[Top News] from [REUTERS]
[Green Business]
Science untarnished by "Climategate", UN says
Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:03pm EST
By Gerard Wynn
LONDON (Reuters) - The head of the U.N.'s panel of climate experts rejected accusations of bias on Thursday, saying a "Climategate" row in no way undermined evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.
Climate change skeptics have seized on a series of e-mails written by specialists in the field, accusing them of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.
The e-mails, some written as long as 13 years ago, were stolen from a British university by unknown hackers and spread rapidly across the Internet.
But Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stood by his panel's 2007 findings, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). "This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings," he told Reuters in an email exchange.
This report helped to underpin a global climate response which included this week carbon emissions targets proposed by the United States and China, and won the IPCC a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
The e-mails hacked from Britain's University of East Anglia last week showed scientists made snide comments about climate skeptics, and revealed exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming argument look convincing.
In one e-mail, confirmed by the university as genuine, a scientist jokingly referred to ways of ensuring papers which doubted established climate science did not appear in the AR4.
Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion.
"The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments," he added in a written statement to Reuters.
"There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed."
"This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental."
In another e-mail, according to news accounts, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." The revelation of the e-mails was more embarrassing than serious fodder for doubts about the causes of, or basis for climate change, scientists responded this week.
"It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in IPCC assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns," said Pachauri.
(Editing by David Stamp)
[Green Business]
Q+A: What is China's "carbon intensity" target?
Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:19pm EST
BEIJING (Reuters) - China has unveiled its first firm target to curb greenhouse gas emissions, laying out a carbon intensity goal that Premier Wen Jiabao will take to climate talks as his government's central commitment.
Following are questions and answers about carbon intensity.
WHAT IS CARBON INTENSITY?
Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of economic output. Often carbon dioxide is measured in tonnes, while gross domestic product (GDP) in a local currency represents economic output, but any units can be used.
Other greenhouse gasses like methane are added to the total by calculating the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the equivalent global warming potential.
Emissions are usually calculated indirectly, through looking at inputs such as the amount of coal burned in a power plant, rather than attempting to capture and weigh carbon dioxide gas.
WHY HAS CHINA CHOSEN CARBON INTENSITY?
Cutting carbon intensity allows China to meet international demands for it to count and curb its emissions, without giving up its insistence that development must come first while millions of Chinese citizens are still living in poverty.
By agreeing to control its emissions China will also pave the way for a carbon market, as accurate measurements of emissions are a vital cornerstone for any market for permits to emit.
However, if China's economy expands too fast, even massive improvements in carbon intensity may not be enough to contain dangerous increases in emissions.
A carbon intensity figure can be worked out for anything from a single factory to an entire country.
HOW CHALLENGING IS THE TARGET?
Beijing said it faces "special hardships" in meeting the goal, and Chinese experts said after a five-year energy efficiency drive further improvements would be tough.
But the current goal -- to boost energy efficiency 20 percent over the 5 years to 2010 -- has already brought even larger improvements to carbon intensity.
Every tonne of coal saved means a corresponding amount of emissions are avoided. And an expansion of renewable and nuclear power has further cut back China's emissions growth.
So Beijing is likely to be at least halfway to reaching its 2020 goal by the end of next year, many analysts say.
WHY NOT AN EMISSIONS CAP?
China has repeatedly rejected calls to commit to a peak year or level of emissions because of its worries such a target could hinder efforts to tackle poverty.
A cap could be a logical next step for Beijing if it can meet its initial carbon intensity targets.
Some Chinese experts have said emissions could peak around 2030-2035 with enough spending and the right policies, but officials have been more wary of such ideas.
Under the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. framework which governs efforts to tackle global warming, developing countries do not have any binding obligations to cap emissions.
HOW DOES CHINA'S CURRENT CARBON INTENSITY STACK UP?
According to figures published by the United States Department of Energy, China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels for every $1,000 of gross domestic product (GDP), around 15 percent lower than a decade earlier.
In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17 tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes.
For further comparisons see: here
(Reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison and Ben Blanchard; Editing by David Fogarty)
[Green Business]
Q+A: Where to now for Australia carbon trade laws?
Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:19am EST
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's parliament delayed a final vote on the government's sweeping carbon trade plan on Friday, missing a key deadline and throwing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's climate change policy into doubt.
Here are some questions and answers about what will happen to the laws, which, if defeated, could trigger a snap election.
WILL THE LAWS PASS NEXT WEEK?
The upper house Senate will resume debate on the carbon-trade legislation on Monday, with the government demanding opposition politicians honor a deal to pass the laws.
But a revolt by climate skeptics within the opposition has made it difficult to predict final numbers in the Senate, where the government needs seven opposition votes to pass the laws.
Chances of the laws passing could depend on whether opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull can survive a leadership challenge, likely as early as Monday.
If leading conservative Tony Abbott or another candidate wins the leadership, the deal to pass the carbon laws could be scrapped.
But Turnbull loyalists could still support the original deal, giving the government some hope of passing the laws.
The numbers are finely balanced. All five junior opposition National Party senators will vote against the laws, and up to 15 opposition Liberal Party Senators may defy Turnbull and vote against the measure.
That leaves the government needing seven of the remaining 17 Liberal Senators to support the draft laws.
WILL THERE BE AN ELECTION?
If the laws are rejected or postponed, Rudd will have a legal right to call a snap election at any time. Opinion polls show Rudd would easily win a second term, with an enlarged majority.
Rudd is a cautious politician and has repeatedly said he does not want an early election. The next election would normally be held in late 2010.
But Rudd could call an early election in February or March to cash in on his popularity and opposition disarray. Such an election would come at the end of a forecast very hot summer and bushfires, which would likely see voters keen for action on climate change.
An election victory would then allow him to push the carbon trade laws through a special joint sitting of parliament's upper and lower houses, where he would be expected to have strong majority.
(Editing by David Fogarty)
[Green Business]
Science untarnished by "Climategate", UN says
Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:03pm EST
By Gerard Wynn
LONDON (Reuters) - The head of the U.N.'s panel of climate experts rejected accusations of bias on Thursday, saying a "Climategate" row in no way undermined evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.
Climate change skeptics have seized on a series of e-mails written by specialists in the field, accusing them of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.
The e-mails, some written as long as 13 years ago, were stolen from a British university by unknown hackers and spread rapidly across the Internet.
But Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stood by his panel's 2007 findings, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). "This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings," he told Reuters in an email exchange.
This report helped to underpin a global climate response which included this week carbon emissions targets proposed by the United States and China, and won the IPCC a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
The e-mails hacked from Britain's University of East Anglia last week showed scientists made snide comments about climate skeptics, and revealed exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming argument look convincing.
In one e-mail, confirmed by the university as genuine, a scientist jokingly referred to ways of ensuring papers which doubted established climate science did not appear in the AR4.
Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion.
"The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments," he added in a written statement to Reuters.
"There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed."
"This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental."
In another e-mail, according to news accounts, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." The revelation of the e-mails was more embarrassing than serious fodder for doubts about the causes of, or basis for climate change, scientists responded this week.
"It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in IPCC assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns," said Pachauri.
(Editing by David Stamp)
[Green Business]
Q+A: What is China's "carbon intensity" target?
Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:19pm EST
BEIJING (Reuters) - China has unveiled its first firm target to curb greenhouse gas emissions, laying out a carbon intensity goal that Premier Wen Jiabao will take to climate talks as his government's central commitment.
Following are questions and answers about carbon intensity.
WHAT IS CARBON INTENSITY?
Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of economic output. Often carbon dioxide is measured in tonnes, while gross domestic product (GDP) in a local currency represents economic output, but any units can be used.
Other greenhouse gasses like methane are added to the total by calculating the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the equivalent global warming potential.
Emissions are usually calculated indirectly, through looking at inputs such as the amount of coal burned in a power plant, rather than attempting to capture and weigh carbon dioxide gas.
WHY HAS CHINA CHOSEN CARBON INTENSITY?
Cutting carbon intensity allows China to meet international demands for it to count and curb its emissions, without giving up its insistence that development must come first while millions of Chinese citizens are still living in poverty.
By agreeing to control its emissions China will also pave the way for a carbon market, as accurate measurements of emissions are a vital cornerstone for any market for permits to emit.
However, if China's economy expands too fast, even massive improvements in carbon intensity may not be enough to contain dangerous increases in emissions.
A carbon intensity figure can be worked out for anything from a single factory to an entire country.
HOW CHALLENGING IS THE TARGET?
Beijing said it faces "special hardships" in meeting the goal, and Chinese experts said after a five-year energy efficiency drive further improvements would be tough.
But the current goal -- to boost energy efficiency 20 percent over the 5 years to 2010 -- has already brought even larger improvements to carbon intensity.
Every tonne of coal saved means a corresponding amount of emissions are avoided. And an expansion of renewable and nuclear power has further cut back China's emissions growth.
So Beijing is likely to be at least halfway to reaching its 2020 goal by the end of next year, many analysts say.
WHY NOT AN EMISSIONS CAP?
China has repeatedly rejected calls to commit to a peak year or level of emissions because of its worries such a target could hinder efforts to tackle poverty.
A cap could be a logical next step for Beijing if it can meet its initial carbon intensity targets.
Some Chinese experts have said emissions could peak around 2030-2035 with enough spending and the right policies, but officials have been more wary of such ideas.
Under the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. framework which governs efforts to tackle global warming, developing countries do not have any binding obligations to cap emissions.
HOW DOES CHINA'S CURRENT CARBON INTENSITY STACK UP?
According to figures published by the United States Department of Energy, China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels for every $1,000 of gross domestic product (GDP), around 15 percent lower than a decade earlier.
In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17 tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes.
For further comparisons see: here
(Reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison and Ben Blanchard; Editing by David Fogarty)
[Green Business]
Q+A: Where to now for Australia carbon trade laws?
Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:19am EST
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's parliament delayed a final vote on the government's sweeping carbon trade plan on Friday, missing a key deadline and throwing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's climate change policy into doubt.
Here are some questions and answers about what will happen to the laws, which, if defeated, could trigger a snap election.
WILL THE LAWS PASS NEXT WEEK?
The upper house Senate will resume debate on the carbon-trade legislation on Monday, with the government demanding opposition politicians honor a deal to pass the laws.
But a revolt by climate skeptics within the opposition has made it difficult to predict final numbers in the Senate, where the government needs seven opposition votes to pass the laws.
Chances of the laws passing could depend on whether opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull can survive a leadership challenge, likely as early as Monday.
If leading conservative Tony Abbott or another candidate wins the leadership, the deal to pass the carbon laws could be scrapped.
But Turnbull loyalists could still support the original deal, giving the government some hope of passing the laws.
The numbers are finely balanced. All five junior opposition National Party senators will vote against the laws, and up to 15 opposition Liberal Party Senators may defy Turnbull and vote against the measure.
That leaves the government needing seven of the remaining 17 Liberal Senators to support the draft laws.
WILL THERE BE AN ELECTION?
If the laws are rejected or postponed, Rudd will have a legal right to call a snap election at any time. Opinion polls show Rudd would easily win a second term, with an enlarged majority.
Rudd is a cautious politician and has repeatedly said he does not want an early election. The next election would normally be held in late 2010.
But Rudd could call an early election in February or March to cash in on his popularity and opposition disarray. Such an election would come at the end of a forecast very hot summer and bushfires, which would likely see voters keen for action on climate change.
An election victory would then allow him to push the carbon trade laws through a special joint sitting of parliament's upper and lower houses, where he would be expected to have strong majority.
(Editing by David Fogarty)
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます