Al Gore Urges 'Civil Disobedience' Toward Coal Plants

Al Gore called Wednesday for "civil disobedience" to combat the construction of coal power plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former vice president, whose efforts to raise awareness of global warming have made him the most prominent voice on that issue, made the comment during a session at the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative in Manhattan.

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore said, according to Reuters.

It wasn't clear what specific action he intended by "civil disobedience," which calls for the intentional violation of laws deemed to be unjust.

Since leaving the White House after losing to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election, Gore has turn his focus to environmental issues, a longtime passion. The 2006 documentary based on his lecture, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. In addition, he received a Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change work.

McCain says Australia, US share challenge of China

SYDNEY (AFP) — US Republican presidential candidate John McCain Tuesday called on Australia to help encourage greater openness in China, a nation he said had not met all the responsibilities of a global power.

In an opinion piece in The Australian newspaper, McCain said that the US involvement in the Asia Pacific region had to begin with its allies.

He said while Japan had been a strong and reliable partner, South Korea was taking on new global responsibilities and the US shared values and common purpose with New Zealand, the alliance with Australia "sets the standard".

"Firm commitments to our allies will set the stage for an American engagement of China that builds on the many areas of common interest we share with Beijing and encourages candour and progress in those areas where China has not fulfilled its responsibilities as a global power," he said.

McCain, who said the US could reinvigorate its alliances with Thailand and the Philippines and build on newly strengthened ties with Singapore and India, said the Beijing Olympics had provided a vivid demonstration of modern China.

"Americans and Australians have been impressed with Beijing's glittering landscape and warmed by the hospitality and graciousness of the Chinese people," he wrote.

"But in Beijing our journalists have also seen up close how human dignity suffers when basic rights such as freedom of speech and religious worship are denied.

"Our shared challenge is to convince the Chinese leadership that their nation's remarkable success rests ultimately on whether they can translate economic development into a more open and tolerant political process at home, and a more responsible foreign policy abroad."

McCain said that climate change, nuclear proliferation and trade were also all pressing issues for the US and the Asia Pacific region.

"If elected president of the US, I will look to Australia to help us navigate these challenges," he said.

On climate change, McCain said that he would work with Australia's centre-left Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to establish a global framework which draws in China and India to counter the man-made problem.

"Australians have looked to the US for leadership on climate change and it is time for us to answer that call," he said.

McCain said that free trade agreements, such as those the US has with Australia and Singapore and has negotiated with South Korea, were also "critical building blocks for an open and inclusive economic order in the Asia-Pacific region."

"They create billions of dollars' worth of new exports and set a higher standard for trade liberalisation that ultimately helps all the nations in the region," he said.

British public 'unwilling' to pay for climate change bill

Public confusion over the environmental agenda appears to be as high as ever, with a majority in the UK calling for more action to tackle climate change while at the same time saying they are not willing to pay more to help.

Nearly two-thirds of people told a poll by Opinium they thought recent government measures to boost energy conservation needed to go much further, and half said they were doing their bit by installing insulation or turning down the thermostat.

However more than seven out of 10 of the nearly 2,000 people questioned said they were unwilling to pay higher taxes to combat environmental issues, and a similar number believed the green agenda had been "hijacked" to increase taxes.

The timing of the survey last week could also have had an impact on willingness to pay higher prices, coming as daily headlines warned about recession, unemployment, rising prices and a collapse in the housing market.

Mark Hodson, Opinium's head of research, said the public had lost faith in both politicians and the energy companies that they blame for huge price hikes in recent months.

"A massive 78% of people think that energy companies profits are unfair," said Hodson.

"Rising energy bills have affected the majority of people in the past year and the public seem to be as disheartened by the recent energy measures as they are by green taxes.

"It is probably due to this fact that [59%] think the government should have gone much further."

Public confusion was also a result of having a debate which was too "narrowly" focused on pitting the environment against economic wealth and other issues, said Tom Compton, change strategist for environmental group WWF.

"We can't rely exclusively on this convergence of economic growth and the business case for sustainable development on the one hand and environmental demands on the other," said Compton.

"There are areas where these things converge, but similarly there are cases where they diverge; at the moment we are failing abjectly to grapple with those areas where they diverge.

"That requires a more fundamental engagement with and understanding of what our collective aspirations are: what's important to us?"

London-based Opinium Research surveyed 1,975 adults by email from a panel of 30,000 regularly used by the company. The results were weighted to match age, sex, geography and other nationally representative criteria.

Climate change expert questions north-south pipeline

Leading climate change expert Professor Tim Flannery says there is no justification to build a $750 million pipeline to bring water to Melbourne.

Construction has started on the controversial north-south pipeline after the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, gave the project the go ahead.

The former Australian of the Year says there is no evidence to support taking water from the already stressed Murray-Darling system, to pump to Melbourne.

He says more attention should be given to replacing coal-fired power with cleaner energy, which he says would ultimately yield more water.

"For every megawatt of electricity we generate here in Victoria you use two tonnes of water," he said.

"Why are we dealing with the most antiquated, polluting, coal fired power plants just about on the planet here in Victoria and letting them waste our water and pretending that's not an issue?"

Professor Flannery questions whether the Government commitment to long-term plans for fear of alienating voters.

"It's one of the great problems we face, that Government won't take the sort of decisions that we need," he said.

"[They are] happy to give away taxpayers' money, but regulation or laying out a vision that might say that in 20 years from now we'll be moving onto a new form of energy generation, is not what they're interested in."

India should play a major role in climate change: Britain

Britain has said it wants India to play a major global role on the issue of climate change, similar to its active participation in peace keeping.

"Just as you are already playing a major role in (UN) peace keeping, we want India to play a bigger role in climate change, which is already having its impact," said Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who was the Chief Guest at a reception jointly hosted by the Labour Friends of India, led by British MP Barry Gardiner and the Indian High Commissioner Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, at Manchester.

Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State, department of International Development; Sir Gulam Noon, NRI industrialist; Virendra Sharma, Labour MP; Jordana Diengdo K Pavel, among others were also present here.

Miliband, widely considered a potential prime ministerial candidate, said that the UK-India relationship was a "partnership of equals."

"India is genuinely emerging as a power and in it the Indian diaspora is a huge source of strength" he said, adding "we are lucky to have such a diaspora."

Referring to India's role in the world, Miliband said "many of us have many expectations. We want India to play a big role in climate change and we have to work with India as a genuine partner of equals."

High Commissioner Mukherjee recalled India's first Prime Minister Pandit Nehru's famous lines about "A tryst With destiny" and said, "Sixty years down the line, we are quite a way ahead with the 'tryst with destiny' but there was a great deal yet to be done in wiping out tears from eyes of the weakest of the weak."

Obama And McCain On Climate Change

Both presidential candidates are pushing pollution-cutting efforts like these. Just recognizing climate change as an issue is a big change from the past eight years.

Both candidates say they'll join international climate change efforts that the Bush administration has ignored, and will press China and India to cut greenhouse gases.

Back home, both would start with modest greenhouse gas reductions - then increase cutbacks for 40 years into the future.

McCain said while in Santa Barbara: "Until we have achieved at least a reduction of 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050."

Obama goes further.

"I've put forward very substantial proposals to get 80 percent reductions in greenhouse gasses by 2050," said Obama.

Both would reach those goals largely thru a "cap and trade" program that works like this:

The government sets an annual cap or limit on carbon emissions and issues permits up to that limit to companies that release greenhouse gases.

If a company reduces its emissions, it can sell or trade its unused permits to a company that can't meet emission goals.

"Leadership must begin at home. That's why I've proposed a cap and trade system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of energy," Obama said in May in Miami.

And McCain, in Santa Barbara, said: "I have proposed a new system of cap-and-trade that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy."

The candidates sound the same, but there are differences.

McCain would give companies most of the emissions permits for free based on their previous emission levels. Then if they cut back, they can make money selling unused permits.

He said in Portland. "In all its power, the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet."

Obama would sell all emission permits at auction, so companies would have to pay for every ton of carbon they release. Money raised would be used to develop renewable energy and to subsidize consumers' energy bills.

By one estimate a cap and trade program could raise the average family energy bill more than $700 a year.

In the August, 2007 Democratic primary debate, Obama said: "There are some things that we can do to conserve energy, but all those steps are going to require a little bit of hardship and a little bit of pinching."

McCain and Obama Agree on Approaches to Energy, Climate Change

COLLEGE PARK Sept 23, 2008 - A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds the majority of supporters of John McCain and Barack Obama largely agree on how to deal with both the country's energy needs and the problem of climate change.

Asked whether the government should require utilities to use more alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, even if this increases costs in the short-run, seventy-five percent of Obama voters and sixty percent of McCain voters say that it should.

Presented two competing arguments, both Obama and McCain supporters reject the argument that making a major shift to alternative energy sources "would cost so much money that it would hurt the economy." Very large majorities in both the Obama (83%) and McCain (73%) camps instead support the argument that "with the rising cost of energy, it would save money in the long run."

Supporters in both camps strongly favor a greater emphasis on increasing energy efficiency: 71 percent of Obama and 55 percent of McCain supporters support requiring businesses to use energy more efficiently, even if it might make some products more expensive.

Only small minorities in both camps favor greater emphasis on "building coal or oil-fired power plants," although more McCain supporters favor this approach (34%) than those for Obama (19%).

Both Obama and McCain supporters favor the United States departing from its current position on the Kyoto Treaty. Told that, "the U.S. and other countries from around the world will be meeting next year to develop a new treaty to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions such as those caused by using oil and coal," 94 percent of Obama supporters and 63 percent of McCain supporters said that the United States should "be willing to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as part of such a treaty."

These findings are part of a larger international poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, an international research project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The poll of 1,174 Americans was fielded from August 9 - 20, 2008 by Knowledge Networks. The margin of error ranges from +/2.9 to 3.4 percent, depending on the sample size. Because this was an international poll questions about offshore drilling were not included.

Climate Change: "The Trillion Dollar Wake Up Call"

New report spotlights how tackling climate change can create or destroy company value

NEW YORK, Sep 23, 2008 - Tackling climate change can have a significant impact on company value in six sectors1 worth a total of $7 trillion, according to a new report by the Carbon Trust launched today: Climate Change: a business revolution?

This Carbon Trust report, based on analysis by McKinsey & Co, found that the deep emissions reductions necessary to tackle climate change and put us on a path to a low carbon economy, will create significant business opportunities and risks. Companies' futures will be highly dependent on how well prepared they are for the move, which will create large upsides and downsides for business.

Well positioned and proactive, forward thinking businesses could increase company value by up to 80%. Conversely, poorly positioned and laggard companies run the greatest risk of destroying value. The groundbreaking research found that as much as 65% of company value was at risk in some sectors. In the automobile industry, for example, both significant potential opportunities and risks were identified, which could transform the sector.

These opportunities and risks are driven by shifts in consumer behaviour, technology innovation and regulation -- the latter being the main initiator of change. The effects vary significantly by sector.

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust said:

"Climate change will cause a revolution in business and our findings should act as a trillion dollar wake up call to the investment and business communities. Companies and investors that prepare now and develop new strategies will reap the commercial rewards of the move to a low carbon economy. The financial risks of inaction are just too vast to ignore. We can see a trillion dollars of company value change, with leading, well-positioned companies gaining and badly positioned or slow companies losing out."

The study outlines clear recommendations for investors, business and policy makers on how to collaborate to make the shift to a low carbon economy as efficient as possible.

-- Strategic investors should discriminate between sectors and companies on the basis of their opportunities and risks.

-- Businesses should incorporate climate change in their core strategy and investment decisions.

-- Policy makers should work with business and investors now to create a policy framework which rewards early action and an efficient transition to a low carbon economy.

Mr. Delay added:

"We have a short window of opportunity to act but at present business and investor actions are way out of step with the need to tackle climate change. They must be urgently re-aligned by developing new business and investment strategies and by working with governments to develop policy frameworks that reward early and effective action to rapidly reduce carbon emissions."

Editors' Note:

For interviews with Carbon Trust spokespeople or for a copy of the report, please call the Carbon Trust Press Office on 020 7544 3100.

1 The analysis looked at the Aluminium, Auto, Beer, Building Materials, Consumer Electronics and Oil and Gas sectors. These six sectors have an estimated market value of $7 trillion.

The percentage value creation opportunity or risk is defined as the relative increase or reduction in value of a company which may result on the move to a low carbon economy, based on the net present value of its anticipated future cash flows. Any resulting shift in company value will depend on its level of preparation and sector exposure.

The Carbon Trust

-- The Carbon Trust is an independent company set up by government in response to the threat of climate change, to accelerate the move to a low carbon economy by working with organisations to reduce carbon emissions and develop commercial low carbon technologies. The Carbon Trust works with UK business and the public sector through its work in five complementary areas: insights, solutions, innovations, enterprises and investments. Together these help to explain, deliver, develop, create and finance low carbon enterprise.

-- The Carbon Trust is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and Invest Northern Ireland.

Climate Change Effects Mental Health

A largely unrecognised effect of climate change - its impact on mental health - will be considered at two Queensland conferences this week.

The topic is high on the agenda of the 2008 Queensland Landcare Conference being held at Monto, in the state's southeast.

A Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health conference in Cairns will also address the possible impacts.

The current prolonged drought over much of Australia - widely recognised as being caused by climate change - has alerted rural communities to the link between mental illness and suicide ahead of their city counterparts.

Keynote speaker at the Landcare conference, mental health advocate Fay Jackson, said a problem that was already very serious in the bush would only get worse with climate change.

"We have drought and we have flood, which we always have had in Australia, but they appear to be coming more frequently," Ms Jackson said.

"The 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 14 years.

"I think it will absolutely have a direct affect on farmers and their families."

Climate change was already causing stress to city consumers as farmers are forced to pass on rising costs, Ms Jackson said.

"If people are finding it harder to feed their families then it's going to have an effect on mental health," she said.

Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Group Collective chairman Mike Berwick said society would undergo big changes within a generation.

Rural communities should prepare by building resilience into landscapes and farming practices - but also into the health of those who manage them, Mr Berwick said.

"There are some pretty severe mental health issues in rural Australia and of course climate change is one of those stressors that's going to add to it," he said.

"Society's had its head in the sand for far too long.

"I think the urban communities have got their head in the sand more than rural communities because farmers understand climate variability."

Mr Berwick said stress was likely to become more widespread as the effects of climate change hit urban communities.

"We've got to learn to understand and adapt and get ready for it," he said.

Several sessions of the Creating Futures Conference, being held in Cairns by the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health until Thursday, will deal with the issue of mental health in the face of drought and climate change.

Firms warned about climate change : Report

The report said firms, together are worth £3.8 trillion ($7 trillion) globally, could boost market value by taking steps to tackle emissions.

The research covered six sectors of the economy including car manufacturing, brewing and consumer electronics.

Automotive firms stood to gain the most by adopting greener strategies.

But the car sector also risked the greatest loss by failing to take onboard changes needed to meet ambitious emission targets in the coming years.

The Carbon Trust said auto firms could reap great benefits from technological advances in the field of hybrid and electric cars.

'Ambitious targets'

Bruce Duguid, head of investor engagement at the Carbon Trust, said changes to the Kyoto protocol due next year will force many companies to take the climate change more seriously.

"There will be some ambitious targets and changes that will have to take place across industry."

"Climate change could start the next industrial revolution...its both an opportunity and a threat," he added.

The survey looked at six industries; aluminium manufacturing, automotive, oil and gas production and exploration, oil and gas refining, consumer electronics, building materials and brewing.

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, investors and indusry should wake up to this "trillion dollar wake up call."

"The financial risks of inaction are just too vast to ignore," he added

Investors weigh risks of not fighting climate change

Investors are using information on companies' carbon dioxide emissions to manage their portfolios, according to an annual survey of the world's leading businesses.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), backed by hundreds of institutional investors, asks the world's biggest companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This year, almost two-thirds of the 385 institutional investors behind the project, whose findings are published today, said they used the survey to identify companies not adequately addressing climate change.

The Axa Group, for instance, said: "In terms of investment policy, companies which are ill-prepared for more stringent environmental regulation may face unexpected new expenses and decreasing ability to sustain their returns and share price."

The investors are basing their decisions on the belief that emissions will be more closely regulated around the world in future, giving companies that already manage their emissions a competitive advantage. They are also weighing other factors, such as the risk that companies may face future litigation, and the possible illeffects of climate change, such as floods and storms.

Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the CDP, said: "[The survey is] effectively an audit of climate-change risk. Over 1,500 companies have gone through that process this year, with 77 per cent of the Global 500 responding. Whilst it's hard to evaluate definitively, the CDP is likely to have had a pivotal role in developing consciousness of those risks."

This year's report found that companies were starting to manage environmental risk at board level. Of the 383 groups that responded to the Global 500 survey, nearly two-thirds said they had an executive with overall responsibility for climate-change management, compared with half of respondents in 2007, and most had put in place some risk management measures to prepare for climate change.

Companies in all sectors said that uncertainty about future regulation was a stumbling block. Arcelor Mittal told the survey: "There is significant risk in the lack of predictability in climate-change regulation."

Another survey, by McKinsey and the UK government-funded Carbon Trust, found that companies were failing to respond adequately to the need to reduce emissions.

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said: "Our findings show that we are not on the path to a low-carbon economy. This is something that will impact on all investors - it will have a damaging effect on shareholder value. Shareholders should be demanding that the companies they invest in address these issues."

Upside down rainbow spotted in UK

"One of the most spectacular light shows observed on earth," author Donald Ahrens describes the rainbow in his text Meteorology Today. If observed carefully, you would find that the sun is always behind you when you face the rainbow and the center of the circular arc of the rainbow is in the opposite direction to the sun. But there have been sightings that have proved otherwise also.

An astronomer in Cambridge, UK, has captured on camera an "upside down rainbow", which is considered to be an anomaly of nature.

According to a report in the Telegraph, astronomer Dr Jacqueline Mitton captured the freak rainbow near her home in Cambridge. Normal rainbows are made when light penetrates raindrops and re-emerges out the other side in the same direction. But, the inverted types, known as circumzenithal arcs, are caused when sunlight bounces off ice crystals high in the atmosphere, sending the light rays back up.

"The conditions have to be just right: you need the right sort of ice crystals and the sky has to be clear," said Mitton. "We're not sure how big an area it was visible over, but it was certainly very impressive," she added. A spokesman for the Met Office confirmed the inverted rainbows are occasionally spotted in British skies. "It is convex to the sun and is formed by refraction in suitably-oriented ice crystals and may show vivid rainbow coloring, as in this case," he said

Well, we all know about the strange ways of nature and the even stranger creations, the 'upside down rainbow' is just another sense of humor by god, perhaps when the sky 'cries' with happiness!

Global warming will lead to biodiversity loss

WASHINGTON: An analysis, carried out by a scientist of Indian origin, along with his colleagues, has shown that irreversible global warming will lead to biodiversity loss and substantial glacial melt.

The scientist in question is Professor V. Ramanathan from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC (University of California) San Diego.

The analysis has estimated that the earth will warm about 2.4 degree C above pre-industrial levels, even under extremely conservative greenhouse-gas emission scenarios and under the assumption that efforts to clean up particulate pollution continue to be successful.

That amount of warming falls within what the world's leading climate change authority recently set as the threshold range of temperature increase that would lead to widespread loss of biodiversity, de-glaciation and other adverse consequences in nature.

The researchers argue that coping with these circumstances will require "transformational research for guiding the path of future energy consumption."

"This paper demonstrates the major challenges society will have to face in dealing with a problem that now seems unavoidable," said the paper's lead author, Scripps Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Professor V. Ramanathan.

"We hope that governments will not be forced to consider trade-offs between air pollution abatement and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions," he added.

In their analysis, Ramanathan and co-author Yan Feng, a Scripps postdoctoral research fellow, assumed a highly optimistic scenario that greenhouse gas concentrations would remain constant at 2005 levels for the next century.

For the concentrations to remain at 2005 levels, the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide must decrease drastically within the next decade.

Economic expansion, however, is expected to see emissions increase.

The researchers then analyzed expected future warming by assuming that the cooling effect of man-made aerosol pollution will be eliminated during the 21st Century.

Because soot and similar particles remain airborne only for a matter of weeks, it is expected that clean-up efforts produce relatively immediate results.

Therefore, the authors based their projections of temperature increase assuming the absence of these pollutants in the atmosphere.

By contrast, greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades or, in the case of carbon dioxide, more than a century.

Ramanathan and Feng estimated that the increase in greenhouse gases from pre-industrial era levels has already committed Earth to a warming range of 1.4 degree C to 4.3 degree C.

About 90 percent of that warming will most likely be experienced in the 21st Century.

"Given that a potentially large warming is already in our rear-view mirror, scientists and engineers must mount a massive effort and develop solutions for adapting to climate change and for mitigating it," said Ramanathan.

"Drastic reduction of short-lived warming agents is one way to buy the planet time for developing cost-effective ways for reducing CO2 concentrations," he added.

NASA: Arctic sea ice at second-lowest level on record

NASA has issued a preliminary report confirming environmentalists' fears of disappearing sea ice at the Arctic.

Sea ice is the thick permanent ice formed by frozen ocean water that remains even as seasonal ice melts away in the summer. In the past, it has covered about 60 percent of the Arctic.

The sea ice at the Arctic has now been found to have melted away by as much as half, according to a preliminary report issued Tuesday by NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.

"According to NASA-processed satellite microwave data, this perennial ice used to cover 50 to 60 percent of the Arctic, but this winter it covered less than 30 percent," NASA said in a statement.

It is the second-smallest amount of coverage since NASA began monitoring the situation in 1979. The Artic's sea ice coverage this September is about 33 percent below average, compared with the record low of 39 percent below average recorded in 2007.

At this time, neither NASA nor the National Snow and Ice Data Center have made suggestions as to the possible cause for the change. A thorough analysis of the data is scheduled to be released the first week of October, according to NASA.

MIDDLE EAST and CARBON CREDITS

An overwhelming majority of primary CDM credits now being traded or used for compliance are coming from only two countries – China and India. Though these two giants still present attractive opportunities for carbon investment, the geographical concentration of such a large amount of carbon is a key concern for those who need to buy this booming new commodity. China’s unofficial price floor, and uncertainties with projects in India, are only some of the major issues that project developers and their clients face in trying to source for credits to fulfill regulatory obligations and CSR targets in their countries of operation.

A unique combination of qualities makes the Middle East and North Africa a potentially lucrative new region for hosting CDM projects.

First, though the countries in the region are not the world’s heaviest emitters, due to inexpensive energy they house sizeable energy-intensive and carbon-intensive industries such as aluminum production, not to mention oil and gas.

Second, the region has some of the world’s wealthiest institutional and individual investors who can help with financing suitable projects for mitigating climate change. Attesting to this fact are massive projects completed or now underway for record-breaking 7-star accommodation in Dubai, buildings that generate their own energy in Bahrain, and even a carbon-neutral city in Abu Dhabi.

Third, interest is now rising steadily among the region’s governments, investors and local industry leaders in the benefits of projects and investment for sustainability.

Now is the time to catch that interest and build your business case with local stakeholders, get the inside track speaking with regulators about current trends and outlook, and learn effective strategies for dealing with the complex local landscape from project participants themselves.

Zero Emission line

Al Gore has finally caught up with the position of the Zero Emission Network and many of our groups such as Beyond Zero Emissions and Green Leap Strategic Institute have been calling for for a number of years.

He is call for the USA produce 100 percent of their electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. It's achievable, affordable and necessary. And we need to make this break from past habits and old ways of thinking.

"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."

In the past months he's been hosting a series of solutions summits with engineers, scientists, CEOs, and financiers. This speech pulled together some of the best thinking from those talks -- and highlighted what we each can do to end our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels and solve the climate crisis.

Bangladesh steps up to tackle climate change

Bangladesh has launched a comprehensive action plan to ensure the country's resilience to climate change over the next decade.

The 2009—2018 plan was presented yesterday (10 September) during the UK—Bangladesh Climate Change Conference in London, United Kingdom.

Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, particularly the threat of increased flooding and storms due to its position in the delta of three large rivers — the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna — as well as facing the Bay of Bengal.

Addressing the conference via video message, Fakhruddin Ahmed, head of the Bangladesh government, said the country was on track for achieving the Millennium Development Goals but 'climate change has the potential to wreak havoc on our efforts.'

A major focus of the plan is on research to better estimate and monitor the scale and timing of climate change impacts. The plan calls for more accurate modelling scenarios at a regional and national level, particularly for the predicted hydrological impact on the Ganges—Brahmaputra—Meghna delta system.

It also targets research into the impacts of climate change on the macro-economy and linkages between climate change, poverty and health to identify suitable interventions.

The plan also seeks to establish a Centre for Research and Knowledge Management on Climate Change to ensure Bangladesh has access to the latest ideas and technologies from around the world.

Other measures outlined include agricultural research to develop crop varieties resistant to flooding, drought and salinity, better surveillance systems for new and existing disease risks, and improving early warning systems for storm surges and floods.

The exact costs of the plan are still being worked out, but the government estimates that US$500 million will be needed for the first two years, and US$5 billion needed for the first 5 years.

To address this, the government has established a National Climate Change Fund, injecting an initial US$45 million. In addition, a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) was announced at the conference for contributions from international donors.

Mirza Azizul Islam, Bangladesh's Finance Adviser, called for a 'new sense of urgency' and appealed to all development partners to contribute generously to the trust fund, adding that the funds currently available are grossly inadequate.

'Climate change in Bangladesh is about deprivation and destitution of large sections of the population, with their lives plunged into darkness,' said Islam. 'The government of Bangladesh is committed to face the challenges of climate change.'

United Kingdom secretary of state Douglas Alexander also announced £75 million (around US$132 million) of grant funding from the UK to help Bangladesh fund its mitigation strategies.

Bangladesh and the United Kingdom sealed their long-term commitment to combating climate change by signing a joint document outlining the need to urgently address the challenges and threats posed.

Bangladesh steps up to tackle climate change

Bangladesh has launched a comprehensive action plan to ensure the country's resilience to climate change over the next decade.

The 2009—2018 plan was presented yesterday (10 September) during the UK—Bangladesh Climate Change Conference in London, United Kingdom.

Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, particularly the threat of increased flooding and storms due to its position in the delta of three large rivers — the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna — as well as facing the Bay of Bengal.

Addressing the conference via video message, Fakhruddin Ahmed, head of the Bangladesh government, said the country was on track for achieving the Millennium Development Goals but 'climate change has the potential to wreak havoc on our efforts.'

A major focus of the plan is on research to better estimate and monitor the scale and timing of climate change impacts. The plan calls for more accurate modelling scenarios at a regional and national level, particularly for the predicted hydrological impact on the Ganges—Brahmaputra—Meghna delta system.

It also targets research into the impacts of climate change on the macro-economy and linkages between climate change, poverty and health to identify suitable interventions.

The plan also seeks to establish a Centre for Research and Knowledge Management on Climate Change to ensure Bangladesh has access to the latest ideas and technologies from around the world.

Other measures outlined include agricultural research to develop crop varieties resistant to flooding, drought and salinity, better surveillance systems for new and existing disease risks, and improving early warning systems for storm surges and floods.

The exact costs of the plan are still being worked out, but the government estimates that US$500 million will be needed for the first two years, and US$5 billion needed for the first 5 years.

To address this, the government has established a National Climate Change Fund, injecting an initial US$45 million. In addition, a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) was announced at the conference for contributions from international donors.

Mirza Azizul Islam, Bangladesh's Finance Adviser, called for a 'new sense of urgency' and appealed to all development partners to contribute generously to the trust fund, adding that the funds currently available are grossly inadequate.

'Climate change in Bangladesh is about deprivation and destitution of large sections of the population, with their lives plunged into darkness,' said Islam. 'The government of Bangladesh is committed to face the challenges of climate change.'

United Kingdom secretary of state Douglas Alexander also announced £75 million (around US$132 million) of grant funding from the UK to help Bangladesh fund its mitigation strategies.

Bangladesh and the United Kingdom sealed their long-term commitment to combating climate change by signing a joint document outlining the need to urgently address the challenges and threats posed.

Most Expencive Deal

One commonly repeated argument for doing something about climate change sounds compelling, but turns out to be almost fraudulent. It is based on comparing the cost of action with the cost of inaction, and almost every major politician in the world uses it.

The president of the European commission, José Manuel Barroso, for example, used this argument when he presented the European Union's proposal to tackle climate change earlier this year. The EU promised to cut its carbon emissions by 20% by 2020, at a cost that the commission's own estimates put at about 0.5% of GDP, or roughly €60bn per year. This is obviously a hefty price tag – at least a 50% increase in the total cost of the EU – and it will likely be much higher (the commission has previously estimated the cost to be double its current estimate).

But Barroso's punchline was that "the cost is low compared to the high price of inaction". In fact, he forecasted that the price of doing nothing "could even approach 20% of GDP". (Never mind that this cost estimate is probably wildly overestimated – most models show about 3% damages.)

So there you have it. Of course, politicians should be willing to spend 0.5% of GDP to avoid a 20% cost of GDP. This sounds eminently sensible – until you realise that Barroso is comparing two entirely different issues.

The 0.5%-of-GDP expense will reduce emissions ever so slightly (if everyone in the EU actually fulfills their requirements for the rest of the century, global emissions will fall by about 4%). This would reduce the temperature increase expected by the end of the century by just five-hundredths of a degree Celsius. Thus, the EU's immensely ambitious programme will not stop or even significantly impact global warming.

In other words, if Barroso fears costs of 20% of GDP in the year 2100, the 0.5% payment every year of this century will do virtually nothing to change that cost. We would still have to pay by the end of the century, only now we would also have made ourselves poorer in the 90 years preceding it.

The sleight of hand works because we assume that the action will cancel all the effects of inaction, whereas of course, nothing like that is true. This becomes much clearer if we substitute much smaller action than Barroso envisions.

For example, say that the EU decides to put up a diamond-studded wind turbine at the Berlaymont headquarters, which will save one tonne of CO2 each year. The cost will be $1bn, but the EU says that this is incredibly cheap when compared to the cost of inaction on climate change, which will run into the trillions. It should be obvious that the $1bn windmill doesn't negate the trillions of dollars of damage from climate change that we still have to pay by the end of the century.

The EU's argument is similar to advising a man with a gangrenous leg that paying $50,000 for an aspirin is a good deal because the cost compares favorably to the cost of inaction, which is losing the leg. Of course, the aspirin doesn't prevent that outcome. The inaction argument is really terribly negligent, because it causes us to recommend aspirin and lose sight of smarter actions that might actually save the leg.

Likewise, it is negligent to focus on inefficiently cutting CO2 now because of costs in the distant future that in reality will not be avoided. It stops us from focusing on long-term strategies like investment in energy research and development that would actually solve climate change, and at a much lower cost.

If Barroso were alone, perhaps we could let his statement go, but the same argument is used again and again by influential politicians. Germany's Angela Merkel says it "makes economic sense" to cut CO2, because the "the economic consequences of inaction will be dramatic for us all." Australia's Kevin Rudd agrees that "the cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action." United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon has gone on record with the exact same words. In the United States, both John McCain and Barack Obama use the cost of inaction as a pivotal reason to support carbon cuts.

California senator Diane Feinstein argues that we should curb carbon emissions because the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for much of California's drinking water, will be reduced by 40% by 2050 due to global warming. What she fails to tell us is that even a substantial reduction in emissions – at a high cost – will have an immeasurable effect on snowmelt by 2050. Instead, we should perhaps invest in water storage facilities.

Likewise, when politicians fret that we will lose a significant proportion of polar bears by 2050, they use it as an argument for cutting carbon, but forget to tell us that doing so will have no measurable effect on polar bear populations. Instead, we should perhaps stop shooting the 300 polar bears we hunt each year.

The inaction argument makes us spend vast resources on policies that will do virtually nothing to deal with climate change, thereby diverting those resources from policies that could actually make an impact.

We would never accept medical practitioners advising ultra-expensive and ineffective aspirins for gangrene because the cost of aspirin outweighs the cost of losing the leg. Why, then, should we tolerate such fallacious arguments when debating the costliest public policy decision in the history of mankind?

TV boom may boost greenhouse effect

AN INDUSTRIAL chemical being used in ever larger quantities to make flat-screen TVs may be making global warming worse. However, because it's not covered by the Kyoto protocol, nobody knows by how much. The gas was first introduced as a measure to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but a prominent atmospheric chemist this week warned it could now be having the opposite effect.

The gas is nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). As a greenhouse gas it is 17,000 times as potent as carbon dioxide, molecule-for-molecule, yet is not covered by Kyoto because it was made in tiny amounts when the protocol was agreed in 1997.

Even today, no one is measuring how much reaches the atmosphere. The one certainty is that it is accumulating. In a new study, Michael Prather of the University of California, Irvine, calculates that it has a half-life in the atmosphere of 550 years.

NF3 production is "exploding", says ...

Polar Bear in Endangered Species Act (ESA) list

The polar bear was officially listed as threatened under the U.S. endangered species act (ESA) on May 14, 2008. This the first creature brought under the act's protection for habitat loss that is linked to global warming. The official reason given was loss of Arctic sea ice and predictions that the ice will continue to decrease. Although global warming has been identified by most atmospheric and polar scientists as the main reason for Arctic warming and melting of sea ice, the U.S. Interior Department did not use this as a reason and clearly signaled it would not apply the law to greenhouse gas emissions.

Dirk Kempthorne, Interior Secretary, specifically said the listing would not prevent any sea ice from melting and that he would "make certain the ESA isn't abused to make global warming policies." This despite clear language in the ESA to control any activity causing harm to a listed species and requiring government agencies specifically not to jeopardize species by their actions. The wording of the listing document appears to be an attempt of the government to list the bear due to clear evidence of shrinking habitat yet not take all the steps to limit the loss. It seems analogous to President Bush's notorious "signing statements" limiting his acceptance of a Congressional law.

This could set up another court challenge by NGOs like the Center for Biological Diversity which originally brought the proposal and took the Interior Dept to court twice to get action.

"Threatened" under the ESA means a plant or animal may soon become endangered (at immediate risk of going extinct) if actions are not taken to protect it and its habitat.

Fail to Tackle Climate Change : UK environmental campaign groups

The UK's leading environmental campaign groups have accused the main political parties of failing to prepare for the challenges of climate change.

The coalition of nine organisations says Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have switched focus from the green agenda to the economy.

Friends of the Earth and the National Trust are among those in the coalition.

The government has an incoherent and contradictory approach to green issues, its report says.

Waning leadership

Their report criticised the Conservatives for an "increasingly alarming" gap between their presentation on green issues and the substance of their policies.

The Liberal Democrats' traditional leadership on this issue has waned in the past year, it adds, but the party was also praised for its commitment to making the UK an energy independent and zero-carbon economy by 2050.

The coalition said the rise in fuel prices should have been used as a springboard to reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels.

And the report called on all the parties to say yes to meeting targets to source 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The government was praised for a number of initiatives such as the Climate Change Bill and avoiding a badger cull.

But the report claims that in the past 12 months politicians have focused their attentions on the economy at the expense of the environment.

It says: "The May local elections and the downturn were seen by some as marking the end of the environment as a public and political priority.

"That view is wrong. The public have not abandoned their concern for the environment."

'No vision'

Stephen Hale, director of environmental think tank the Green Alliance, said the only sustainable way out of a possible recession is to adopt policies that encourage a low-carbon economy.

Issues around energy, transport, land management and housing must be addressed, he said.

Mr Hale said: "None of the three main parties are currently showing the vision and courage to prepare the UK for the challenges ahead.

"There is no long-term route to prosperity and security unless our political leaders tackle climate change and protect the natural environment.

"In a time of rising fuel and food costs, the need for an ambitious approach to environmental policy has never been clearer."

'Greener and safer'

In response to the report, Environment Minister Phil Woolas said: "Government is committed to tackling environment issues and helping people through difficult economic times - it's not an either/or.

"Our drive to increase energy efficiency in homes throughout the country illustrates that."

Shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth said: "We are continuing to take forward important policy proposals to make Britain greener and safer, including a major initiative on creating a low- carbon economy."

The coalition includes Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Friends of the Earth, Green Alliance, Greenpeace, National Trust, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust and the WWF.

Flooding compensation

Meanwhile, Mr Woolas has said it is "morally right" to help people whose homes are affected by flooding or coastal erosion.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he did not rule out direct compensation for families hit by the effects of climate change.

"If people have bought a house and the situation has changed then clearly it is morally right that they should be helped," said Mr Woolas.

However, he said a range of solutions would be needed for different parts of the country and indicated that people who bought houses they "reasonably would have known" were in high-risk areas were unlikely to be compensated.

Garnaut responds to vocal scientist critics

ROSS Garnaut has written to senior Australian scientists and environmental leaders rejecting their claims that his latest report on climate change is weak.

The heads of WWF, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Institute, as well as key UN scientific advisers, confirmed Professor Garnaut - the Rudd Government's adviser on climate change - had written to them on Tuesday, arguing that his advice that the world is not ready to sign a climate agreement that will avoid the risk of catastrophic climate change is accurate and realistic.

Professor David Karoly, who worked on the UN's Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change and savaged the Garnaut report in The Age on Tuesday, received a letter. After reading Professor Garnaut's letter, Professor Karoly was still not convinced by his arguments. "I don't think we misinterpreted him," he said. "He's giving in."

Professor Karoly said on Tuesday that the 10% cut in emissions by 2020 recommended by Professor Garnaut was insufficient.

Professor Garnaut's report argued that Australia should support a new global climate agreement in 2009 that aimed to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at the dangerous level of 550 parts per million.

He acknowledged that most scientists believed these concentrations would lead to a possible rise in global temperatures of more than 3 degrees and risked catastrophic climate change.

In his letter Professor Garnaut writes: "I note your views that I have been too pessimistic and that an effective agreement around 450 parts per million is possible at Copenhagen at the end of 2009. I hope it is obvious from the various publications of the review that I would be delighted if there were a sound basis for this alternative judgement, but there is not."

The head of WWF, Greg Bourne, said yesterday he also was not convinced by Professor Garnaut's arguments, which would mean Australia accepting a "weak" target to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions only 10% by 2020 on 2000 levels, while European countries have agreed to cut 20% by 2020.

John Connor, of the Climate Institute, and Don Henry, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, also remain critical.

Climate change linked to increased military threats

Defence Force chiefs were told last night they could be called on to defend ''Fortress Australia'' from starving outsiders under the worst-case scenarios for global warming.

The security implications of climate change were delivered to the military's top brass at the Australian Defence Force Academy by former director of The Australia Institute Professor Clive Hamilton.

The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, was present for the speech, along with leading figures from the army, navy and air force.

Professor Hamilton told his high-profile audience a leaked Pentagon report four years ago canvassed scenarios in which Australia and the United States were ''likely to build defensive fortresses'' around their countries to protect their resources from desperate outsiders and aggressive states caused by rapid climate change.

''It analysed the prospects for aggression 'if carrying capacities everywhere were suddenly lowered drastically by abrupt climate change','' he said.

''Humanity would revert to the norm of constant battles for diminishing resources ... Once again warfare would define human life.

Professor Hamilton said the world had only 12 months to decide on combined action or risk ''runaway'' climate change . ''We have one last chance to avoid the worst, and it comes at the Copenhagen conference at the end of 2009,'' he said.

Change of Season

While the inter National community deliberates in Accra on adaptation and mitigation strategies on climate change, there is a huge task at hand for the public health fraternity. Stressed at the ongoing meeting of the ministers of health of the WHO’s Regional Committee for South East Asia, convened to discuss the challenges posed to disease control by climate change, was that public health issues need to be urgently shifted to the centre of the climate change agenda. Climate change has already begun to profoundly impact the availability of water, food, shelter and disturb socio-economic conditions that are all fundamental determinants of health. For urban health practitioners, climate change is an even greater worry; the worst sufferers will be city dwellers, especially in developing countries.

Research has shown that the clearing of trees and vegetation for development, as well as more concrete structures, the heat generated by air conditioners and industry exhaust equipment, air pollution due to vehicular emissions and other such urban features lead to cities trapping far more heat than the countryside that they replace, making the earth’s surface hotter. While rapid urbanisation to a major extent may be blamed for causing much of global warming, at the same time, the fact is that urban dwellers may also suffer the most from it.

With climate change, millions of people will be at risk from illnesses in a warming World beset by water stress. Dry conditions will reduce the water available for drinking and sanitary purposes further in urban areas which can trigger outbreaks of cholera, diarrhoea, dengue and chikungunya. Urban areas also present a greater risk of flooding when extreme rainfall occurs; lack of open space prevents water from infiltrating into the s Oil . Lately, both Delhi and Mumbai have seen what a few days — sometimes mere hours — of rain can do to our urban life. Further, the transmission seasons of several vector-borne and water-borne diseases — dengue, malaria, jaundice, typhoid — will be prolonged in a warming World . These climate-sensitive diseases are among the largest global killers already. We are also witnessing alteration in their geographic range, which means that these diseases are reaching regions that lack population immunity and/or a strong public health infrastructure.

Rising temperatures and heat waves will also increase the number of heat-related deaths and skin diseases. There are already high levels of malnutrition and food insecurity among the urban poor; food shortage...

Meat: Making Global Warming Worse

Need another reason to feel guilty about feeding your children that Happy Meal — aside from the fat, the calories and that voice in your head asking why you can't be bothered to actually cook a well-balanced meal now and then? Rajendra Pachauri would like to offer you one. The head of the U.N.'s Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Pachauri on Monday urged people around the world to cut back on meat in order to combat climate change. "Give up meat for one day [per week] at least initially, and decrease it from there," Pachauri told Britain's Observer newspaper. "In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity." So, that addiction to pork and beef isn't just clogging your arteries; it's flame-broiling the earth, too.

By the numbers, Pachauri is absolutely right. In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of livestock's contribution to global warming come from deforestation, as the growing demand for meat results in trees being cut down to make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed. Livestock takes up a lot of space — nearly one-third of the earth's entire landmass. In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of former forest cover has been converted for grazing. Lost forest cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while they're alive — and when they're burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is released back into the atmosphere.

Then there's manure — all that animal waste generates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has 296 times the warming effect of CO2. And of course, there is cow flatulence: as cattle digest grass or grain, they produce methane gas, of which they expel up to 200 L a day. Given that there are 100 million cattle in the U.S. alone, and that methane has 23 times the warming impact of CO2, the gas adds up.

The worrisome news is that as the world economy grows, so does global meat consumption. The average person in the industrialized world eats more than 176 lb. of meat annually, compared with around 66 lb. consumed by the average resident of the developing world. As developing nations get richer, one of the first things citizens spend their extra income on is a more meat-rich diet. Whereas pork would once have been a rare luxury in China, today even the relatively poor in the country's cities can afford a little meat at almost every meal — so much so that pork imports to China rose more than 900% through the first four months of the year. In 2008, global meat production is expected to top 280 million tons, and that figure could nearly double by 2050.

Producing all that meat will do more than just warm the world; it will also raise pressure on land resources. The FAO estimates that about 20% of the planet's pastureland has been degraded by grazing animals, and increased demand for meat means increased demand for animal feed — much of the world's grain production is fed to animals rather than to humans. (The global spike in grain prices over the past year is in large part due to the impact on grain supplies of the growing demand for meat.) The expanded production of meat has been facilitated by industrial feedlots, which bleed antibiotics and other noxious chemicals. And of course, the human health impact of too much meat can be seen in everything from bloated waistlines in America to rising rates of cardiovascular disease in developing nations, where heart attacks were once as rare as a T-bone steak.

So is Pachauri right that going vegetarian can save the planet? (At least the 68-year-old Indian economist practices what he preaches.) It's true that giving up that average 176 lb. of meat a year is one of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual. You can drive a more fuel-efficient car, or install compact fluorescent lightbulbs, or improve your insulation, but unless you intend to hunt wild buffalo and boar, there's really no green way to get meat — although organic, locally farmed beef or chicken is better than its factory-raised equivalents. The geophysicists Gidon Eschel and Pamela Martin have estimated that if every American reduced meat consumption by just 20%, the greenhouse gas savings would be the same as if we all switched from a normal sedan to a hybrid Prius.

Still, Pachauri is just slightly off. It's a tactical mistake, first of all, to focus global warming action on personal restrictions. The developed world could cut back hugely on its meat consumption, but those gains would be largely swallowed up — sorry — by the developing world, which isn't likely to give up its newly acquired taste for cheeseburgers and pork. The same goes for energy use, or travel. It's great for magazines to come up with 51 ways you can save the environment, but relying on individuals to voluntarily change their behavior is nowhere near as effective as political change aimed at speeding the transition to an economy far less carbon-intensive than our current one. So, by all means cut back on the burgers — I recommend a nice deep-fried scorpion — but remember that your choices from the takeout menu will matter less than the choices made by those who inherit the White House next January.

New Zealand passes climate change law

Wellington - The New Zealand Parliament on Thursday passed a law designed to combat global warming that was expected to raise the cost of just about everything and nobody knows by how much. The law establishing a trading scheme that puts a price on emissions of greenhouse gases is bitterly opposed by most of New Zealand's business sectors, especially farmers, whose methane-belching animals are responsible for nearly half the country's emissions.

Along with New Zealand's small but significant steel and aluminium producers, the farmers said the cost of the law would put them at a disadvantage against their international competitors, whose governments are not in so much of a hurry to fight climate change.

But Prime Minister Helen Clark - who sees the emissions-trading scheme as the defining act of her 9-year-old Labour Party-led administration, which opinion polls indicated is doomed to defeat at the election she must call by mid-November - was defiant to the last.

Whatever the price, the alternative of doing nothing would cost New Zealand more in the long run, she argued.

Despite being a small country of just more than 4 million people, New Zealand is one of the world's biggest exporters of dairy products, meat and kiwi fruit and a prime tourist destination.

Clark said if it did not take a lead in dealing with climate change, it risked being boycotted as a "dirty producer" by world consumers and tourists who are increasingly environmentally conscious.

She said New Zealand was already being targeted by environmentalists in Britain who were urging consumers not to buy New Zealand products or fly to the country for vacations because of the carbon footprint they would leave.

The legislation was passed in a 63-57 vote in the House of Representatives with the main opposition conservative National Party vowing to change it radically inside nine months if it wins the election.

The National Party supported the legislation when it was first introduced early this year but backed off as opposition from farmers and businesses mounted with warnings of soaring energy costs that could force big industry to relocate overseas and massive job losses.

Environmentalists said the law did not go far enough and was unfair to poor New Zealanders. The Green Party only supported it after negotiating a 1-billion-New Zealand-dollar (about 670-million-US-dollar) compensation package, including subsidies to insulate homes and help pay increased power costs.

The emissions-trading scheme sets limits on the amount of greenhouse gases all sectors of the economy can emit, with those breaching their limits having to buy credits from those below their maximum levels.

It is being introduced gradually with the giant forestry sector accounting for its emissions this year, energy joining up in 2010, transport a year later and the critical agricultural industry being given breathing space until 2013.

Climate Change Minister David Parker told Parliament the scheme was fair and effective and would save the country hundreds of millions of dollars by penalizing polluters and rewarding those who cut emissions.

Climate change 'causing extreme waves'

In a report released today, researchers from the CSIRO said they had found a link between climate change and extreme weather off the southern coast.

An analysis of available data shows significant increases in wave heights in the Southern Ocean over the past 45 years, particularly during the southern hemisphere autumn and winter months, the report said.

The frequency of large wave events has also increased.

"Extreme wave conditions are greatest south of the Australian continent, associated with the passage of extra-tropical storms along Australia's southern margin," the report said.

The researchers also discovered a connection between an increase in the power of waves in northern Australia and the length and strength of monsoon seasons.

"Variability of wave power in northern Australia is potentially related to variability in the length and strength of the monsoon season," the report said.

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the research would improve understanding of how global warming might affect offshore waves and the potential impact on coastal zones.

"This study will help increase our understanding of the potential impacts to the coastal zone, as well as providing valuable information for those seeking to generate electricity from wave energy," Senator Wong said.

The report would also provide critical information for coastal zone managers to help them plan for the potential impacts of climate change, Senator Wong said.

Coal plant answer to climate change tested

Germany - Swedish energy company Vattenfall opened a small coal plant in Germany on Tuesday which will produce almost carbon-free power in a test of technology that could help the fight against climate change.

The project will produce enough electricity for a town of 20,000 people to pilot a process called carbon capture and storage (CCS), which supporters hope can tackle both energy security and climate change woes.

At 30 megawatts the pilot is still less than one tenth the size of a full-scale coal plant and commercial-scale tests of the technology are at least five years off, analysts say.

"We want to make electricity clean," said Lars Josefsson, chief executive of the Vattenfall Group. "This is an important milestone. It's going to be a marathon but we're committed."

Analysts welcomed the announcement.

"Everybody's always criticizing CCS for never having a fully working model. Well here's one fully working model," said Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at Edinburgh University and CCS expert.

"Maybe by 2013 you could predict a full size power station operating with CCS."

Coal is cheap and plentiful but also produces more heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) than energy sources such as oil, gas and renewables. CCS works by trapping those gases from coal plants and burying them in porous rocks underground.

A U.N. panel of climate experts says the technology could underpin the fight to slow rising temperatures and avert more powerful storms, droughts and rising seas.

CCS also has the support of many governments. But some environmental organizations say it is a distraction which will delay a global transition to renewable alternatives such as solar power, away from fossil fuels like coal, and accuse energy companies of making token investments.

"We're taking our responsibility seriously," said Josefsson at the inauguration of the 70 million euro ($98.92 million) plant built over two years which sits next to a conventional coal-fired plant 100 times as large.

"We're collecting data and hopefully within the next two years we'll decide whether to build two or three large CCS plants. But without CCS I don't think lignite has any future."

CONCERN

Cost is another concern -- CCS will add about half again or $1 billion to the capital cost of a full-scale power plant, according to industry estimates. If passed on to consumers that would raise power prices already at record levels.

Meanwhile leaks from store wells and pipelines of the invisible, odorless gas -- which can suffocate -- are a possible concern downplayed by analysts.

"We realize we're at the start of a long development process," said Josefsson. "The world needs this technology, in India and in China and in South Africa."

The plant will use an oxyfuel boiler. Pure oxygen will be injected into the boiler and a cloud of powdered lignite will be added to produce heat, water vapor and CO2. The CO2 will be separated, condensed to a fraction of is volume and stored in cylinders and buried deep underground.

Australian PM's climate change proven to be hot air

Sydney: No single issue better illustrates the Rudd Government's gross incompetence than its blindly ideological approach to the question of climate change.

Fortunately, and perhaps accidentally, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's own hand-picked climate change guru, Professor Ross Garnaut, has now driven a truck through its principal argument.

In the 10 months since Rudd, Treasurer Wayne Swan, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Environment Minister Peter Garrett have held office, the Government has constantly decried and denigrated as "irresponsible climate-change deniers" all who question their views .

The snide use of the word "denier" to link sceptics with those who deny the actuality of the Holocaust is so obvious it hardly deserves mention.

But its repeated usage is indicative of the gutter nature of the massive propaganda campaign waged by Rudd and his colleagues as they attempt to capitalise on their symbolic signing of the politically correct Kyoto Protocol.

Fixated with the flawed reports prepared by the totally partisan Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and falsely claiming there is a "consensus" among climate scientists that human activity is responsible for global warming, Rudd has pushed a warped agenda based on extraordinarily dubious modelling.

And such an agenda can, in all reality, have no effect on the planet, let alone the behaviour of other nations.

For the whole of their period in office, federal Labor's mantra has been simple: the cost of doing nothing about climate change will be greater than the cost of doing something.

Now, however, former foreign affairs mentor Professor Garnaut has revealed that mantra is false.

First, though, let's look at Labor's determination to repeat that chorus, as captured by Hansard:

"All are familiar with the fact that the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change" (Rudd, June 26).

"This government does understand that the cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the cost of action" (Swan, June 26).

"It is the case that the economic costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action" (Swan, June 24).

"Those of us on this side of the chamber understand that the economic costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of responsible action now" (Wong, June 24).

"On the question of emissions trading, we on this side of the House know a simple fact and it is this: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change" (Rudd, June 23).

"Australians recognise that tackling climate change will not be painless, but I think the Australian people have a very clear understanding that, as I said, the cost of inaction would be greater than the cost of responsible action now" (Wong, March 18).

"The fact of the matter is that it is the costs of inaction that outweigh the costs of action" (Garrett, March 17).

"And overall our view has long been, put in simple terms, that the costs of inaction on climate change are much greater than the costs of action" (Rudd, February 21).

"We on this side of the House recognise the costs of climate change and that the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action" (Swan, February 14).

But a comparison of tables taken from Professor Garnaut's July report and the paper he released on Friday shows that this is not so.

In his July 4 draft, he stated that the cost of no mitigation - that is, if no action were taken on so-called greenhouse gases - would be minus 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2020.

In his new paper he presents three scenarios for carbon-emission reductions by 2020.

At an "as-soon-as-possible" level of 450 ppm (parts per million) he says the cost would be minus 1.6 per cent of GDP.

At the "first best" conditional offer of 550 ppm the cost would be minus 1.1 per cent of GDP.

If a second-best "Copenhagen compromise" was followed, the cost would be minus 1.3 per cent of GDP.

It is highly revealing that in presenting his first specific trajectories and estimated costs of emissions reduction, Professor Garnaut has found that the cost of reducing emissions is greater than the cost of doing nothing - although that is not how he sold his paper.

It is Rudd who is the denialist on the economics of climate change, if Professor Garnaut is to be believed.

The costs of action outweigh the costs of inaction.

Rudd and Swan have already warned Australians they face increasing unemployment.

To that must be added the costs of Labor's as-yet unspecific plans to deal with its over-hyped catastrophic view of climate change.

Professor Garnaut's report indicates Labor's mantra on climate change to be false.

Why does the ALP want to sacrifice the economy for a lie?

Green activists criticise parties

The main political parties have let the green agenda slip in the past year despite environmental threats increasing, a report by the UK's major green groups has said.

The Fit for the Future study, which analysed the green performance of all three parties over the past year, said many politicians believed the economic downturn made action on the environment less of a priority.

But the review by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Friends of the Earth, Green Alliance, Greenpeace, National Trust, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust and WWF said the public had not abandoned green issues - and MPs should not either.

The only way out of the downturn was an ambitious climate change strategy that addressed energy, transport, land management, housing and the economy, the second annual review of the parties' performance said.

The three parties must drastically improve their green performance in the run-up to the next election, the environmental organisations urged.

The Labour Government's approach to the environment had become "incoherent and contradictory", the report said.

On the upside, the Government had introduced the Climate Change Bill and a draft strategy on renewable energy but there were concerns about the failure to rule out a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, Kent, and Gordon Brown's trip to Jeddah to plead for higher oil production.

The Government won praise for protecting the natural world through measures such as the Marine Bill, avoiding a badger cull and protecting Lyme Bay from damaging fishing practices. But the green groups said the Government should have used rises in fuel prices to push through a reduction in the UK's dependence on fossil fuels, and criticised the "inadequate" action on biofuels.

The Conservatives came under fire for an "increasingly alarming" gap between their green aspirations and commitments, and for failing to mention the environment or climate change in their statement on priorities for a future government following the May elections. The party was also criticised for its negative attitude to green taxes and for sidelining its quality of life review which set out a green agenda, but they did win support for saying no to dirty coal.

Even the Liberal Democrats, traditionally strong on the environment, have seen their lead on green issues "wane" at points during the year. But they were applauded for Nick Clegg's commitment to making the UK energy independent and zero carbon by 2050, a move which was described in the report as "brave and bold", and for strengthening the Climate Change Bill.

Political parties seen failing on climate

LONDON - Britain's three main political parties are failing to address climate change as the economic downturn starts to take precedence, the country's leading environmental organisations said on Wednesday.

The recent surge in world oil prices -- and with it domestic fuel bills -- proved that now was the time for the country to reduce dependence on imported energy and produce more of its own, clean power, they added.

"None of the three main political parties are currently showing the vision and courage to prepare the UK for the challenges ahead," said Stephen Hale, director of the Green Alliance lobby group which is one of the nine signatory organisations to the report.

"In a time of rising fuel and food costs, the need for an ambitious approach to environmental policy has never been clearer," he added.

The report "Fit For The Future? The Green Standard 2007-08 Review of the Parties" calls on Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to use the upcoming party conference season to recommit to tackling global warming.

It said the government's approach was "contradictory and incoherent", putting energy security above climate change and opening the way for new coal-fired power stations without the technology to cut their carbon emissions.

This, it said, would undermine the government's own plans in legislation going through parliament to cut national emissions of climate warming carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050.

The Conservatives had made the right noises under leader David Cameron but failed to produce any concrete plans or policies, the report said.

With a general election due within 20 months, the party urgently needed to put flesh on its environmental rhetoric.

The Liberal Democrats, traditionally the front-runners on developing environmental policies, had also gone noticeably quiet on the issue in recent months, the report said.

It urged the three parties to promise to stick to the country's European Union target of producing 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources like wind and waves by 2020.

The government has been trying in recent months to negotiate a relaxation in this tough requirement.

The report also called on the government to come up with a major public investment programme for energy efficiency and an improvement in household energy performance, a rejection of unabated coal-fired power plants and no airport expansion.

"The party conference speeches by the three party leaders will be an important test of their ability to lead the UK to a low-carbon future," said Hale.

The report's signatories are Green Alliance, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF-UK, The Wildlife Trusts, The Woodland Trust, RSPB, The National Trust and CPRE.

4 former PMs join call for climate change action

Two days into the campaign for the Oct. 14 federal election, four former prime ministers have joined a coalition of Canadians demanding urgent action on climate change.

The group of about 60 business people, academics and environmentalists calling themselves Canadians for Climate Leadership is set to release a document Tuesday entitled Time To Get Serious on Climate Change.

The report calls for a $30-a-tonne price tag on emissions, and says a "staggering" investment in green technologies is required.

The document has been signed by four former prime ministers, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, both Progressive Conservatives, and Liberals Paul Martin and John Turner.

"We simply can't afford another round of posturing and denial in this next election," said Clark in a news release Monday.

"Climate change shouldn't be dealt with as a political football," Nova Scotia businessman John Roy, who helped draft the report, told CBC news.

The report stops short of endorsing the Liberals' Green Shift carbon plan, which would offset a tax on emissions with income tax cuts, but Roy said funds generated by an emissions tax must be redistributed to those who would be hit the hardest.

The names of Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney are conspicuously absent from the document, even though both were contacted by the group, Roy told the Globe and Mail.

Chrétien was not immediately available for comment and a Mulroney spokesman said staff in his Montreal office indicated they had no recollection of receiving such a request.

UK to aid Bangladesh £75m on Climate Change

Britain is to give Bangladesh £75m as part of a flagship fund to help millions of people adapt to climate change.

The money will go towards projects that help people survive the worst affects of climate change, such as building new embankments or helping farmers move from rice to crab farming.

Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, with 70 million people at risk of flooding by 2050.

In a conference at the Royal Geographical Society, Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, said development is not just about social and economic issues but tacking huge changes in the environment.

It signals a new direction for international development for Britain towards helping poorer countries deal with global warming.

"Climate change is today's crisis, not tomorrow's risk, and is already affecting millions of people in Bangladesh," Mr Alexander said.

"But Bangladesh is resilient and is setting an example to other vulnerable countries with its innovative approach to adapting to the changing climate."

Mr Alexander also signed a joint declaration with Bangladesh calling for the international community to sign up to a new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen in 2009.

He said: "UK and Bangladesh are announcing a new partnership calling for a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen, leading to the stabilisation of greenhouse gases at a level that avoids dangerous climate change - and benefits some of the world's poorest people."

The £75m, which is in addition to development aid, includes £60m for helping people adapt to climate change and £12m for the disaster management programme.

It also includes £3m for research which will help bolster Bangladesh's arguments in international negotiations.

Bangladesh has set up a fund to help fight tackle climate change that will include the money from Britain as well as other donors and £25m per year from the country's own government.

Other global funds to help poor countries deal with climate change are expected to be set up in the run up to the new Kyoto agreement.

Dr Mirza Islam, Bangladesh's finance adviser, said countries like Bangladesh need help from the international community to adapt to climate change.

"Least Developed Countries (LDCs), including Bangladesh, need immediate international support to build their resilience to global warming and climate change," he said.

"The resources currently available for adaptation are grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the LDCs who bear the brunt of increased climate variability and unpredictability resulting from climate change.

"The effects of climate change will severely constrain our ability to attain the high rates of economic growth needed to sustain development gains. We want a new sense of urgency to support Bangladesh in our search for a better tomorrow.

"This is why today, we are presenting our Climate Change Action Plan and calling upon the international community to assist Bangladesh by providing predictable, long-term financing for this plan and also by pushing for a meaningful agreement at Copenhagen."

Time to aim high on climate change

The latest report on climate change by the economics professor Ross Garnaut is the most disheartening government report I've read. It tells us how hugely destructive climate change is likely to be, but doubts that the world's governments will be able to agree on effective action to halt it. Now you know why economics is called the dismal science.

Garnaut quotes an authoritative American study of the consequences if nothing is done to fight climate change and average temperatures rise by 5 or 6 degrees by the end of this century.

Such a change would be "catastrophic", posing "almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggled to adapt". "The collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilise virtually every aspect of modern life," the study concluded.

Among the destruction would be the extinction of more than half the world's species. The Great Barrier Reef and other coral formations would almost certainly be killed and much Australian farmland rendered useless.

Worse, the Greenland ice sheet and parts of Antarctica would be highly likely to melt, greatly raising the sea level and inundating coastal areas in Australia and many other countries. These changes would be irreversible.

Garnaut says that to reduce these risks to acceptable levels, we need agreement and action by all the major countries to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million - although 400 would be better.

(Note that we've already reached 455 parts per million, so we'd go well above the 450 target before eventually getting back down to it.)

But Garnaut doubts that any comprehensive agreement will be forthcoming from the post-Kyoto negotiations at Copenhagen in December next year or in negotiations soon after.

Summoning all the optimism at a dismal scientist's disposal, however, he says "there is a chance, just a chance, that humanity will act in time and in ways that reduce the risks of climate change to acceptable levels".

But don't get your hopes up, because time's running out. "Opportunities to hold risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels diminish rapidly after 2013 if no major developing economies are accepting constraints to hold emissions significantly below business as usual by that time."

There you see the source of Garnaut's pessimism: the rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions by the developing countries in general, and China in particular.

He asserts that the best hope of achieving a comprehensive global agreement would be to settle for a target of stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases at 550 parts per million.

The trouble with this, however, is that such a level would still leave high risks of damage to the reef and farmland and reaching tipping points on ice melting - as Garnaut readily concedes.

This is the reason for the strong criticism of Garnaut's recommendations from environmentalists and some scientists. It's not that he doubted the scientists' warnings, or got his calculations wrong, or said the loss of economic growth would be too high a price to pay, but that he hasn't been ambitious enough in the bargaining position he wants Australia to take to Copenhagen.

The critics think we should aim high and let others beat us down from there rather than aim low and end up lower.

I agree. Our goal can't be to cut our emissions hard for its own sake. Without an effective agreement by all major emitters, what we do makes no difference. So all our effort must go into helping to achieve such an agreement, and that means being willing to put an offer of big cuts on the table.

Garnaut argues eloquently that what we offer to do matters, that other countries will be watching us closely and that we can have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of negotiations.

Great. Let's do it.

Garnaut says that for a global agreement on a target of 550 parts per million, we should offer to cut our emissions in 2020 by 10 per cent of their level in 2000. For a target of 450, we should offer to cut them by 25 per cent in 2020.

So Kevin Rudd could answer much of the criticism - and make a much more constructive contribution to the negotiations - by advocating the lower, tougher target with the greater cut.

Garnaut's calculations show that the increased degree of adjustment and loss of economic growth involved in cutting emissions by 25 per cent rather than 10 per cent would be surprisingly small.

But Garnaut has made his recommended cut of 10 per cent look smaller and easier than it really is by proposing that we advocate a move to a system where the size of each country's reduction in emissions is set in a way that leads over the long term to all countries accepting roughly the same size cuts when expressed as cuts per person.

In other words, he wants account to be taken of population growth, with countries with growing populations allowed to make smaller cuts in total emissions while countries with declining populations are required to make larger cuts in total emissions.

Unless you believe the system should create an incentive for countries to reduce their birthrate - or that migration makes a significant difference to global emissions - this is a fair and sensible idea. And the developing countries want it.

But it favours countries such as Australia, the United States and India, while disadvantaging Western Europe and Japan.

And it makes our offer of a 10 per cent cut in our total emissions by 2020 look a weaker effort than it is. That translates to a cut of 30 per cent per person, while a 25 per cent total cut translates to 40 per cent per person (that's the surprisingly small difference I mentioned).

The European Union has made an unconditional offer to cut its total emissions by 20 per cent, whereas Garnaut says we should offer unconditional cuts of a pathetic 5 per cent.

But get this: translated into cuts per person, the EU's 20 per cent shrinks to 17 per cent whereas our 5 per cent expands to 25 per cent. Now who's not trying?

With one stroke, Garnaut has given unwarranted offence to environmentalists while giving false comfort to our short-sighted and selfish big business lobby.

Bangladesh on climate change

Britain and Bangladesh will jointly hold a high-level conference on climate change on Wednesday in London to launch a possible Bangladesh-specific climate change action plan and trust fund in line with the Bali Declaration.

Finance Adviser Mirza Azizul Islam and Environment Special Assistant Raja Devasish Roy will present a strategy and action plan, including plans to start a billion dollar multi-donor trust fund, to combat climate change.

"At the conference we hope to present a strategy and an action plan which is in the final stage at this moment," said Devasish in a statement, adding that the strategy outlines how climate change issues will be mainstreamed towards development over 10 years.

British International Development Minister Douglas Alexander and World Bank Managing Director Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala will attend the conference along with 200 other participants including speakers from vulnerable countries, donors, private sector, academia and NGOs.

The joint effort by the two countries will try to link mitigating and adapting to climate changes with meeting the Millennium Development Goals and overall development.

The government consulted selected members of the civil society, private sector and donors to draw up the strategy to identify potential physical impacts of climate change.

“The main concern raised is that the pace of climate change could overwhelm development efforts and reverse the gains of recent decades," said a government statement. The strategy calls on donors to support Bangladesh in developing climate change resilient capability.

The conference will focus on highlighting Bangladesh as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change effects and how Bangladeshis are already struggling to adapt to the effects.

Looking ahead to the new international climate change agreement expected to be signed in Copenhagen in 2009, the British and Bangladesh governments will highlight the need for global participation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and support climate change adaptation.

"The aim is to increase international focus on how Bangladesh is adapting to climate change and how much more needs to be done, both domestically and globally to stop it from worsening," said DFID Bangladesh chief Chris Austin.

He added that Britain would announce a significant package of support to address climate change in Bangladesh.

According to government projections, the country is likely to suffer from more intense and frequent floods, droughts, cyclones and storm surges, with adverse impact on agriculture, water security and health.

By 2050, rising sea levels could permanently flood 8 percent of the country with production of rice declining by 8 percent. Around 70 million people could be annually affected by floods with up to 12 million people being affected by drought in the dry season.