7 February 2016, Reuters U.N. agency seeks to end rift on new aircraft emission rules. Europe and the United States tried to bridge differences over emissions standards for aircraft on Sunday as global aviation leaders prepared to adopt new rules that could affect Boeing Co and Airbus Group’s production of the largest jetliners and freighters. Proposals being debated in Montreal by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations’ aviation agency, would force makers of the world’s largest passenger jets to upgrade or stop producing certain models as early as 2023, according to sources close to the negotiations and documents seen by Reuters. U.S. and European negotiators are trying to come up with the world’s first carbon dioxide emissions standards for aircraft as part of the industry’s contribution to efforts to combat climate change. Aviation was not included in the global climate deal agreed by a UN conference in Paris in December, but ICAO is trying to nail down the first of its two-part strategy as soon as Monday after six years of talks. It is due to finalize a market-based mechanism for all airlines later this year. Differences remain on where to place the bar on efficiency, with the United States and Canada pushing for more stringent targets than the European Union, while environmental groups have accused Europe of dragging its feet. “The CO2 standard will push industry to be as fuel-efficient as possible in all market conditions to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and the impact of aviation on climate change,” stated the Canadian paper presented at ICAO last week. Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
5 February 2016, Renew Economy, Five things we learned this week about Tony Turnbull/ Malcolm Abbott. Remember Tony Abbott? He was the leader of the Coalition government who thought that climate change was crap, dismantled the carbon price, trashed the Climate Council, and tried to dismantle the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corp. Tony Abbott brought investment in large scale renewable energy to a screeching halt by threatening to kill the renewable energy target, and then cutting it sharply, so encouraging a capital strike by major utilities. He also threatened to decimate the ranks of climate scientists through major cuts to the CSIRO. He said he hated the sight of wind farms, and said he thought coal was good for humanity. Remember Malcolm Turnbull? He was the former Opposition leader who enthusiastically launched the Beyond Zero Emissions Plan for a rapid transition to 100 per cent renewable energy in Australia in 2010, who spoke of the moral and economic importance of acting decisively on climate change, who spoke of Direct Action as “irresponsible” and a “fig leaf” for a climate policy, and who spoke of many fine Liberal policy initiatives in whole sentences. Nearly six months ago, something strange happened. Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister after Tony Abbott was dumped by his own party. But nothing changed. If the swap had been made by deed poll or a cardboard cut-out, the practical impact on climate and clean energy policies would have been no greater. The carbon price is still scrapped, the “fig leaf” remains the centrepiece of the great policy misnomer Direct Action; Australia’s emissions are surging to a record high; the capital strike by utilities continues and large scale renewables investment remains at zero; the legislation to repeal the CCA, ARENA and the CEFC has not been withdrawn; coal is still considered good for humanity, and even a solution to hunger; and 300 or so climate scientists have just been told, in the parlance of modern football, to “do one” by the CSIRO and find another job. Yet, in spite of all this, all Turnbull needs to do to be assured of election victory this year – in the absence of a credible opposition leader – is to make sure he does not actually morph into Tony Abbott. That means woo-ing the “soft centre” who chose to believe – like they did in 2013 – that Tony Abbott would “do the right thing”, despite all the evidence to the contrary. In fact, Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t even need to be Malcolm Turnbull. He certainly doesn’t need to drop Abbott’s policies, and appears to have made a promise not to. A new composite figure, call him Malcolm Abbott or Tony Turnbull, has emerged. How do we know this? Here’s five reasons why: Read More here
4 February 2016, Renew Economy, Adani puts Galilee coal mine on hold pending recovery in coal price. The Indian mining and energy giant Adani Enterprises appears to have put development of its massive and controversial $16 billion Carmichael coal mine in the Galilee Basin on hold – until coal prices show signs of a solid rebound. Which could be never. A report from brooking house Axis Capital in India this week quotes Adani management as saying that no capital expenditure is planned by the company for the project until there is “visibility” of a rebound in the coal price. Given that international coal prices are at record lows, and most analysts predict further falls as the commodity faces increased competition from renewables, and major economies turn away from coal due to environmental and climate impacts, it suggests that Adani accepts that the Galilee Basin may not get developed. This is in complete contrast to the comments attributed by Adani to the Queensland government, where it is apparently trying to sound optimistic about its go-ahead, suggesting it could re-start works within months. The Queensland Labor government this week gave environmental approval for the mine, despite massive concerns about its impact on the Great Barrier Reef and on climate targets. An Adani spokesman was quoted by the Brisbane Courier-Mail as saying: “The company is in a position to resume some of the development and other works on its projects within months of a mining lease being granted.” However, the Axis Capital report (an excerpt of which appears above) quoted Adani management as saying that no capital expenditure is planned for the Galille Basin mine this financial year – and none would be likely in future without “visibility of revival in global coal prices.” Given that the outlook for global coal prices is poor, this suggests that there will be no investment in Galilee, and underscores the difficulty it will have in attracting finance for a project that analysts says will not be economic. Even the conservative International Energy Agency said late last year that it did not expect carmichael and other projects in the Galilee Basin to be built. “It is not likely that the above listed projects will be operational by 2020, if ever,” it said in its latest medium term coal outlook.Read More here
3 February 2016, The Guardian, We’re drowning in cheap oil – yet still taxpayers prop up this toxic industry. Those of us who predicted, during the first years of this century, an imminent peak in global oil supplies could not have been more wrong. People like the energy consultant Daniel Yergin, with whom I disputed the topic, appear to have been right: growth, he said, would continue for many years, unless governments intervened. Oil appeared to peak in the United States in 1970, after which production fell for 40 years. That, we assumed, was the end of the story. But through fracking and horizontal drilling, production last year returned to the level it reached in 1969. Twelve years ago, the Texas oil tycoon T Boone Pickens announced that “never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels”. By the end of 2015, daily world production reached 97m . Instead of a collapse in the supply of oil, we confront the opposite crisis: we’re drowning in the stuff. The reasons for the price crash – an astonishing slide from $115 a barrel to less than $30 over the past 20 months – are complex: among them are weaker demand in China and a strong dollar. But an analysis by the World Bank finds that changes in supply have been a much greater factor than changes in demand. Oil production has almost doubled in Iraq, as well as in the US. Saudi Arabia has opened its taps, to try to destroy the competition and sustain its market share – a strategy that some peak oil advocates once argued was impossible. Read More here