Reuters: U.N. To Study Impact Of Incomplete Climate Action

Reuters: U.N. To Study Impact Of Incomplete Climate Action

The U.N. panel of climate scientists will look at the costs of "second best" ways of fighting global warming amid doubts that all countries will sign up to U.N.-led action, a leading expert said on Tuesday.

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. working group looking at the economics of global warming, said the last U.N. report in 2007 had assumed that all countries would take part and that new technologies for curbing greenhouse gases would be available.

The next reports in 2013-14 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is facing calls for an overhaul of its management and better fact-checking after errors in the 2007 assessment, will include other options.

"We intend to carry out 'second best' scenarios, where we assume we have a fragmented climate regime, where we have limited availability of technologies, to describe a much more realistic policy space," Edenhofer told Reuters by telephone.

The U.N.'s Copenhagen summit in December 2009 agreed only a non-binding deal among about 120 nations -- of a possible total of 194 -- aimed at limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times.

The United States, the number two greenhouse gas emitter after China, has not followed other industrialized nations in setting a cap on its greenhouse gas emissions despite pleas by President Barack Obama.

Edenhofer, who is also chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, declined to estimate the likely costs of such "second best" scenarios.

SLOW GDP

The 2007 report said a strong fight against global warming would slow world gross domestic product (GDP) by less than 0.12 percent a year, curbing world GDP by a total of less than 3 percent in 2030.

Most of the costs are billions of dollars to shift from fossil fuels to clean energies such as wind or solar power. In some renewable energies, Edenhofer said there had been more technological progress than expected in the 2007 report.

He also said that new report would look at possible side-effects of combating global warming. Even harmless-sounding strategies, such as planting trees that soak up greenhouse gases, might have side-effects by displacing cropland.

"This is not a risk-less operation...The use of biomass (plants) would probably have severe impacts on food production, on food security, which is a very crucial issue here," he said.

An independent review group urged reforms to the IPCC on Monday after mistakes in the 2007 report such as exaggerating the thaw of the Himalayas.

Edenhofer said he welcomed the proposed reforms by the InterAcademy Council. The review urged the IPCC to ensure that a full range of "thoughtful scientific views" were heard.

Climate panel chief keeps post but revamp urged

Associated Press, August 31, 2010, By Seth Borenstein

The independent review of the U.N. panel puts new pressure on chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who has been criticized for possible conflicts of interest, but shows no sign of stepping down.

"It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The University of Colorado professor praised the review findings as a way of saving the climate panel with "tough love."

The InterAcademy Council, a collection of the world's science academies, outlined a series of "significant reforms" in management structure needed by the IPCC, a body that won the Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007.

Last year, a batch of errors embarrassed the authors of the climate report. Among the most prominent were misleading statements about glaciers in the Himalayas. The IPCC incorrectly said they were melting faster than others and that they would disappear by 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than other information suggests.

"Those errors did dent the credibility of the process, no question about it," said former Princeton University president Harold Shapiro, who led the review of the IPCC.

Climate change science took a parade of public hits last winter, starting with the release of hacked e-mails from a British climate center. Then there was the failure of a summit in Copenhagen to come up with mandatory greenhouse gas pollution limits, followed by the mistakes discovered in the IPCC report. On top of that, the winter seemed unusually cold in many places, undercutting belief in global warming.

The mood seems different now. Several outside reports - including those by the British, Dutch and American governments - have upheld the chief scientific finding of the climate panel: that global warming is man-made and incontrovertible.

The InterAcademy Council said the climate change group overall has done a good job. But the council said it needs a full-time executive director, more openness and regular changes in leadership. It also called for stronger enforcement of its reviews of research and adoption of a conflict of interest policy, which the IPCC does not have, even though its parent agencies do. The conflict of interest issue was raised because of Pachauri's work as adviser and board member of green energy companies.

Pachauri said he has been cleared of any conflict claims, especially since he gave away all the money he was paid to sit on companies' boards.

Greenbiz.com, 2010-08-31, By Robert Kropp

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — In 2010, shareholder resolutions addressing climate change received majority votes at Layne Christensen and Massey Energy. Seventeen votes received more than 40 percent support, and 88 received more than 20 percent of shareholder votes. In part due to effective shareholder pressure, but also because they have come to see the financial opportunities of mitigation strategies, corporations increasingly are issuing sustainability reports that include disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

At the same time, however, challenges to the validity of climate science are proliferating. Many climate deniers seized upon isolated errors in data compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including a remark by a climate scientist that the Himalayan ice caps will melt by 2035, as evidence of a plot by scientists to advance a political agenda in an effort to obtain government grants. The remark made its way into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007.

Recent examples of climate denial in the U.S. include a statement in 2009 by Bill Kovacs, the senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, who called for public hearings in which the science of climate change could be debated. Saying it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century," Kovacs described such hearings as amounting to a trial of climate change science.

A leading proponent of the climate denial agenda in the U.S. Senate has been James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who in a 2005 speech called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Yet even as the Chamber purported to speak for its dues-paying membership, an analysis published in May of this year by American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) found that 6,000 companies support energy and climate legislation. The companies employ an estimated 3.5 million workers, represent more than $2.6 trillion in market capitalization, and totaled $3.5 trillion in estimated revenue in 2009.

Furthermore, in response to challenges to its endangerment finding on GHG emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated, "Climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger."

"Climate change is already happening, and human activity is a contributor," the EPA continued.

Several of the petitions denied by the EPA sought to discredit the IPCC by asserting that two confirmed errors in its 3,000-page Fourth Assessment Report invalidates the findings of the report.

In response to the controversy, the United Nations and the IPCC itself asked the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a multinational organization of science academies, to review the processes and procedures of the IPCC, and provide recommendations to enhance the authority of its reports.

Yesterday, the IAC released its report, "Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC." Given the scientific backgrounds of its authors, it is not surprising that the report provides no ammunition for attacks on climate science; the validity of climate science itself is not questioned.

As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said in a webcast from the U.N. yesterday, referring not only to the IAC report but to seven reports addressing climate change that were conducted in 2010 alone, "None of the studies found flaws in the science of climate change. By overwhelming consensus, the scientific community agrees that climate change is real."

Yet, Pachauri acknowledged its "credibility has been challenged, and we realized from the outset that only an exhaustive, impartial, and independent review would be acceptable."

"Unlike much of the current debate," the IAC report states, "The focus of this review is on the processes and procedures that support and give structure to IPCC's very distinctive assessments."

Recognizing that "controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports," the report provides a number of recommendations for the IPCC to implement in advance of its Fifth Assessment Report, scheduled to be published starting in 2013.

According to the report, its recommendations relate primarily to governance and management, the review process, characterizing and communicating uncertainty, communications, and transparency in the assessment process.

In order to address the kinds of issues that have erupted since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IAC recommended that an executive committee be elected in order to address such issues by "approving minor corrections to published reports, approving modest alterations in the scope of an ongoing assessment, (and) ensuring effective communication." Because of the increasing complexity of the IPCC's work, an executive director should be named to handle the day-to-day operations of the organization.

Noting that drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report drew 90,000 review comments, the IAC recommended a more targeted process by which review editors prepare written summaries of the most significant issues. Lead authors would then be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant issues.

Since the "Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change," the IAC recommended that a qualitative level-of-understanding scale be used by all working groups. "The level-of-understanding scale," the report states, "is a convenient way of communicating the nature, number, and quality of studies on a particular topic, as well as the level of agreement among studies."

In response to the "slow and inadequate responses to reports of errors in the Fourth Assessment Report," the IPCC should devise comprehensive media relations and communications strategies. Finally, because "the IPCC can expect that its reports will continue to be scrutinized closely ... it is essential that the processes and procedures used to produce assessment reports be as transparent as possible."

In yesterday's webcast at the U.N., Pachauri said, "There has been a productive debate this year on the IPCC's work. But we have to remember that honest scientific discourse wilts under gross distortion and ideologically driven posturing. Sadly, such tactics have been a prominent feature of climate science for many years."

"The IPCC will be strengthened by the IAC review and by others of its kind this year," Pachauri said. "We already have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments. We're now pleased to receive recommendations on how to further strengthen our own policies and procedures."

This article originally appeared at SocialFunds.com and is reprinted with permission.

General Environment News

U.S. news:

Reuters: Reid Hopeful For GOP Energy Votes After Elections

Reuters: U.S. Proposes Grading Cars On Emissions, Efficiency

The New York Times Green Inc Blog: A Nuclear Giant Moves Into Wind

The New York Times Green Inc Blog: A Warming Contrarian Calls for a Global Tax

New York Daily News: Bjorn Lomborg, climate change skeptic, now believes global warming is an international threat

Boston Globe: Dealers say grades could hurt car sales

Hartford Business: EPA asks CT to curb electricity use

Investors.com: Cool-Down Phase

Reuters: Is Genetically Altered Fish OK? U.S. To Decide
Canada news:

Reuters: Enbridge Starts Pressure Test Of Downed Pipeline

The Canadian Press: Oilsands pollution findings conflict: Prentice

Reuters: Oil Sands Polluting Canadian River System: Study

Toronto Sun: Toxic river concerns played down



Reid Hopeful For GOP Energy Votes After Elections

Reuters, 01-Sep-10, By Timothy Gardner

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hoped to pick up Republican votes for a pared-down energy bill after the midterm congressional elections.

"Maybe after the elections we can get some more Republicans to help us on these issues," Reid, a Democrat, told reporters in a teleconference on Tuesday.

But passing any major legislation this year will be an uphill struggle. With Republicans eyeing gains in November 2 elections, Democrats may face fierce campaign opposition on all major initiatives.

The modest energy bill that Reid introduced in late July sought to reform oil drilling after the massive BP Plc crude oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. It also included incentives for energy efficiency in homes and alternative vehicles fueled by natural gas and electricity.

Reid said at the time that there were no Republican votes for climate measures such as a cap-and-trade market on greenhouse gases or a renewable electricity standard, which would require utilities to generate minimum levels of power from sources such as wind turbines and solar cells. The bill would require 60 votes to pass.

Still, Reid was hopeful some Republican senators may have more freedom to vote for the bill after the elections in which they may regain control.

"We are bound to come back on a lame duck and we are going to continue working on it," he said about the bill. "We will see if we can come up with something before the end of the year."

After the Senate returns from recess on September 13, it will have four weeks before breaking again for the elections. During that time energy will vie with other big-ticket items such as military funding and tax policy.

Adding a Renewable Energy Standard back to the bill could help bring some Republican support the bill.

Reid said he had two Republican senators who would be willing to consider voting for a bill that had a RES in it.

Within the next week he will set a time to speak to those senators, Reid said. He did not say how many Republican or Democratic senators could be lost by adding a RES to the legislation.

There was little chance cap-and-trade would make it back into the bill, however. "It doesn't appear so at this stage," Reid said.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Gasoline misers like the Toyota Prius would get an 'A-' while muscle cars -- including the Ferrari 612 -- would get a 'D' under a labeling program proposed by Obama administration, which wants to convince consumers to buy vehicles that use less energy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation proposed on Monday that fuel economy labels on the windows of new cars in showrooms compare both mileage and emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

They said the new labels, which they hope will start with the 2012 model year, would give consumers more information about the monetary -- and environmental -- costs of running their vehicles.

"New fuel economy labels will keep pace with the new generation of fuel efficient cars and trucks rolling off the line, and provide simple, straightforward updates to inform consumers about their choices in a rapidly changing market," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

The proposal requiring two labels would be a big change for consumers and the auto industry from the current single energy efficiency label required on all new cars and light trucks.

One label would measure fuel economy and, for the first time, tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, and combine those to come up with a letter grade ranging from the 'A+', the most efficient, to 'D', the least, reflecting the grading system common in American schools. No vehicle would get a failing grade.

Gina McCarthy, an EPA assistant administrator, said all-electric vehicles would get the top grade while plug-in hybrid cars, which are charged with an electric power cord and have small engines, would get an 'A'. The top performing traditional hybrid cars such as the Prius, made by Toyota and the Fusion hybrid, made by Ford would get an 'A-'.

McCarthy said the EPA was in talks with car makers on figuring out a miles per gallon equivalent fuel efficiency label for all-electric and mostly electric cars.

The second label on cars in the showroom would include miles per gallon for both city and highway driving, an annual fuel cost for driving the car, and how it compares among all types of vehicles.

The labels will provide consumers with an estimate of the expected fuel cost savings over five years compared with an average gasoline-powered vehicle of the same model year.

In April, the EPA finalized first national limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars and light trucks and the Department of Transportation strengthened fuel economy standards for model year 2012 to 2016 passenger vehicles.

The efficiency rules required that cars and light trucks get on average 35.5 miles per gallon (15 km per liter) by 2016, up 42 percent from current rules.

U.S. passenger vehicles discharge about 20 percent of the country's heat-trapping gases and consume about 44 percent of its oil.

SCHOOL YARD MEMORIES

One environmentalist said the new labels would help consumers decide which cars are right for them.

"Truth in labeling empowers Americans to make informed real world choices that save our families money, reduce our dependence on oil, and cut heat-trapping greenhouse gases," said Vickie Patton, the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

On the other hand the car industry had mixed feelings about the proposed labels. Analysts said car companies had been forced to accept new fuel efficiency standards released in April after the government bailed them out from financial troubles.

Dave McCurdy, the president and CEO of the Auto Alliance, praised the idea of giving consumers more information, but said "the proposed letter grade falls short because it is imbued with school-yard memories of passing and failing."

Public comments will help determine the outcome of the program. The EPA and DOT are providing a 60-day public comment period after they publish their proposal in the Federal Register later this week.

Exelon, a nuclear giant that recently backed away from building new nuclear plants, is moving into wind.

The company announced today that it was buying John Deere Renewables, which has 735 megawatts in operation and 230 megawatts in “advanced stages of development” in Michigan. The price was $860 million, plus another $40 million if ground is broken on the Michigan projects.

In March, Exelon withdrew its application for a construction and operating license for a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Tex., citing lower projections for electric demand because of the recession. It had stopped work on the application last year. Instead, it asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for pre-approval of the site, which would speed up the approval process if it decided later that it wanted to build. But the decision left the country’s largest nuclear operator without a direct role in what the nuclear industry hopes is a renaissance.

But the company says it is sticking by its commitment two years ago to cut its carbon dioxide output in 2020 by 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. That would be more than its total emissions in 2001, the company said.

The purchase will instantly make Exelon one of the nation’s largest wind operators.

John Rowe, the chief executive, who has been urging Congress to pass climate change legislation, said in a statement that the purchase was “one more way to implement a clean energy future.” The prospects for that legislation are unclear, and the Environmental Protection Agency may simply order carbon emission reductions. Mr. Rowe said, “Whether harmful emissions are priced or regulated, our combined capacity of nearly 19,000 megawatts of zero-emission wind, solar, hydro, landfill gas and nuclear power remains a clear competitive advantage that will only become more valuable.”

A Warming Contrarian Calls for a Global Tax

The New York Times Green Inc Blog, August 31, 2010, 5:05 pm, By John Collins Rudolf
In his new book, Bjorn Lomberg calls for a global carbon tax.

With the publication of his 2001 book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economics professor, became a leading contrarian voice on global warming and a leading opponent of carbon reduction efforts like the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Lomborg did not dispute that adding greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide to the atmosphere was warming the climate; rather, he argued that the vast expense of reining in emissions would far outweigh the benefit deferred by the resultant effect on global temperatures.

“We can help the developing world so much better by doing other things, like giving them clean drinking water and proper sanitation,” Mr. Lomborg said in a 2002 interview.

Yet Mr. Lomborg’s latest book, “Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits,” is unlikely to bolster his popularity among those opposed to drastic immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In the book, to be published in September, he calls for $150 billion in new investment annually for clean energy development, climate engineering and climate change adaptations like building sea walls to protect low-lying areas from sea-level rise — with the money to be raised through a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

“If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming,” Mr. Lomborg wrote in the book, according to an excerpt in The Guardian newspaper.

In an interview with The Guardian, Mr. Lomborg denied making an abrupt U-turn on climate change, arguing that he has always taken the issue seriously. He blamed the highly partisan nature of the climate debate for skewing his views.

Still, over the course of the last decade, Mr. Lomborg has regularly played down the probability of catastrophic climate change any time soon — a position that led Britain’s Telegraph newspaper to dub him the “Antichrist of the green religion.”

“In 20 years’ time, we’ll look back and wonder why we worried so much,” Mr. Lomborg told the paper in 2002, referring to climate change and other environmental concerns.

Now Mr. Lomborg appears to be hedging his bets. One set of proposals he explores in his new book, “Smart Solutions to Climate Change,” which includes the work of several other economists, is the much-debated  field of geoengineering, which involves the alteration of the Earth’s climate through large-scale engineering projects.

Such projects would be useful, Mr. Lomborg told The Guardian, if “really bad” climate impacts were “lurking around the corner.”
Bjorn Lomborg, climate change skeptic, now believes global warming is an international threat

New York Daily News, August 31st 2010, By Aliyah Shahid

The ultimate flip-flop?

In an apparent about face, Bjorn Lomborg - dubbed the world's most famous climate-change skeptic - will declare climate change "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today," and a "challenge humanity must confront," in an upcoming book, London's Guardian reported.

In the book, "Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits," the Danish professor, who was once compared to Adolf Hitler by the United Nations' climate chief, calls for $100 billion annually to fight climate change.

Lomborg denied that he changed his view on global warming. Instead, he said if money is going to be spent, he wants it to be used wisely.

"The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world. That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well," he told the Guardian.

The author has previously argued climate change has been exaggerated by environmentalists. He has said climate change wasn't an immediate threat and that funds would be better spent on other problems like malaria and poverty.

In the book, which will be released next month, Lomborg proposes financing investments through carbon tax emissions. That money would be used to fund global efforts to boost wind, solar, wave and nuclear power.

Lomborg's statements come as international efforts to agree on a deal on emissions have been hindered by those doubting the trustworthiness of scientific evidence.

But the former climate change skeptic now thinks there is a solution in sight.

"Investing $100 billion annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," he said.

EPA asks CT to curb electricity use

Hartford Business, Sept 1, 2010

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants businesses and residents in Connecticut and the rest of New England to cut their energy and fuel consumption over the next two days as the air quality has reached unhealthy standards.

With the hot weather predicted for Wednesday and Thursday, the demand for electricity will increase and force power plants to increase production, thus burning more fossil fuels. This burning -- along with emissions from gasoline-power engines - interacts with sunlight to form smog.

To cut down on fossil fuel emissions from power plants, the EPA is asking businesses and residents to turn air conditioners to a higher temperature, turn off unnecessary lights and computers, and hold off on using major appliances until later hours.

Carpooling, using public transportation, refueling cars at night and avoiding the use of lawn mowers, chain saws and leaf blowers also will reduce smog.

"With more hot weather predicted on Wednesday and Thursday this week, there will likely be unhealthy air quality days in many parts of New England," said Curt Spalding, administrator of EPA's New England office, in a statement. "When air quality is poor, EPA and the medical community suggest that people limit their strenuous outdoor activity."

Cool-Down Phase

Investors.com, 08/31/2010 07:13 PM ET

The InterAcademy Council, an Amsterdam-based association of the world's top national science academies, reported Monday the results of its review of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Its criticism of the IPCC, held up as the divine and inerrant voice on climate change, irrevocably tarnishes the panel's credibility and weakens the case for man-made global warming. While the Inter-Academy Council did not "redo the science," as its chairman said, it did scrutinize IPCC practices and methodologies and recommended a "fundamental reform" of its management structure.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, whose resignation we've called for, dismissed the council's findings, saying "the scientific community agrees that climate change is real." We dismiss his comments as those from someone struggling to hang on to a cushy position from which he can continue to enrich himself through, as reported by Britain's Telegraph, his interests in "banks, universities and other institutions that benefit from the vast worldwide industry now based on measures to halt climate change."

Rather than react arrogantly, Pachauri should be fully focused on the "two kinds of errors" the council found in the IPCC's work.

"One is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence," said Harold T. Shapiro, chairman of the InterAcademy Council committee that wrote the report. "The other is the kind where you make a statement ... with no substantive value."

In other words, the IPCC exaggerated the role that human activity has on the climate.

The IPCC is also guilty of including in its 2007 report — considered the holy book by environmentalists — a fraudulent claim that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. On this, Shapiro said the IPCC was "not paying close enough attention to what reviewers said about that example," which is understandable when pushing a political agenda is more important than real science.

Just as fears over Alar toxicity, destruction of the Amazon rain forest, a new ice age and other apocalyptic warnings lost their relevance, the global warming scare is destined to fade entirely from the public mind.

Though still with us, it's already cracking under the pressure and won't be able to withstand deeper inquiry or the evidence that's obvious to anyone who’s paying attention.

A new window sticker proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that would assign new cars a letter grade based on their emissions has the support of some local car buyers, but some auto dealers are worried the labels might hurt sales.

The fuel economy stickers, which have been required to be displayed on all new cars since 1977 and were only redesigned once, in 2007, would show a large letter grade from A+ to D based on the car’s carbon dioxide emissions and combined fuel economy. It’s similar to the rating system in the United Kingdom, where cars are taxed on their carbon dioxide emissions.

The rating system is designed to promote electric cars — those vehicles get an A+, while most average cars would get a B. About 1,980 models would rank in the B and C ranges, whereas only 14 current models would receive an A-.

The proposed ratings have rattled some dealers, many of whom are still recovering from one of the worst automotive sales years in nearly two decades.

“Anything that’s not an A is bad, right? It’s misleading to the consumer,’’ said Chris Lee, owner of Lee Volvo in Wellesley, who added that unlike the current city and highway numbers, a letter wouldn’t indicate how a car performs in different situations. “I could be selling a customer a D, but if you’re driving mostly on the highway, it could be an A.’’

Joe Lawlor, a sales manager at Westminster Dodge in Dorchester, agreed. He said he would prefer the government try to stimulate car sales rather than devising new labels. “I think it’s foolish and more government intervention where it doesn’t need to be,’’ he said. “People aren’t idiots.’’

Under the new design, the city and highway ratings would be eclipsed by a large, boldface letter set in a circle, colored to correspond with the grade (bright green for As, a darker orange for Ds). Two new ratings, the grams of carbon dioxide produced per mile and the number of gallons of gasoline consumed over 100 miles, are set below a fuel cost estimation and a barcode to relay the sticker’s info to a cellphone.

Another proposed version of the label drops the grades in favor of highlighting the car’s combined fuel economy rating (both city and highway). For electric cars such as the 2011 Nissan Leaf, the EPA says it may show a mile-per-gallon equivalent, though the testing procedures for all-electric and plug-in gas-electric hybrids have not been decided. The grades may also be curved based on current emission ratings decided by the California Air Resources Board. The agency is soliciting public comments for the next two months before the labels are approved for the 2012 model year.

Some local car owners yesterday afternoon seemed to welcome the idea of the sticker. Raj Dhanda, of Brookline, said the letter grades would “absolutely’’ affect his decision to buy a new car if he had a long commute. He’s awaiting delivery of a rare Mercedes SLS AMG, which has a 563-horsepower engine and a top speed of 197 miles per hour. That puts it close to a D+.

Dan Breslin of Canton, who was waiting in the service department of Expressway Toyota in Dorchester, said he likes the idea of adding more information on the label. “We kind of assume that the mileage and the impact on the environment is the same,’’ he said. “If they’re not, it’d be good to know.’’

Clifford Atiyeh can be reached at catiyeh@globe.com.

Is Genetically Altered Fish OK? U.S. To Decide

Reuters, 31-Aug-10, By Susan Heavey

U.S. health officials are set to rule on whether a faster-growing, genetically engineered fish is safe to eat in a decision that could deliver the first altered animal food to consumers' dinner plates.

The fish, made by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, is manipulated to grow twice as fast as traditional Atlantic salmon, something the company says could boost the nation's fish sector and reduce pressure on the environment.

But consumer advocates and food safety experts are worried that splicing and dicing fish genes may have the opposite effect, leading to more industrial farming and potential escapes into the wild. Side effects from eating such fish are also unknown, with little data to show it is safe, they say.

"They're basically putting the fish on permanent growth hormone so it grows faster ... so they can sell bigger fish faster," said Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety.

It also raises questions about the industrialization of the nation's food supply at a time when consumers -- exasperated by massive egg and other food recalls -- are growing increasingly concerned and seeking more locally produced meals.

The small Massachusetts-based biotechnology company is seeking Food and Drug Administration approval to sell its salmon, called AquAdvantage, to fish farmers nationwide.

If given the green light, the salmon could be followed by the company's engineered trout and tilapia. Other scientists are also developing altered pigs and cows for food. The United States already allows genetically modified plants.

On September 19, the FDA kicks off a three-day meeting to discuss whether to approve the salmon. Outside advisers will weigh available data and offer advice, although the FDA will later make the final call.

"This is an Atlantic salmon in every measurable way," said Aqua Bounty Chief Executive Ronald Stotish. "When you look at the fish, it's impossible to see the difference."

Whether consumers accept such genetic tinkering could make or break the biotech, which has staked its future on the technology since filing for U.S. approval in 1995. In 2009, it saw a $4.8 million net loss after restructuring in 2008 to preserve cash and focus on completing FDA's approval process.

The company has seen its shares rise 75 percent this year in the run-up to the FDA's decision to a year high of 10.50 British pounds ($16).

TASTES 'GREAT'

Stotish said the company has analyzed its salmon and found no differences that warrant any kind of special labeling.

Using technology developed by Canadian researchers, AquAdvantage grows to full size in less than 250 days compared with about 400 days for a traditional Atlantic salmon, according to the biotech.

But some groups say little is known about hazards -- such as allergies or potential digestive problems. And they have criticized the FDA for not releasing any data. The agency has said it hopes to make data public by Friday but that by law it does not have to release it until two days before the meeting.

Aqua Bounty has submitted all the FDA-required data, Stotish said, but has done no animal or human clinical trials. It has, however, conducted several taste tests, and Stotish says people like it just fine.

An FDA biotech official, who asked not to be named because Aqua Bounty's bid is pending, said testing whole foods' impact on animals would be impossible because of the massive amounts they would have to be fed.

"I've eaten the fish, and it tastes great," said Stotish, whom the company promoted to the top slot in 2008 to try to push approval worldwide, except in Europe where it would face a certain cultural backlash.

Stotish, who trained in biochemistry, has a long history serving in research and development roles at companies focusing on genetics and livestock health products.

PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Until the early 1800s, U.S. Atlantic salmon was abundant in the rivers of the country's Northeast.

But pollution and overfishing took their toll, and despite restoration efforts, much of the Atlantic salmon consumed in the United States is imported. In 2009, the nation spent nearly $1.4 billion buying from Chile, Canada, Norway and elsewhere.

Aqua Bounty says its fish can help reduce the pressure on wild salmon populations and curb costly imports. "We're not saying if they approve our salmon we're going to feed the world," Stotish told Reuters, but "there's a general consensus that overfishing is a fact of life."

Farming fish is already a controversial endeavor, with critics concerned about the methods used and commercial feed.

Food & Water Watch's fish program director, Marianne Cufone, said food supply issues are a concern, "but there are better ways to produce fish in the United States." Her group and others also worry the salmon may escape and harm other fish.

Even if the salmon wins FDA approval, it is not clear how soon U.S. consumers would see it on store shelves.

Few fish farmers in the United States cultivate salmon, according to Stotish, who hopes farmers will convert their facilities to try the altered salmon.

September's salmon meeting marks just the second time the FDA has publicly considered a genetically engineered animal.

Last year, the agency approved GTC Biotherapeutics Inc's modified goats used to produce its anticlotting drug Atryn for patients with a rare inherited disorder.

Other engineered food animals could be on the way.

Canadian researchers are seeking FDA approval for their Enviropig with more environmentally friendly manure. Hematech Inc, part of Kirin Holdings Co Ltd's Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co, is also developing "mad cow" disease-resistant cattle.

Center for Food Safety's Hanson said such animals are the exact opposite of what U.S. consumers want. "All of these are not to make our food healthier ... All of these are to make it profitable for companies to grow animals in less-healthy conditions, more industrial conditions," he said.

Enbridge Starts Pressure Test Of Downed Pipeline

Reuters, 01-Sep-10, By Jeffrey Jones

Enbridge Inc has begun testing the integrity of a pipeline it repaired after a rupture spilled heavy crude into a Michigan river system, and regulators will use the results to determine if it is ready to resume deliveries, a spokeswoman said on Monday.

The pressure validation test involves running water through the segment of Line 6B that broke last month near Marshall, Michigan, using a higher pressure than employed for normal oil shipments, spokeswoman Jennifer Varey said.

"The pressure validation test is under way today," Varey said.

Enbridge executives have said the test is likely to last about eight hours.

The company is waiting for the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to rule on its plan to restart the 190,000 barrel a day pipeline.

The line serves refineries in the U.S. upper Midwest and southern Ontario that, together, process more than 700,000 barrels a day. It is part of Enbridge's massive pipeline network, which moves the lion's share of Canada's oil exports to the United States.

The refineries have been forced to secure supplies via other pipelines, although Enbridge has rationed space on some of its other conduits in the region as shippers scrambled to reroute volumes.

At least three refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania have reduced output as a result of the July 26 pipeline break.

Meanwhile, price discounts for Canadian heavy crude oil have widened since the rupture, which spilled 19,500 barrels of oil into the Kalamazoo River system.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice says federal scientists have always told him that any contaminants such as lead or mercury in the Athabasca River are naturally occurring, not from the oilsands industry.

"That has consistently been what I've been told as minister by the federal scientists," he said from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., where he was taking French lessons.

But Prentice added that he's aware of scientific controversy on the issue.

"There are scientists who appear to disagree with this assertion," he said.

On Monday, University of Alberta ecologist David Schindler published a paper that he said proved that heavy metals, including lead and mercury, are being released from oilsands facilities into the air and water of northern Alberta.

Schindler said the study was specifically designed to determine the source of the contaminants. Several heavy metals were found to be above levels considered hazardous to fish in some areas, he said.

Schindler said the study's conclusions justify an increased federal presence in monitoring and enforcement of the oilsands.

But Ottawa has already increased its presence in the oilsands, Prentice said.

He said federal money has helped increase groundwater monitoring in the region from 25 to 100 sites.

Toxin fingerprinting technology

He also said Environment Canada has paid $1.6 million for crucial technology now at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon that will enable scientists to "fingerprint" contaminant chemicals found in the air and water. They'll be able to say definitively whether they came from naturally occurring bitumen deposits or from industrial emissions, he said.

Because air and water pollution create interprovincial impacts, they come under federal jurisdiction.

But before Ottawa takes any action on contaminants, Prentice said, it's vital to understand their sources.

"I have been pushing and challenging what I have been told on the science," he said. "We have to be certain there are no pollutants in the Athabasca River."

Federal Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said that isn't good enough.

"The federal government has to exercise its exclusive constitutional responsibility and enforce its existing environmental standards," he said in Baddeck, N.S., during a Liberal caucus retreat.

"That means Fisheries Act prosecutions if required, that means exercising the powers they have at their fingertips. Minister Prentice has got to stop bobbing and weaving now and he's got to do his job."

'Insignificant levels'

Meanwhile, Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner repeated government assertions that oilsands-associated contaminants are found in higher concentrations near industrial facilities because that's where the bitumen is most concentrated.

Common sense says that if you dig a hole in the ground, in the immediate vicinity of that hole you may have some disturbances," Renner said.

"Everything that you do in this world has some impact. What we have to do is determine what are the levels at which we need to have some concern, and my scientists are telling me that the amount of compounds that can be detected in the Athabasca River at this point in time are not a concern and are at insignificant levels."

Renner dismissed Schindler's conclusions as differences in the interpretation of data and said Alberta is in the middle of a three-year study on contaminant loading in the area.

However, New Democrat MLA Rachel Notley wondered why the provincial Conservatives have long maintained there are no contaminants from industry in the Athabasca when an Alberta Environment spokeswoman acknowledged Monday that that's where at least some of the heavy metals probably originate.

"What we have appears to be a contradiction, where we have officials of the Ministry of Environment acknowledging that they knew there was contamination contrasted with statements by the premier and the minister in the legislature insisting that there is not," Notley said.

"On the surface, it doesn't look good for the level of trust of any statement that come from this government with respect to environmental matters."

Oil Sands Polluting Canadian River System: Study

Reuters, 31-Aug-10, by Jeffrey Jones

Canada's vast oil sands operations are polluting the Athabasca River system, researchers said on Monday, in a report that is bound to fuel the environmental battle over developing the resource.

Contradicting Alberta government assertions that toxins in the watershed occur naturally, the researchers said mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium are among 13 toxins released into the Athabasca, which flows north through the oil sands operations.

The findings of the study, coauthored by University of Alberta biological scientists Erin Kelly and David Schindler, should be a signal for the Alberta provincial government to consider limits on oil sands development, Schindler said.

"I really think it's time to cut down the expansion until some of those problems and how to reduce them are solved," he said in an interview.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers the substances to be priority pollutants, or ones that are toxic in low concentrations.

The environmental impact of developing the oil sands, the biggest reserves of crude outside the Middle East, has been a topic of snowballing controversy around the world. The Alberta government has devoted millions of dollars to defend the multibillion-dollar industry.

The latest research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Schindler said the incidence of pollutants in fish is particularly worrisome, as local populations depend on the region's fishery for food.

"I don't think the concentrations alone are dangerous. I worry about some of them, like mercury, because there, parts per trillion translate into parts per million in fish," he said.

The report contradicts material from a government-supported and industry-funded agency, called the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program, or RAMP, which published material as recently as 2009 that said the Athabasca's water quality is similar to conditions before oil sands development.

But Schindler said the RAMP monitoring and findings "violate every rule" of long-term study. "We deliberately planned the study to test that claim," he said, noting that concentrations of pollutants were higher in samples that were taken closer to the oil sands plants.

RAMP spokesman Fred Kuzmic said Schindler's criticism was based on a 2004 peer review that triggered 64 improvements in its monitoring practices. It is undergoing another peer review scheduled to be completed by the end of the year.

"We had offered Dr. Schindler one of the eight positions to review our program and he had declined to participate in that peer review," Kuzmic said. "We do have eight other academics that were selected by an independent party that RAMP contracted to work at arm's length."

RAMP studies have shown cases with higher concentrations of pollutants closer to oil sands operations, he said.

"But that's not unexpected because the rivers run through the oil sands deposits themselves," Kuzmic said.

He did not go so far as to say the new report is flawed, but said he needed to study it in more detail.

Kim Westcott, senior surface water policy specialist with Alberta's environment ministry, said she could not address many of the study's conclusions without having seen much of the background material they are based on.

"RAMP has many more years of data than this one year of data that Dr. Schindler has, but Dr. Schindler seems to have hit a number of sites so maybe there's some spatial coverage that we didn't have previously," she said. "It will be interesting to compare that."

Schindler said airborne pollutants that are contaminating land and water should be reasonably simple for the oil industry to reduce, based on available technology. But he urged more stringent regulations for water.

The study's other authors are Peter Hodson of Queens University; Jeffrey Short of Oceana, Juneau; and Roseanna Radmanovich and Charlene Nielsen of the University of Alberta.
Toxic river concerns played down

Toronto Sun, September 1, 2010, By Frank Landry

EDMONTON - Alberta's environment minister is playing down concerns about toxic pollutants in the Athabasca River, saying they are at "insignificant levels."

It comes a day after a peer-reviewed scientific study suggested just the opposite.

"What we have to do is determine what are the levels at which we need to have some concern?" Rob Renner said Tuesday.

"My scientists are telling me that the amount of compounds that can be detected in the Athabasca River at this point in time are not a concern and are of insignificant levels."

But Renner also said some contaminants could get into small tributaries and creeks around industrial sites.

"On the mine site itself, I suspect there certainly would be a change in the chemistry," he said.

"That being said, what we're concerned about is not so much the water on mine site, it's the health of the water off the mine site."

He said the major water bodies in the region remain healthy.

The study released Monday confirmed toxic pollutants like mercury and arsenic found in the Athabasca River in northern Alberta are liked to nearby oilsands development.

David Schindler, an ecologist at the University of Alberta and one of the study's lead researchers, said the pollution is in violation of the federal Fisheries Act. He called for better long-term monitoring of the watershed.

Schindler said it could be done by Environment Canada -- a federal agency.

Renner said the current monitoring system is being reviewed -- and argued it should remain a provincial responsibility.

"If there's a need for us to improve the way we do the monitoring, then we don't need to rely on Ottawa to do it for us," he said.

The university researchers looked at 13 elements in river water and the snow pack along the Athabasca.

They found concentrations of pollutants like mercury, arsenic and lead were higher the closer samples were taken to oilsands developments.

Seven of the 13 pollutants recorded downstream of oilsands developments exceeded allowable guidelines, according to the findings.

The pollutants are toxic even at low concentrations, according to the researchers.

Oil Spill Coverage
Voice of America: As Oil Ebbs, The Turtles Return

As Oil Ebbs, the Turtles Return

Voice of America, 31 August 2010, By Rebecca Ward

New Orleans-- Endangered sea turtles affected by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are finding their way home again. The first 22 of several hundred rehabilitated sea turtles were recently returned to the Gulf's waters. VOA's Rebecca Ward has more on the rescue operation, and what it will take to get all of the rescued sea turtles swimming again.

What makes for a happy turtle?  Hard to say, but a good start is probably warm water, plenty of food to eat, and an environment that's not fouled with raw petroleum.

That's exactly what a number of wild sea turtles are finding at the Audubon Institute's Center for Research of Endangered Species in New Orleans Louisiana - one of several facilities taking care of the animals caught up in the BP oil spill.

"I like to refer to us as the sea turtle MASH unit for the oil spill for Louisiana," says Michele Kelley, the sea turtle and marine mammal stranding coordinator for Audubon.  Kelley says that after the sea turtles have been rescued, they are cleaned and treated - including what's called a 'gavage' of mayonnaise and cod liver oil that will help purge their digestive system of oil.

The vast majority of the sea turtles treated at Audubon survive the ordeal. But their rescue is not a short term project.

"We don't know the long term effects of hydrocarbons on sea turtles.  We're writing the book, we're living the book as we move right now," says Kelley. "Their electrolytes and glucose levels can plummet several days after, so we have to constantly take those animals out, do their blood draws, retreat them, hydrate them, make sure they're okay.  So, the treatments continue for a month."

Researchers like Kelley may be learning new techniques and lessons, but the ultimate goal of all this work is to get the turtles back into the wild - into water cleaned of oil and an environment not suffering environmental degradation from the spill. And that may be a tall order.

"There are five species of turtles in the Gulf of Mexico," says Barbara Schroeder, Sea Turtle Coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington DC. "We have concerns about all of them. Four of them are endangered and one - the loggerhead - is currently threatened, but proposed for endangered listing.  So we have five of the world's seven species inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico."

Of all the endangered species, the Kemps Ridley sea turtle may be the most threatened by the Gulf oil spill, because its only home is in the Gulf and parts of the Atlantic Ocean.

"With a catastrophic event like this - in terms of the species globally - it is in a little bit more precarious position because it only occurs in a more restrictive place and that happens to be where the oil spill has occurred," says Schroeder.

All those working in the Gulf agree that it's crucial the endangered turtles are returned to the Gulf as soon as possible. Schroeder says many of these turtles picked up in the Gulf are at a stage where they are ready to move into near shore waters. 

"The good thing about the size of these turtles is that we have options for where to release them.  They don't have to go back out exactly where they came from, where the potential for oil still exist and we're still seeing it in the convergence areas.  But we have an option to release them in near shore areas that were never oiled." 

Still, some turtles may find themselves swimming back into the oil-polluted waters of the Gulf - especially the Kemps Ridley.  And that, says the Audubon Center's Michele Kelley, is the greatest concern. 

"The southern tip of Texas and the northern coast of Mexico is where they generally go and nest and lay their eggs.  So, again, if we release them, the mechanism in their brain says swim right back through it." 

The long term effects of the massive oil spill are unclear, as is just how much oil remains in the water.  Even less certain is how the Gulf's wildlife will respond to their changed waters.

Back to Menu

=============================================================

ENVIRONMENT NEWS FROM THE

UN DAILY NEWS

1^st August 2010 (None)

Back to Menu

=============================================================

S.G’s SPOKESPERSON DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
1^st August 2010 (None)

Back to Menu

=============================================================

Directory: cpi -> briefs
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news

Download 248.84 Kb.

Share with your friends: