Tag Archives: greenpeace
DECC Scientist Takes Green Groups’ To Task Over Biomass Claims
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and RSPB under fire from government for using unfinished research to campaign against carbon impact of biomass power By Jessica Shankleman 01 Aug 2013 Tension between the government and green groups over the environmental impact of biomass has cranked up a notch, after it emerged DECC’s chief scientist has written to three of the UK’s leading NGOs to criticise their publication of unfinished research as part of their campaign against biomass subsidies. Earlier this year, Greenpeace, RSBP, and Friends of the Earth (FoE) unveiled a factsheet claiming biomass generation in some instances produces more emissions than burning coal. Under the government’s current plans biomass energy will have to show lifecycle reduction in emissions of at least 60 per cent compared to emissions of the EU fossil fuel grid average, such as cutting down trees and transporting fuel. The government is expected to confirm the new sustainability standards for biomass this month, with the rules likely to come into effect next year. But green groups fear the new standard will not fully take account of the full lifecycle emissions associated with growing, harvesting and distributing biomass for fuel and have been lobbying for stricter sustainability standards on generators . They believe rising subsidies could cause a huge surge in demand for the UK’s forestry harvest over the next four years, potentially having an adverse impact on biodiversity and leading to greater reliance on imported biomass. The RSPB, Greenpeace and FoE factsheet Burning Wood for Power Generation , revealed preliminary findings of a nine-month research project by David Mackay, DECC’s chief scientific adviser, that was presented to them at a stakeholder meeting in March. Unlike Ofgem’s current carbon calculator, MacKay’s calculator includes the net reduction in the carbon stock caused by the removal of timber from forests, and the indirect emissions of burning biomass that would have been avoided if it had been used for other industries, such as construction. Mackay’s initial findings showed the carbon impact of biomass rises significantly when these two sources of emissions are taken into account. The preliminary results suggested biomass generation produces more emissions than burning coal in five scenarios of the 12 scenarios considered. The factsheet prompted an angry response from the biomass industry with the Renewable Energy Association’s Gaynor Hartnell accusing the NGOs of using “half baked” arguments to scaremonger the public about the impact of the sector. However, BusinessGreen has learnt the publication also drew criticism from MacKay, who accused the three NGOs of exploiting the “open and collaborative” approach to research at the department. A letter , released under freedom of information request, was sent to Rose Dickinson, parliamentary officer for RSPB, Mike Childs, head of policy, research and science for Friends of the Earth and Doug Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace, on May 15th criticising the decision to publish data from the draft report. In the letter MacKay said he was both “surprised and disappointed” that the factsheet quoted his draft findings. Mackay said the NGOs had been told the calculator his team developed, known as the the Bioenergy Emissions and Counterfactual (BEaC) calculator, was not intended for public circulation until its final launch – originally expected this summer but since delayed to the Autumn. “I acknowledge that the factsheet describes BEaC as a prototype and the results as preliminary; but I don’t think using the material in this context without specific permissions accords with the spirit in which we shared the model with the reviewers,” he wrote. “I wish to continue an open and constructive relationship with all of DECC’s stakeholders and I would like to urge you to treat unfinished analysis and material shared for review with more care in future,” he concluded. All three NGOs have since told BusinessGreen they published the data in good faith, believing they had permission from DECC to share the information so long as it was made clear it was not the final version. They also all said they removed the BEaC information from their websites after receiving MacKay’s letter. Harry Huyton, head of climate change for the RSPB, defended its decision to publish, arguing DECC should be more transparent around its thinking on biomass. “The bigger point is that the [BEaC draft] findings were consistent with major research by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre so we didn’t see it as controversial,” he said. “But we did see it as important and in the public interest for people to understand what this tool was showing.” Huyton also raised concerns that the government has delayed the final publication of the BEaC to Autumn, despite previously promising to published in the summer. He urged the government to include the findings of the BEaC in its final sustainability standard when it comes out this month. “We need an open public debate about impact of biomass and that’s in the interest of the industry as much as ours,” he said. “Otherwise, the risk is we repeat what we’ve seen in biofuels sector where denial of indirect impacts has mean that even now many years down the line we’re still having a big debate about how to get emissions right. We should get it right from the outset.” Childs similarly argued the preliminary findings were important for the future of the industry. “The draft results were very interesting – they showed that burning whole trees compared to trimmings was bad news for the climate,” he said. ” The companies involved in the industry may need to change their practices to make them sustainable.” Greenpeace’s Parr added that many other countries would be looking at the UK’s standards as a template and it was therefore crucial the government got it right first time. “We urgently need the best available science informing standards at UK and EU level given the reliance on bioenergy to reach renewable targets,” he added. However, a spokesman for the government maintained it was committed to supporting only sustainably produced bioenergy, which delivers “real” greenhouse gas savings, is cost effective, takes account of wider impacts across the economy, and manages possible risks such as adverse effects on food security and biodiversity. “We are developing a model BEaC to investigate the carbon impacts of different bioenergy feedstocks and help ensure we have robust evidence behind our bioenergy policies,” he said. “A preliminary version of the tool has been discussed with stakeholders, however, the tool is under development and is subject to review.” He added that the draft version of the model should not yet be used to draw firm conclusions. Paul Thompson, head of policy for the REA, said the letter highlighted the need for all sides of the debate to treat complex information on the environmental impact of biomass sensitively. “This letter confirms that certain groups have misused data from the Calculator, which was in draft form and not intended for public use, to support pre-existing positions,” he said. “It is important to be more careful in the treatment of these sensitive issues and data in order to advance the rational debate that we need on biomass sustainability. “We look forward to working with NGOs and the Government on implementing the forthcoming RO Sustainability Criteria in order to ensure high carbon savings and ecologically sustainable forestry practices.” Continue reading
Carbon Trading with Chinese Characteristics
To control greenhouse gases the Chinese government is experimenting with pilot programs in seven cities and regions that use markets By Mark Nicholls NEW CITY: On June 18, companies in Shenzhen will have to meet greenhouse gas emission targets as part of a new cap and trade market experiment. Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way… On June 18 China’s pioneering city of Shenzhen is set to notch up another first. From that day 635 companies in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone—which in 1979 became the vanguard for China’s capitalist revolution—will start using the markets to help meet greenhouse gas emissions targets . This year, alongside the cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing as well as the regions of Guangdong and Hubei, Shenzhen is imposing greenhouse gas targets on hundreds of companies, ranging from power plants to airport operators. The goal is to develop a national carbon market over the next decade that could help put the brakes on the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter. “China has internationally pledged 2020 climate targets,” observes Chai Hongliang, an analyst at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, an Oslo-based information-provider specializing in carbon markets. He is referring to a commitment first made by China ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks to reduce its economy’s overall carbon emissions per unit of GDP to 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. “It has two ways to reach the target: shut down factories in the last months of 2020 or use more market-based approaches like emissions trading,” Chai adds. As with emission-trading programs elsewhere, polluters in China’s pilots have two options: First, they can meet their targets by reducing their own emissions—by investing in energy efficiency, say, or curbing production. Alternatively, they can buy carbon allowances or credits from companies that have spare allowances or from projects elsewhere in China. Shenzhen faces the toughest target. The companies in its pilot emitted the equivalent of 31 million metric tons (Mt) of CO2 in 2010. They will be allocated around 100 Mt of allowances for the duration of the three-year trial, although expected economic growth means they will have to reduce their carbon intensity by an estimated 30 percent by 2015 compared with 2010. Balancing the need for economic growth with carbon control is a challenge. Emissions in China are expected to rise for years, given the importance China’s political elite continue to place on economic growth. Some observers question how much pressure China’s planners are prepared to put on its big emitters. The pilots set emission limits from January 2013 through the end of 2015. “I think the emissions caps will be relatively lenient,” Chai says. Certainly the regulators will be eager to avoid any “carbon leakage”—that is, driving industry out of their jurisdictions through imposing too stringent targets ahead of any national program. But at this point Chai can only speculate about their stringency. Limited information is available about participating companies, their historical emissions—and even the rules under which the pilots will operate. And part of the reason is that some of these data do not exist. The problem with data To run effectively markets rely on an unimpeded flow of information, clear rules and rigorous oversight. China could both benefit from the lessons of earlier efforts, such as Europe’s flagship carbon market—the world’s largest, known as the European Union Emissions Trading System, or ETS. It is under fire from some environmentalists because of its relatively lax targets and low carbon prices, along with its vulnerability to fraud and abuse. For the regulators drawing up targets, “there are existing processes and mechanisms on energy consumption which could be drawn on, as well as local exercises in creating GHG [greenhouse gas] inventories,” says Lina Li, a Beijing-based carbon markets expert at Netherlands-based consultancy Ecofys. Her firm has advised local regulators and international donors on creating carbon market regulations and infrastructure in China. “But there are still challenges regarding emissions data at the company level.” This is exactly where the E.U. was in 2005, when it embarked on the pilot phase of its ETS—and the lack of emissions data allowed companies to game the system. E.U. governments asked companies to provide their own, unverified historical emissions data, and many inflated their numbers so as to claim more free allowances from government. This practice created an overhang of surplus permits that led to a price collapse in 2007. Generous allocations of allowances are probably inevitable as the price paid for industry acceptance, however, suggests Karl Upston-Hooper, legal counsel of GreenStream Network, a Finnish carbon asset manager that is active in China. “You will struggle to find an ETS that is not overallocated” in its early phases, he says. Indeed, he argues that the pilots in China are less about creating carbon markets and more about gathering data. “I’ve taken the view that they’re implementing an emissions-monitoring system, not a carbon market—and I’m okay with that as a first step on the road.” Most observers—including from the environmental movement—are prepared to give China’s regulators time to get things right. “It is our view that the first step for Chinese ETS is to get the system right from the beginning—the trading platform; the monitoring, reporting and verification system; [emissions] inventories; getting companies informed and cooperative—and gradually shift toward more stringent caps,” says Li Shuo, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace East Asia. Plenty of studies see China’s emissions peaking by 2030. Some are more optimistic: recent ones predict 2025 to 2030. A further data challenge is whether China’s regulators will be sufficiently transparent and even-handed when it comes to the country’s carbon markets. “In Europe and elsewhere, ETS data are under public scrutiny. That may not be the case in China,” says Point Carbon’s Chai. Another concern is insufficient coordination among the seven pilots, Li says. Indeed, rivalry exists among the various authorities, with Beijing deliberately encouraging a degree of “policy competition” to test differing approaches to see which works best. Last, despite a recent announcement by the powerful National Development and Reform and Commission (NDRC) that it is to propose a national carbon cap for China’s next five-year plan, which runs from 2016 to 2020, a national Chinese carbon market is not assured. Other methods could prove more effective. “In China the ETS is not the only tool,” says Wu Changhua, Beijing-based Greater China director of the nonprofit Climate Group. She notes that the nation’s finance ministry is promoting a carbon tax whereas other government ministries are considering a system for crediting and trading energy-efficiency improvements. Wu also cautions that international media speculation around the introduction of a national carbon cap by 2016 is overblown. She argues that the NDRC is agitating for the inclusion of the concept in the next plan to ensure resources are available for more research and policy development. “One thing is for sure,” she adds. “The political leadership in China is much more serious, stronger and determined to tackle environmental problems. But it will be a journey. We’re not going to get there immediately.” Continue reading
Wood Panel Firm Slammed For ‘Opportunistic’ Anti-Biomass Ads
6 June 2013 Ads placed by Norbord attack biomass subsidies A wood panel maker that placed adverts campaigning against biomass subsidies has been accused of opportunism, as it continues to profit in the UK. Norbord is behind a series of ads claiming that subsidised energy generators are able to pay “more than double” the price paid by manufacturers for wood. That has driven up UK prices 60 per cent in the last five years, it claims. The biomass industry prefers to cite official statistics from the Forestry Commission showing that over the past twenty years, average timber prices have fallen by 29 to 42 per cent in real terms. Norbord’s financial results show its profits are up, increasing more than fivefold to the first quarter of 2013 from the same period last year. The Canadian-based company expects stable performance of its European business, which includes three UK factories. Richard Crowhurst, editor of Enagri BioenergyWeekly, which highlighted the figures, said: “With such a large rise in its profits and European output at a time when UK timber prices are falling and forestry investors are losing money on their day-to-day activities, the fact that Norbord Inc. is lobbying MPs and the public to oppose the use of biomass to generate low carbon renewable energy on the grounds that it raises wood prices is at best opportunistic and at worst deeply cynical.” The Norbord campaign also cites a joint report published by the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace last November that claimed burning biomass could be more environmentally damaging than coal. The “Dirtier than Coal?” findings were rejected by the government and widely criticised at the time for extrapolating from an unrealistic worst-case scenario. Source: Utility Week Continue reading
