewable energy projects and emissions trading instruments, and its portfolio of risk-adjusted carbon credits stood at 53.2 million Certified Emissions Reduction Credits (CERs) as at October 1.

Its shares were up 0.8 percent at 100 pence at 1525 GMT, valuing it at 254 million pounds ($426 million). Shares in AIM-listed Leaf were indicated up 3.6 percent, giving it a market cap of about 177 million pounds.

The companies said that upon completion of the merger, Leaf would apply for its shares to be listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange.

(Reporting by Victoria Bryan; Editing by Paul Sandle)

($1=.5960 Pound

news20091110reut2

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Green Business]
Obama will go to Copenhagen to clinch deal
Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:39pm EST
By Patricia Wilson and Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he would travel to Copenhagen next month if a climate summit is on the verge of a framework deal and his presence there will make a difference in clinching it.

It was Obama's strongest assertion yet he may go to Denmark in mid-December to help secure a new global compact in the fight against climate change, a process clouded by disputes between rich countries and big developing nations.

"If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that's something that I will do," Obama told Reuters in an interview.

Obama, who has faced resistance from opposition Republicans and even some fellow Democrats to setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledged that the U.S. Senate would not pass climate change legislation before Copenhagen.

Delays in the U.S. Congress have rankled European allies and added to questions about how significant the deal that emerges from Copenhagen will ultimately be.

But Obama insisted he remained optimistic that the December 7-18 summit could yield a "framework" agreement.

"I think the question is can we create a set of principles, building blocks, that allow for ongoing and continuing progress on the issue and that's something I'm confident we can achieve," he said.

Obama made clear he considers his talks with Chinese leaders during an Asia tour later this month to be crucial in clearing remaining obstacles to some kind of accord.

"The key now is for the United States and China, the two largest emitters in the world, is to be able to come up with a framework that, along with other big emitters like the Europeans and those countries that are projected to be large emitters in the future, like India, can all buy into," he said.

"I remain optimistic that between now and Copenhagen that we can arrive at that framework," he added.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)


[Green Business]
GT Solar 2nd-quarter profit falls by two-thirds
Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:11pm EST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Solar equipment maker GT Solar International Inc reported on Monday that its profit fell by two-thirds but it maintained its previous outlook for the fiscal year.

GT Solar's new chief executive Tom Gutierrez said the company will develop new products and enlarge the company's footprint in the solar industry.

"We will rely on internal development and consider external acquisition of key technologies as necessary," Gutierrez said on a conference call with analysts.

Like other solar companies, GT Solar has been hit by the credit crisis, which has dried up financing for new projects, and by a fall in prices.

Net income in the fiscal second quarter fell to $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, compared with $27.9 million, or 19 cents per share, a year ago.

The profit narrowly missed Wall Street analysts' average forecast of 7 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Revenue was $104.2 million, topping analysts' estimate of $101.82 million, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

The company backed its previous outlook for the fiscal year of revenue of $450 million to $550 million and earnings per share of 45 cents to 60 cents.

For the full fiscal year, analysts are looking for $502.69 million in revenue and earnings of 51 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

GT Solar said it received $30.7 million in new orders during the period and its backlog was $1.03 billion at the end of the quarter. In a call with analysts, executives said the company expects to convert about 30 percent of that backlog to revenue, while 20 percent of it could be at risk.

GT Solar shares fell about 5 percent to $5.25 per share in after-hours trading after closing up 5.7 percent at $5.54 on the Nasdaq.

(Reporting by Laura Isensee; editing by Andre Grenon)


[Green Business]
Climate deal to prevent doubling of energy bills
Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:07am EST
By Muriel Boselli

PARIS (Reuters) - A climate change deal is needed not just to ward off global warming, but to ensure a shift from increasingly costly fossil fuels that could lead to a doubling of energy bills, the IEA's chief economist said on Tuesday.

In the absence of an agreement, the ratio of energy spending to Gross Domestic Product for the largest consumer countries would double by 2030, Fatih Birol, author of the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook (WEO) told Reuters in an interview.

"The world needs to go to the 450 part per million (ppm) target, not only because of climate change but because of growing problems within our energy system and its possible implications again on the economy," Birol said.

He was referring to a target to stabilize the concentration of the most dangerous greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Birol cited as an example the energy bill paid each year by the European Union which would more than double to $500 billion by 2030, up from $160 billion in the last 30 years, he said.

"We think this is very alarming. If you consider that in 2008 when we had the high prices, and I believe it was one of the reasons for the run-up to the financial crisis, the EU's oil and gas import bills to the GDP ratio was 2.3 percent," he said.

Oil prices soared to a record of nearly $150 a barrel in July last year. They then collapsed to less than $33 last December, but have since recovered to around $80.

The price collapse, combined with the credit crisis, choked off investment in new supplies and the Paris-based IEA has repeatedly warned the oil market could surge back, damaging still fragile economic growth.

Its previous WEOs on the long-term supply and demand picture have always stressed the need for investment in a wide range of energy supplies.

As the adviser to 28 industrialized nations, the IEA does not officially forecast prices, but makes assumptions as part of its analysis of future energy fundamentals.

Birol said the oil price was likely to reach $100 per barrel by 2015 and $190 by 2030.

"This means that if we don't do anything to our energy system, we will be in difficulty," he said.

CHINA TO OVERTAKE U.S.

For now the world's biggest energy spender is the United States. Demand there is still far ahead of any other consumer, but the gap is narrowing as Asian energy use is expected to grow strongly and the developed world to burn less fuel.

China, currently the second biggest energy user, would overtake the United States around 2025 as the world's top energy spender, while India would move into third place by around 2020, overtaking Japan.

In the immediate term, fossil fuel supplies are ample following the demand destruction triggered by last year's financial crisis.

In particular, there is a glut of natural gas. Gas prices in the United States are half the price of oil on an energy equivalent basis.

Birol said the IEA expected overcapacity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and gas pipelines to reach at least 250 billion cubic meters by 2015, more than three times the capacity in 2008.

This was mainly because of a boom in U.S. gas and LNG plants being built in the Middle East, he said.

Eventually, however, the surplus will be used up and to fend off a supply crunch by 2030, Birol predicted the world would need the equivalent of four more Russias. Russia sits on the world's biggest natural gas reserves.

This echoed comments by Birol in 2008 when the last WEO was published that the world needed four new Saudi Arabias by 2030 to compensate a fall in oil supplies by 2030.

Birol said the fall in gas demand had bottomed out and he expected consumption to begin rising at the end of this year or the beginning of 2010 as the economy rebounds.

At the same time, the IEA predicts gas output will halve to 1.5 trillion cubic meter (tcm) by 2030.

"In order to compensate the decline of 1.5 tcm and meeting the growth in demand, we need an additional capacity of 2.7 tcm, which is equivalent to four times current Russian capacity so this is a rather major find," he said.

The IEA revised the expected fall in investments, saying they would drop by 19.4 percent in 2009, compared with 2008, down 1.6 percentage points from the 21 percent fall quoted in a report presented to the G8 energy ministers in May.

"The decline ... is still over $90 billion (instead of $100 billion), which is still very worrying for us," he said.

(Editing by Barbara Lewis and William Hardy)

news20091110reut3

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Green Business]
EPA may need more time on raising ethanol blend
Mon Nov 9, 2009 3:59pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not meet a December 1 deadline to decide whether to approve an industry request to boost the amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned the EPA last March to allow gasoline to contain up to 15 percent ethanol by volume, known as E15. U.S. gasoline is now approved to contain up to 10 percent of ethanol, which in the United States is made mostly from corn.

But the head of the EPA said the agency may have to work past the December 1 deadline because it is still reviewing test results on how the higher blend rate would affect engines "across the board," -- including cars, trucks, snow mobiles, motor boats and lawnmowers.

(Reporting by Tom Doggett)


[Green Business]
Energy demand to rise rapidly if no CO2 deal: IEA
Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:18am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - World energy consumption will rise rapidly over the next 20 years, pushing up costs and increasing greenhouse gases, unless a deal is reached to curb carbon dioxide emissions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Tuesday.

In its annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA said global energy demand would increase by an average of 2.5 percent per year over the next five years if governments made no changes to their existing policies and measures.

Under these circumstances, which the IEA called its reference scenario, world primary energy demand would rise by an average of 1.5 percent per year over the next two decades.

Oil demand, excluding biofuels, would increase by 1 percent per year to 105 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2030 from 85 million bpd in 2008.

The IEA argues strongly for a global deal at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December to limit greenhouse gases and spells out how sharply use of fossil fuels will increase if policies remain unchanged.

"Fossil fuels remain the dominant sources of primary energy worldwide in the reference scenario, accounting for more than three-quarters of the overall increase in energy use between 2007 and 2030," the IEA said.

Natural gas demand would increase 1.5 percent per year to 4.3 trillion cubic meters (tcm) in 2030, under this scenario.

The main driver of demand for coal and gas would be inexorable growth in energy needs for power generation, it said, forecasting in its reference scenario that world electricity demand would grow by 2.5 percent per year to 2030.

The developing world will see some of the fastest rates of growth with the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) seeing an average annual increase of 2.5 percent in their primary energy demand until 2030.

(Reporting by Christopher Johnson and Barbara Lewis; editing by William Hardy)


[Green Business]
Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA
Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:18am EST
By Gerard Wynn

LONDON (Reuters) - The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.

At United Nations climate talks in Barcelona last week negotiators from developed countries said the world would need an extra six to 12 months to agree a legally binding, global deal to cut carbon emissions beyond a planned December deadline.

The IEA, energy adviser to 28 industrialized countries, said the world must act urgently to put greenhouse gases on a track to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Every year's delay beyond 2010 would add another $500 billion to the extra investment of $10,500 billion needed from 2010-2030 to curb carbon emissions, for example to improve energy efficiency and boost low-carbon renewable energy.

"Much more needs to be done to get anywhere near an emissions path consistent with ... limiting the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees," said the IEA's 2009 World Energy Outlook. "Countries attending the U.N. climate conference must not lose sight of this."

U.N. talks meant to agree a deal in Copenhagen in December to extend or replace the existing Kyoto Protocol have struggled to overcome a rich-poor rift on how to split the cost of curbing carbon emissions, for example from burning fossil fuels.

Developed countries accept that they have to take the burden of cutting carbon emissions, but want developing nations to accept binding actions too under a new treaty.

Poor countries want financial help to implement carbon emissions cuts and prepare for unavoidable global warming, including droughts, floods and rising seas.

The IEA report estimated that the world needed to invest an extra $197 billion annually by 2020 to make the necessary emissions cuts in developing countries, compared with a global total of $430 billion by then.

"The Copenhagen conference will provide important pointers to the kind of energy future that awaits us," it said.

To continue present trends of energy demand and burning of fossil fuels "would lead almost certainly to massive climatic change and irreparable damage to the planet," it said.

To implement swinging carbon cuts, on the other hand, would require a huge shift in the world's energy system.

That would raise, for example, the share of non-fossil fuels to 32 percent of total primary energy in 2030, from 19 percent in 2007. The share of the internal combustion engine in new car sales would fall to 40 percent by 2030 from more than 90 percent under current trends.


[Green Business]
Global energy costs to soar if no carbon deal: IEA
Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:51am EST
By Muriel Boselli and Barbara Lewis

PARIS/LONDON (Reuters) - The world faces a surge in energy costs, as well as in planet-warming carbon emissions, unless it can swiftly agree a climate change deal, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.

Arguing strongly for a global deal at the U.N. Climate Change summit in Copenhagen in December, the IEA said use of fossil fuels would increase quickly if policies remained unchanged.

Without an international agreement on climate change, the ratio of energy spending to gross domestic product for the largest consumer countries would double by 2030.

The world would have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delayed implementing a deal on global warming, the IEA said in its annual World Energy Outlook.

"As the leading source of greenhouse-gas emissions, energy is at the heart of the problem and so must be integral to the solution. The time to act has arrived," it said.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol told Reuters in an interview the world needed to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at 450 ppm of CO2 equivalent.

"The world needs to go to the 450 part per million (ppm) target, not only because of climate change but because of growing problems within our energy system and its possible implications again on the economy," Birol said.

Global energy demand would rise by an average of 2.5 percent per year over the next five years if governments made no changes to their existing policies and measures.

FOSSIL FUEL DOMINANCE

Under these circumstances, which the IEA called its reference scenario, world primary energy demand would rise by an average of 1.5 percent per year over the next two decades.

Oil demand, excluding biofuels, would increase by 1 percent per year to 105 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2030 from 85 million bpd in 2008. This was a slight decrease in its demand forecast, reflecting the impact of the global economic downturn.

Last year the agency, which advises 28 industrialized nations, forecast oil use would reach 106 million bpd by 2030.

But the IEA stressed the trend toward heavier use of hydrocarbons would be unabated without a climate change deal.

"Fossil fuels remain the dominant sources of primary energy worldwide in the reference scenario, accounting for more than three-quarters of the overall increase in energy use," it said.

A key driver of energy demand would be inexorable growth in power generation, it said, forecasting in its reference scenario world electricity demand would grow 2.5 percent a year to 2030.

Stressing the need to move away from dependence on fossil fuels, Birol said that without a climate change deal, the European Union's annual energy bill would more than double to $500 billion by 2030, up from $160 billion in the last 30 years.

Oil prices soared to a record of nearly $150 a barrel in July last year. They then collapsed to less than $33 last December, but have since recovered to around $80.

The price collapse, combined with the credit crisis, choked off investment and the Paris-based IEA has warned the oil market could surge back, damaging still fragile economic growth.

Birol said the oil price was likely to reach $100 per barrel by 2015 and $190 by 2030: "This means that if we don't do anything to our energy system, we will be in difficulty."

Bank of Ireland analyst Paul Harris said the IEA had taken a "rather cautious approach" in the report.

"There's an emerging consensus that the demand and supply balance is really going to start to tighten by 2015 which should sound the death knell for cheap oil."

(Writing by Christopher Johnson)

news20091110gdn4

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Green Business]
JA Solar rises after Q3 results
Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:25am EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shares of JA Solar Holdings rose 9.2 percent to $4.50 in premarket trading on Tuesday, after the company reported its third-quarter results.

(Reporting by Ryan Vlastelica, Editing by W Simon )


[Green Business]
JA Solar posts profit, shares rise
Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:25am EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chinese solar power company JA Solar Holdings Co Ltd reported its highest-ever quarterly shipments on Tuesday and turned a profit versus a year-earlier loss, lifting its shares in premarket trade.

JA Solar's third-quarter net earnings were $17.3 million, or 10 cents per share, compared with a year-earlier loss of about $18 million, or 36 cents per share.

The company, one of the world's lowest-cost solar products makers, said operating income in the third quarter of 2009 was $21.7 million, compared with a year-ago operating profit of $63.5 million.

Revenue in the quarter fell 38 percent to $193.3 million.

Shares in JA Solar rose nearly 7 percent in premarket trade to $4.40 per share.

(Reporting by Matt Daily, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)


[Green Business]
EU carbon prices edge down, following power
Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:30am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Benchmark European carbon emissions futures were down 5 cents at 1200 GMT on the European Climate Exchange on Tuesday, following power markets lower.

EU Allowances (EUAs) for delivery in December were trading at 13.82 euros ($20.70) a tonne. EUAs traded around a one-month low on Monday.

Carbon may continue to weaken as margins shrink on power price contracts, as usually happens toward the end of the calendar year contract, one trader said.

"The premium on power contracts is eroding," he said.

As a result, there was also a narrowing of clean dark spreads -- the profit from burning coal to produce electricity including the cost of buying carbon emissions permits. "So there's less incentive to buy carbon."

U.S. oil fell on Tuesday to around $79 a barrel as a late-season hurricane subsided in the Gulf of Mexico and traders awaited key U.S. inventory data.

German Calendar 2010 baseload power on the EEX was down 7 cents at 46.45 euros per megawatt hour.

U.N.-backed certified emissions reductions (CERs) fell 20 cents to 12.74 euros a tonne. The EUA-CER spread widened to 108 cents.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday she would go to Copenhagen to help agree a new global deal on climate change. [nLA632381]

"A failure of the climate conference in Copenhagen would set progress on international climate policy back years. We cannot afford this," she said.

In an interview with Reuters, U.S. President Barack Obama said late on Monday that he may also attend the U.N. climate summit. [nLA646451]