PREVIEW-G8 climate talks to discuss targets, rift remains

Bush's food crisis aid package now promotes genetically modified crops

The Los Angeles Times

Saturday May 17, 2008

The value or detriment of genetically modified, or bioengineered, food is an intensely disputed issue in the U.S. and in Europe, where many countries have banned foods made from genetically modified organisms.

Proponents say that genetically modified crops can result in higher yields from plants that are hardier in harsh climates.

"We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bioengineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance," said Dan Price, a food aid expert on the National Security Council.

Opponents of such crops allege that they can cause allergies, illnesses and unforeseen medical problems in those who consume them.

They also contend that the administration's plan is aimed at helping American agribusinesses such as Monsanto, which manufactures genetically modified varieties of seed.

"This is a hot topic now with the food crisis," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Assn. "I think it's pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops -- they may do a number of things, but they don't increase yields. There are no commercialized crops that are designed to deal with the climate crisis."

Bush proposed the food package two weeks ago as aid groups and the U.N. World Food Program pressed Western governments to provide additional funds to bridge the gap caused by rising food prices.

The aid must win congressional approval.

It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of genetically modified crops.

The U.S. is already the U.N. food program's largest donor, providing nearly half of the help the group receives from governments. The U.S. gave about $1.1 billion to the program in both 2006 and 2007. Overall, the World Food Program provided $2.6 billion in aid in 2006. The U.N. estimates that 852 million people are facing a daily food emergency.

Some aid organizations say it is time to consider genetically modified crops in tough growing conditions.

"I think it's good, that it should be part of the package," said Mark Rosegrant, an environment and technology specialist with the International Food Policy Research Institute.

"It shouldn't be the only thing in the package. It is now showing quite a bit of potential in starting to address some of the long-term stresses, drought and heat. It improves yields in some of these very difficult environments."

But Noah Zerbe, an assistant professor of government and politics at Humboldt State University, said that genetically modified crops might not be appropriate for developing countries.

"You get fantastic yields if you're able to apply fertilizer and water at the right times, and herbicides to go along with that," Zerbe said. "Unfortunately, most African farmers, they can't afford these inputs."

The U.S. tried to introduce genetically modified crops to Africa in 2002, with mixed results. European Union opposition was part of the reason that several African nations balked at an offer of U.S. aid that included corn, some of which was genetically modified.

In the throes of a severe drought, Zambia rejected the U.S. aid altogether. Several other countries accepted the U.S. corn, but only after it was milled to prevent farmers from planting it and growing their own genetically modified corn.

The National Security Council's Price said the administration is working to persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of such crops in Africa.

Rosegrant said that given current dire food shortages, new biosafety measures and negotiations with countries receiving aid could resolve such problems.

"There's evidence that those fears tend to be overblown," he said. "The crops they're exporting are not the crops that are genetically modified. It's a little too soon to tell, but it looks like there's some increasing acceptance because of the high food prices."
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-food17-2008may17,

General Environmental News

CFLs are easy to use, difficult to recycle

There are still too few disposal options for the bulbs, which contain mercury

MSNBC

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It's a message being drummed into the heads of homeowners everywhere: Swap out those incandescent lights with longer-lasting compact fluorescent bulbs and cut your electric use.

Governments, utilities, environmentalists and, of course, retailers everywhere are spreading the word.

Few, however, are volunteering to collect the mercury-laced bulbs for recycling — despite what public officials and others say is a potential health hazard if the hundreds of millions of them being sold are tossed in the trash and end up in landfills and incinerators.

For now, much of the nation has no real recycling network for CFLs, despite the ubiquitous PR campaigns, rebates and giveaways encouraging people to adopt the swirly darlings of the energy-conscious movement. Recyclers and others guess that only a small fraction of CFLs sold in the United States are recycled, while the rest are put out with household trash or otherwise discarded.

"In most parts of the country, it requires getting in your car and burning up your gas and going out of your way, a long ways, and people are unlikely to do this," said Paul Abernathy, the executive director of the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers in Calistoga, Calif.

Recycling efforts, though, are spotty at best.

Some communities are arranging special CFL drop-off events while some city or county hazardous waste collection facilities accept them.

Swedish retailer IKEA collects the bulbs at its 34 U.S. stores and manufacturer Osram Sylvania offers a mail-in program. In Nevada, customers of Sierra Pacific Power Co. can now take used CFLs to eight landfills to be recycled.

A few governments have targeted retailers.

The city of Madison, Wis., requires retailers that sell the bulbs to also collect them for recycling, although stores can charge a fee for it. Maine and Vermont fund programs that distribute collection bins to retailers, from neighborhood hardware stores to Wal-Marts, and get the bulbs to recyclers, either by pickup or mail.

Pennsylvania spent $8,000 to distribute white plastic buckets to several dozen businesses, community organizations and local governments that wanted them. The buckets come with a seal-tight lid and the state pays the postage to send them to a recycler.

Two of the buckets are nestled among the expanding display of CFLs lined up on wall pegs at Ritters True Value Hardware in the central Pennsylvania town of Mechanicsburg, looking like something a store employee inadvertently left there while cleaning up — not a fledgling attempt to collect the bulbs for safe disposal.

The longer fluorescent tubes, in use since World War II, contain slightly more mercury per lamp, but recyclers typically collect them in bulk from the biggest users, businesses and factories, which are required by federal law to dispose of them properly.

Even if recycling efforts have been meager, environmentalists and government officials say it is important to balance the positives of CFLs against any negatives.

For instance, CFLs can curtail the need for energy and thereby cut pollution from power plants. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coal-fired power plant will emit about four times more mercury to keep an incandescent bulb glowing, compared with a CFL of the same light output.

"People should care about mercury and if they do, they should be working to save energy wherever they can and CFLs are a great answer to that," said John Rogers, a senior energy analyst for the Cambridge, Mass.-based group.

To recycle his spent CFLs, Rogers bags them, stores them in the basement and drops them off when his town, North Reading, Mass., holds a recycling event.

David Stotler, a railroad clerk from Maytown, Pa., does not know of a local option to recycle CFLs, so he threw out the one or two in his home that burned out.

Recycling prevents mercury release
The bulbs do not release mercury if they are used properly and recycled, and the EPA and state governments have written guidelines for how to clean up the mercury from a broken bulb.

Kim N. Dietrich, a professor of environmental health at the University of Cincinnati, said the bigger concern is the hazard that would result if the mercury from millions of bulbs escapes into the air and waterways before working up the food chain.

"I'm just amazed that the government is not paying more attention to this," Dietrich said.

Manufacturers have looked at substitutes for mercury in the bulbs, but been unable to synthesize the chemical reaction. Still, they say they are working to reduce the amount of mercury in each bulb.

In search of a solution, a group from Brown University in Providence, R.I., has submitted a packaging invention for patent protection: a cardboard sandwich with an element in between that absorbs mercury.

The bulbs can be packaged in the material for retail sale and, after they burn out, returned in it for collection and recycling. If a bulb breaks, the packaging can absorb the mercury residue like a sponge, said environmental studies professor Steven P. Hamburg.

Hamburg estimated that the average CFL will save a user roughly $35 over the bulb's life, compared with the power costs of an incandescent bulb, and cost 25 cents to recycle.

At Ritters hardware, co-owner Jack Winchell wants his store to be recycling-friendly — he also accepts used motor oil and batteries — but said he can't do it alone on CFLs if there's no government subsidy.

"If I raise my bulbs 50 cents to pay for the recycling, then I'm not going to be competitive," Winchell said. "Somehow we need to have a shared responsibility for recycling these."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24694496/

Ontario coal plants to cut emissions by two-thirds

Can West News Service

Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Ontario government announced Friday that the province's five coal power plants would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds below 2003 levels by 2011.

The plants, including the Nanticoke generating station, the largest coal-powered facility in North America, have been set to close by 2014 as part of the provincial government's strategy for combatting climate change. Ontario Power Generation, the crown corporation responsible for the sale of 70 per cent of the province's electricity, will have to reduce the plants' combined emissions from 34.5 megatonnes to 11.5 megatonnes as per a directive from Premier Dalton McGuinty's government.

Two of the five plants operate outside of Thunder Bay and produce relatively small amounts of greenhouse gas. The three plants in southern Ontario, however, are among the country's largest polluters. A 2005 report prepared for Environment Canada indicated that the Nanticoke station was the single-largest greenhouse gas producing installation in the country. The Lambton generating station, near Sarnia, Ont., was fifth. The same study reported Ontario Power Generation as the biggest producer of greenhouse gases of all companies in Canada.

"We're phasing out coal and that means less pollution in the air we breathe," said Environment Minister John Gerretsen in a statement released Friday. "Ontario is using more renewable sources of energy to tackle climate change, and consumers can help by using electricity wisely."

McGuinty had said during the 2007 Ontario provincial election that he would reduce work to reduce emissions from coal plants by 33 per cent. The proposed plant closures would have the same effect as "taking almost seven million cars off of our roads," according to the statement.

© Canwest News Service 2008

Toronto Star

Sunday May 18, 2008
OTTAWA–Over the summer, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion will be criss-crossing the country, telling Canadians already reeling from higher gas prices that they need to pay a lot more for the rest of their energy sources. His message, in essence, is that it's time for Canadians to put their money where their mouths are if they are serious about saving the planet.

No one thinks it will be an easy sell, but Dion seems determined, even eager, to take on the task. In fact, he's staking the Liberals' chances in the next election – not to mention his own political future – on this risky strategy.

"I am convinced that far too many political elites underestimate Canadians," he explains. "When you speak to the minds and big hearts of our great people, good policies translate into good politics.

"In fact, time and time again, Canadians have been ahead of their politicians in knowing what needs to be done to move this country forward."

So, despite warnings of political calamity from within his own Liberal caucus, Dion is proposing a carbon tax that will mean new federal levies on energy from all fossil fuels.

Generating perhaps $12 billion a year in extra revenue for Ottawa, it would mean much higher costs for homeowners who heat with natural gas, heating oil or electricity from coal-fired plants. (The price of gasoline, already subject to a federal excise tax, would not rise with the proposed levy, Liberals maintain.)

The attractive side of Dion's scheme calls for this tax windfall to be revenue neutral, meaning the extra taxes would all be returned to Canadians in the form of lower personal and corporate income taxes. As well, the tax code would be tweaked to help low-income earners, Liberals say.

Can Dion convince Canadians to buy into this crusade?

While concerns about global warming are high, asking voters to open their wallets is never easy. Dion is embarking on this quest at a time with near-recessionary conditions in Ontario and Quebec.

"Whenever Canadians see a big-dollar ticket beside a promise, they get very nervous," says pollster Nik Nanos.

The second problem is the economic environment, Nanos said, noting that what Dion wants is to change people's behaviour, but that's a tough sell when people are feeling nervous about the economy.

Call it brave or call it foolhardy, but Dion seems undeterred by these challenges.

In a speech in Toronto on Thursday, he compared this quest to his effort as a Liberal minister in 1999 to set rules for any Quebec referendum question under the Clarity Act. It was done in the face of widespread warnings that he was courting disaster. But in the end, it was seen as damping the fires of independence among Quebecers.

"When under Jean Chrétien, I brought clarity to the unity debate and fought for Canada's unity, remember how many people said: `Don't do it, it's too risky, people won't understand it.'

"I knew that Canadians, including my fellow Quebecers, wanted clarity instead of confusion. . . . I knew people would understand what we were going to achieve together."

It was the same story two years ago, when the uncharismatic former professor and relative newcomer to the Liberal party launched his leadership bid. Few gave him much chance. Eight months later, he walked out of a divided convention as the winner.

While asking Canadians almost overnight to make sacrifices to tackle global warming will be difficult, Dion insists the country is ready to take on this burden.

Experts across the political spectrum, he notes, are speaking out in favour of an environmental tax shift of the kind he is proposing.

Dion sees it as a way to tackle global warming by upping the price of fossil fuels; invigorate the economy by giving individuals and business more tax breaks; and address poverty by expanding government support for low-income families.

But even before all the details of Dion's plan are out, the Conservatives are teeing off on it.

"The leader of the Liberal party wants to propose a carbon tax on the price of gasoline and drive the price of gasoline north of $2.25 and higher," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said. "That is going to hurt hardworking people who are trying to get to work."

Liberals are understandably nervous.

"We have to make it clear to the public right off the bat that it's not going to drive up the cost of living, particularly for lower-income people," says Liberal MP Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca). "Obviously, the big issue is going to be selling it so people don't think it's just a big new tax."

"You're damn right it's a huge political risk," says a Liberal MP who asked for anonymity. "But as you know, Stéphane Dion is not one to be shy about taking political risks."

And it may still be Dion's best election card. "If you run a peek-a-boo campaign," the Liberal continued, "Stéphane will get killed. His greatest strength is leading with bold, visionary ideas."

Carbon Caps May Give Nuclear Power a Lift

By REBECCA SMITH

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Monday May 19, 2008; Page A4

Some nuclear operators are already forecasting how much their profits could increase under various versions of greenhouse-gas legislation that are under consideration. Among the nuclear operators that stand to profit most are Exelon Corp., FPL Group Inc., Constellation Energy Group, Entergy Corp., FirstEnergy Corp., NRG Energy Inc. and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.

Carbon limits could usher in a period of "supernormal profits" for nuclear operators in markets where rates are deregulated and have more ability to rise, says Hugh Wynne, utilities analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. But he warns that profits, if perceived as excessive, run the risk of inciting a public backlash, perhaps including calls for a windfall-profits tax.

Congress is considering several measures that would impose a so-called cap-and-trade system, which would limit the amount of carbon dioxide companies are allowed to emit. Lawmakers this summer are expected to take up a bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va.) that initially gives the power industry about half the allowances it needs and requires generators to purchase the remainder on an open market or cut emissions.

Nuclear operators stand to gain from greenhouse-gas legislation in two ways. For starters, their plants don't spew carbon dioxide, so they would not have to buy emissions allowances, giving them a competitive advantage over competitors that burn fossil fuels.

In addition, a cap-and-trade system would probably push up wholesale electricity prices in deregulated markets, as coal- and natural-gas-burning utilities jack up prices to recover the additional cost of allowance purchases. In deregulated markets, generators with the highest costs set the market price, so lower-cost nuclear operators could enjoy the higher prices charged by coal- and gas-burning utilities without the higher costs. In states that didn't deregulate their electricity markets, nuclear plants mostly are part of regulated utilities and furnish electricity to utility customers at prices tied to their underlying costs, eliminating the opportunity for such profit.

Big coal-burning utilities oppose full auctioning of allowances, saying it could drive up their costs and produce an enormous spike in electricity prices, harming many consumers.

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors — anywhere east of Puerto Rico — will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors.

The biggest storms — those with winds of more than 110 mph — would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

It's not all good news from Knutson's study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent, Knutson's study says.

Study generates criticism
And Knutson said this study significantly underestimates the increase in wind strength. Some other scientists criticized his computer model.

MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, while praising Knutson as a scientist, called his conclusion "demonstrably wrong" based on a computer model that doesn't look properly at storms.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist, said Knutson's computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and "fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity."

Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said it is not just the number of hurricanes "that matter, it is also the intensity, duration and size, and this study falls short on these issues."

Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn't produce storms surpassing 112 mph.

But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn't part of this study, praised Knutson's work as "very consistent with what's being said all along."

"I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny," Landsea said.

Hurricane season starts June 1 in the Atlantic and a Colorado State University forecast predicts about a 50 percent more active than normal storm season this year. NOAA puts out its own seasonal forecast on May 22.

In a normal year about 10 named storms form. Six become hurricanes and two become major hurricanes. On average, about five hurricanes hit the United States every three years.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24694854/

Subway cars find new life on ocean floor
Retired cars used to create reefs to buoy local fishing industries
MSNBC

Saturday May. 17, 2008

OCEAN CITY, Md. - After four decades carrying millions of New Yorkers, 44 of the city's subway cars are now home to millions of fish.

The worn-out cars were dumped on Friday into the Atlantic Ocean, 21 miles off the Maryland coast, to create an artificial reef, designed to attract fish for the state's lucrative sport-fishing industry.

"These reefs provide quality habitat for marine life off our coast which benefits not only the environment but also local businesses," said Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan.

The 18-ton stainless steel cars — minus wheels, windows and doors — were stacked two-high on a barge where a bucket crane with a specially designed hydraulic lift picked them up one by one and dropped them into 90 feet of water.

As journalists watched from five smaller boats, the cars landed on their sides with a bang, and blew whale-like jets of spray as air escaped from their interiors. They disappeared a few seconds later beneath the gray-green waters.

The cars, dating from 1964, were among 1,662 that have been retired by New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority and will be used by a number of states on the East coast to create the reefs to buoy local fishing industries.

Maryland plans four more subway-car reefs and since 2001 others have been created in Delaware and New Jersey waters from an earlier batch of about 1,200 cars released by the MTA.

Jeff Tinsman, Delaware's reef program coordinator, said a 600-car reef in that state's waters had increased the local fish population by 400 times, and boosted the number of angling trips to 13,000 a year from 300 before the reef was created.

Officials hope the new Maryland reef will become home to such inshore species as black sea bass, tautog and summer flounder. These in turn should attract game like marlin, tuna and dolphin and the recreational fishermen, who contribute about $1 billion a year to Maryland's economy.

Martin Gary, a fisheries biologist with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, said some of the targeted species have been depleted by overfishing. He promised that officials will take steps to prevent that from happening again around the new reef by imposing rules on the size and number of fish that can be caught, and the seasons when they can be taken.

Gary said the new reef, at a favorite local fishing ground called Jackspot, is deeper and farther from the shore than other subway-car reefs, and will hopefully attract inshore fish and the deep-water migratory species that feed on them.

The nonprofit Ocean City Reef Foundation paid $600 per car to transport them 30-hours from New York City to create the reef.

In their final resting place — where they are expected to last 40 years or so — the subway cars begin another useful life, Gary said. "It's hard to believe they were in service as little as 10 days ago."

Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24680717/