[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Climate change]
Fate of US climate change bill in doubt after Scott Brown's Senate win
Democrats unlikely to touch climate legislation this year as party is robbed of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 19.25 GMT Article history
An ambitious climate change bill had been sliding down President Barack Obama's to-do list even before the Republican upset in Massachusetts that saw Scott Brown take Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
Now it seems more likely than ever that Democrats in the US Senate will not touch global warming in 2010 unless they can be assured of sizeable Republican support. Brown's election has also led to international concern that any failure to act by the US - the world's biggest historical polluter - would undermine attempts to seal a global deal.
However, Senator John Kerry, who is leading the push on climate change in the Senate, said he remained confident of getting broad support for a bill.
"The political atmosphere doesn't reduce the urgency of dealing with pollution and energy, and the surest way to increase the anger at Washington is to duck the issues that matter in peoples' lives. There's overwhelming public support and this can be a bipartisan issue," he said today . "This is the single best opportunity to create jobs, reduce pollution, and stop sending billions overseas for foreign oil from countries that would do us harm. Sell those arguments and you've got a winning issue."
The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill last June. But Senate Democrats had long calculated that - with the divisive fight over healthcare causing internal splits - their only hope of passing their own version of a climate bill was to win Republican support.
Kerry has been leading a tripartisan effort with Republican Lindsey Graham and independent Joe Lieberman to craft a bill that would pull support from at least a few Republicans. The troika has yet to produce a draft proposal, but there is anticipation of an expanded role for nuclear power, perhaps with more cheap government loans or streamlined regulations to get projects approved. There is also talk of offshore oil and gas drilling.
Some Senators have proposed limiting the scope of the bill, regulating only the biggest power plants, or perhaps encouraging renewable energy without laying the foundations of a carbon trading market. Other Democrats - who were opposed to a climate change bill even before the vote in Massachusetts - say the Senate is unlikely to move in 2010 without those compromises.
"It is my assessment that we likely will not do a climate change bill this year, but we will do energy," Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat who opposes action on climate change told reporters in a conference call yesterday. "I think it is more likely for us to turn to something that is bipartisan and will address the country's energy interest and begin to address specific policies on climate change."
Brown's victory robs the Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60-40 majority in the Senate. But it is not entirely clear the Senate's newest member would be an automatic no. In the excitement of the campaign, Brown cast himself as a climate change sceptic. "I think the globe is always heating and cooling," the Boston Globe quoted Brown as saying. "It's a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I've heard about potential tampering with some of the information."
But as a Massachusetts state senator in 2008, Brown voted for a regional cap-and-trade regime, which is similar in concept to what the climate bill is proposing on a nationwide scale.
Outside the US, reaction to Brown's win suggested it made a global pact to fight global warming harder. Nick Mabey, head of the E3G climate thinktank in London, said without US action there were risks talks would stall. "We can't afford climate to be a dysfunctional regime like trade," like the inconclusive Doha round on freer world trade launched in 2001, he said.
"On the international front, China is constantly looking to the US on climate bills. This is definitely bad news. It doesn't bring new confidence to international negotiations," said Ailun Yang of Greenpeace in Beijing.
Shirish Sinha of WWF India said US action was essential but that "irrespective of what happens in US...it is on our self-interest to do something for climate change."
[]Business]
Moorlands and hills targeted to grow crops for biomass and biofuels
Countryside protection groups warn of damage to wildlife
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 18.44 GMT Article history
One tenth of Britain, including moorlands and hillsides, could be used to grow crops for biomass and biofuels. Countryside protection groups warned that this would turn large swaths of the countryside into monocultural landscapes and pose a threat to wildlife.
The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), a £1bn public-private investment body, said it was launching a project to map all the "under-utilised" land in Britain to find out how much could be turned over to growing bioenergy crops.
Research funded by the Natural Environment Research Council estimates that in England alone almost five million hectares could be used. David Clarke, chief executive of the ETI, said that the body had made the conservative estimate that 2.4m hectares could be used in Britain to grow bioenergy crops, used as substitutes for fossil fuels such as petrol and coal to reduce carbon emissions.
The 12- to 18-month project will find out what this land, which also includes semi-industrial sites and is unsuitable for growing food crops, is specifically used for, who owns it and the suitability of the soil for growing the bioenergy crops that include willow trees. Pilot projects could follow.
Energy companies are planning to build at least four new biomass plants in Britain, mostly using wood pellets. The carbon released from burning the biomass can be re-absorbed by planting more crops, neutralising the emissions. The government has started to pay subsidies to growers of such bioenergy crops.
But Abi Bunker, agriculture policy officer at the RSPB, said planting hundreds of thousands of acres would damage biodiversity and also degrade water quality, particularly in upland areas. "We're fully supportive of the UK's commitment to boosting renewable energy, including bioenergy from sustainable UK sources, but we're concerned biodiversity is getting forgotten," she said. "Local environmental considerations should be integrated if you want a truly sustainable solution."
Ian Woodhurst, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, added: "Large bioenergy crop monocultures will damage landscape character and cause problems for wildlife, for example by obstructing the movement of some species around the countryside. In the 70s hundreds of conifer forests were planted and now we are spending a lot of money getting rid of them. We don't want to go back to that."
Clarke admitted the plans could prove controversial. "The question we are trying to answer is whether you could use that number, from a cost and land point of view. We have to recognise that issues around land-use and biodiversity are critical."
The ETI also said that it was launching a project this year to study the feasibility of filling rock formations on the east coast with water to store waste heat that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere by power stations or industrial installations such as refineries. This hot water would then be pumped through pipes to heat homes and businesses during the winter.
[Environment > Climate change]
Fate of US climate change bill in doubt after Scott Brown's Senate win
Democrats unlikely to touch climate legislation this year as party is robbed of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 19.25 GMT Article history
An ambitious climate change bill had been sliding down President Barack Obama's to-do list even before the Republican upset in Massachusetts that saw Scott Brown take Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
Now it seems more likely than ever that Democrats in the US Senate will not touch global warming in 2010 unless they can be assured of sizeable Republican support. Brown's election has also led to international concern that any failure to act by the US - the world's biggest historical polluter - would undermine attempts to seal a global deal.
However, Senator John Kerry, who is leading the push on climate change in the Senate, said he remained confident of getting broad support for a bill.
"The political atmosphere doesn't reduce the urgency of dealing with pollution and energy, and the surest way to increase the anger at Washington is to duck the issues that matter in peoples' lives. There's overwhelming public support and this can be a bipartisan issue," he said today . "This is the single best opportunity to create jobs, reduce pollution, and stop sending billions overseas for foreign oil from countries that would do us harm. Sell those arguments and you've got a winning issue."
The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill last June. But Senate Democrats had long calculated that - with the divisive fight over healthcare causing internal splits - their only hope of passing their own version of a climate bill was to win Republican support.
Kerry has been leading a tripartisan effort with Republican Lindsey Graham and independent Joe Lieberman to craft a bill that would pull support from at least a few Republicans. The troika has yet to produce a draft proposal, but there is anticipation of an expanded role for nuclear power, perhaps with more cheap government loans or streamlined regulations to get projects approved. There is also talk of offshore oil and gas drilling.
Some Senators have proposed limiting the scope of the bill, regulating only the biggest power plants, or perhaps encouraging renewable energy without laying the foundations of a carbon trading market. Other Democrats - who were opposed to a climate change bill even before the vote in Massachusetts - say the Senate is unlikely to move in 2010 without those compromises.
"It is my assessment that we likely will not do a climate change bill this year, but we will do energy," Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat who opposes action on climate change told reporters in a conference call yesterday. "I think it is more likely for us to turn to something that is bipartisan and will address the country's energy interest and begin to address specific policies on climate change."
Brown's victory robs the Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60-40 majority in the Senate. But it is not entirely clear the Senate's newest member would be an automatic no. In the excitement of the campaign, Brown cast himself as a climate change sceptic. "I think the globe is always heating and cooling," the Boston Globe quoted Brown as saying. "It's a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I've heard about potential tampering with some of the information."
But as a Massachusetts state senator in 2008, Brown voted for a regional cap-and-trade regime, which is similar in concept to what the climate bill is proposing on a nationwide scale.
Outside the US, reaction to Brown's win suggested it made a global pact to fight global warming harder. Nick Mabey, head of the E3G climate thinktank in London, said without US action there were risks talks would stall. "We can't afford climate to be a dysfunctional regime like trade," like the inconclusive Doha round on freer world trade launched in 2001, he said.
"On the international front, China is constantly looking to the US on climate bills. This is definitely bad news. It doesn't bring new confidence to international negotiations," said Ailun Yang of Greenpeace in Beijing.
Shirish Sinha of WWF India said US action was essential but that "irrespective of what happens in US...it is on our self-interest to do something for climate change."
[]Business]
Moorlands and hills targeted to grow crops for biomass and biofuels
Countryside protection groups warn of damage to wildlife
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 18.44 GMT Article history
One tenth of Britain, including moorlands and hillsides, could be used to grow crops for biomass and biofuels. Countryside protection groups warned that this would turn large swaths of the countryside into monocultural landscapes and pose a threat to wildlife.
The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), a £1bn public-private investment body, said it was launching a project to map all the "under-utilised" land in Britain to find out how much could be turned over to growing bioenergy crops.
Research funded by the Natural Environment Research Council estimates that in England alone almost five million hectares could be used. David Clarke, chief executive of the ETI, said that the body had made the conservative estimate that 2.4m hectares could be used in Britain to grow bioenergy crops, used as substitutes for fossil fuels such as petrol and coal to reduce carbon emissions.
The 12- to 18-month project will find out what this land, which also includes semi-industrial sites and is unsuitable for growing food crops, is specifically used for, who owns it and the suitability of the soil for growing the bioenergy crops that include willow trees. Pilot projects could follow.
Energy companies are planning to build at least four new biomass plants in Britain, mostly using wood pellets. The carbon released from burning the biomass can be re-absorbed by planting more crops, neutralising the emissions. The government has started to pay subsidies to growers of such bioenergy crops.
But Abi Bunker, agriculture policy officer at the RSPB, said planting hundreds of thousands of acres would damage biodiversity and also degrade water quality, particularly in upland areas. "We're fully supportive of the UK's commitment to boosting renewable energy, including bioenergy from sustainable UK sources, but we're concerned biodiversity is getting forgotten," she said. "Local environmental considerations should be integrated if you want a truly sustainable solution."
Ian Woodhurst, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, added: "Large bioenergy crop monocultures will damage landscape character and cause problems for wildlife, for example by obstructing the movement of some species around the countryside. In the 70s hundreds of conifer forests were planted and now we are spending a lot of money getting rid of them. We don't want to go back to that."
Clarke admitted the plans could prove controversial. "The question we are trying to answer is whether you could use that number, from a cost and land point of view. We have to recognise that issues around land-use and biodiversity are critical."
The ETI also said that it was launching a project this year to study the feasibility of filling rock formations on the east coast with water to store waste heat that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere by power stations or industrial installations such as refineries. This hot water would then be pumped through pipes to heat homes and businesses during the winter.
※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