Industry News-Power station and refinery workers vote for strike action

Some of Britain's largest refineries and power stations face being shut down after workers voted to stage official action over the hiring of cheaper foreign labour.

The result of the ballot – to be revealed tomorrow to the employers, including BP and Shell – follows months of "wildcat" action sparked by the use of foreign contractors at Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire.

The vast majority of 7,000 of GMB union members at seven sites, which include the nuclear complex at Sellafield and BP's North Sea gas pipeline, have voted in favour of industrial action, the Guardian has learned. They want employers to allow unions to carry out full audits of the contracts of all 30,000 workers. Unions accuse companies of reneging on national collective pay deals by hiring workers, often from overseas, on lower wages.

Fellow union Unite, which represents the remainder of the workforce, has also been balloting its members. It is expected to announce the result next week, but members are also understood to have balloted overwhelmingly in favour of action. GMB will wait for the result of Unite's ballot
before taking action.

Union officials will meet employer representatives for talks, but workers' leaders are determined to take action to prevent the further erosion of the principle of collective pay bargaining. Employers counter that being prevented from hiring foreign staff for lower wages than agreed under collective pay deals obstructs the movement of labour in the European Union.

Employment lawyers said that companies could attempt to overturn the ballot in the high court, which would make the planned industrial action illegal. Victory for employers would seriously undermine the union movement by limiting the use of its ultimate sanction, the right to strike.

Marc Meryon, a partner specialising in industrial relations law at Bircham Dyson Bell, said: "This is a conflict between two rights in European law: one is the freedom of movement of labour and the other is the right to go on strike. Employers are likely to have been taking advice over whether unions can have a lawful strike over employing foreign contractors on lower wages."

Wildcat strikes swept Britain's construction and energy industries at the beginning of the year after Total hired about 100 Italian and Portuguese contractors at its Lindsey refinery. Total insisted it was paying them the same wages but British workers questioned why they were not employed instead. The use of foreign labour became more of a flashpoint in March when it emerged that power firm Alstom was paying Polishconstruction workers at its Isle of Grain plant, in Kent, £4.50 an hour less than their British counterparts. The Engineering Construction Industry Association (ECIA) said at the time that the "incident resulted from a misinterpretation". The ECIA, which will meet representatives from GMB and Unite , did not return calls from the Guardian.

The seven sites at risk are: BP's Forties pipeline facility at Grangemouth; the Ineos refinery at Grangemouth; Sellafield; Shell's refinery at Stanlow; RWE's power plants at Staythorpe in Nottinghamshire and Aberthaw in South Glamorgan; and Chevron's refinery in Pembroke.

The unions are negotiating a new three-year pay deal. Employers are said to have agreed to the principle of setting up a national skills register which unions believe would identify what type of training in Britain is most needed. Unions also want a unemployed workers' register which companies must use to fill vacancies. Employers are said to have also agreed to allow unions to audit their workforces' pay, "except in exceptional circumstances" which unions believe is an unacceptable caveat. "We don't trust them anymore," said one union source.

Employers are required to pay the minimum wage to foreign workers but many circumvent collective pay agreements by using subsidiary companies to hire them on a lower wage.

For the full article click here

Political News-Policy decisions on waste management need to support Ireland’s competitiveness

The 2009 update of the Forfás waste benchmarking report published today (Wednesday, 19 August 2009) confirms that Ireland continues to perform poorly relative to a selection of competitor countries and regions in meeting the waste management needs of enterprise. Waste management charges are higher in Ireland than in comparator countries, progress on developing new facilities is slow and we have a heavy reliance on landfill.

Declan Hughes, Competitiveness Division Manager, Forfás said, “In the context of the unprecedented challenges facing the Irish economy and the need to ensure that businesses operating in Ireland are competitive to support sustainable, export-led growth, policy decisions in relation to waste management infrastructures and costs need to support national competitiveness as well as environmental sustainability policy objectives”.

“To improve Ireland’s waste management performance and to ensure the provision of cost competitive, environmentally friendly waste management services to business, we need to address the barriers to infrastructure investment, such as reducing planning delays, joining up regional waste plans and ending the high level of uncertainty about the future direction of waste policy,” he continued.

The Forfás report advocates that a decision on the future regulatory structure for the waste sector should be taken that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the State in the regulation and provision of waste management services at national, regional, and local level.

Other policy priorities identified by the report include the need to coordinate multiple regional waste management plans, to reduce planning lead times and to ensure that waste services are competitively priced.

Due to cost implications for business, the report recommends against further significant increases in the landfill levy and the introduction of an incineration levy, or a cap on incineration, until such time as adequate new alternative waste treatment facilities are operational. The report recommends the need for policy to focus on how favoured waste treatment solutions can be made more competitive.

The report also recognises the need for the State support agencies and enterprise to continue to work together to ensure that Ireland matches comparator countries in reducing the amount of waste generated.

Key Findings and Conclusions

* Ireland continues to have a relatively high reliance on landfill for waste treatment and Irish companies continue to have a limited choice of waste treatment solutions compared to their competitors. In 2007, almost two thirds of municipal and industrial waste was landfilled, putting Ireland in the bottom three of the ten countries/regions benchmarked. Despite significant gains in the past decade in improving Ireland’s recycling level, the levels of recycled municipal waste remained unchanged over the two year period 2006 and 2007.

* The cost of waste management in Ireland remains high when compared to competitors. While the market price for landfill gate fees has dropped more recently, landfill costs remain among the most expensive of the benchmarked countries/regions. Biological waste treatment fees in Ireland are the most expensive of the benchmarked countries/regions.

* Waste management infrastructure rollout in Ireland remains slow. A range of infrastructures necessary to meet Ireland’s waste management requirements need to be accelerated including: thermal treatment capacity to recover energy from municipal and industrial waste; thermal treatment or landfill capacity for hazardous waste; biological treatment (composting, anaerobic digestion) and reprocessing capacity for recovered materials (e.g. paper, glass, plastic, metal recycled materials).

Policy priorities from the report

Ireland’s comparatively poor performance in the cost and availability of waste management highlights the key policy challenges that need to be addressed to ensure waste is managed in an environmentally effective and cost efficient way. The international waste review by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which has been ongoing since July 2008 is vital to creating this policy certainty and addressing the barriers to infrastructure delivery but will need to take into account national competitiveness concerns.

The policy priorities which the Forfás report sets out are:

* Addressing the current high level of uncertainty about the future direction of waste policy which is leading to further delays in progressing infrastructure rollout (particularly private investment in waste infrastructure).

* Coordinating regional waste management plans to maximise economies of scale and enable the market to offer more competitive pricing to businesses and households. Ireland’s regionally based waste planning framework is hindering the delivery of cost effective, commercially viable waste treatment options as it tends to result in smaller scale, less commercially viable facilities than would be the case if infrastructure planning were done at a national level.

* Due to the already high cost of landfill in Ireland it is critical from a cost competitiveness perspective that further increases in the landfill levy are not introduced until adequate alternative waste treatment facilities are operational and that any incineration levy or cap on incineration should not be introduced until such time as adequate new alternative waste treatment facilities are well established and the use of landfill is reduced significantly. Consideration should instead be given to how favoured waste treatment solutions can be made more competitive
(for example, through the use of planning laws, development of relevant skills, research and development, etc.), rather than reducing the cost competitiveness of already high cost landfill.

* Continuing to fast track decisions on strategic infrastructure projects, including those in the waste management sector is of key importance. Delays in the planning process have had a negative impact on the timely delivery of key waste management infrastructure. While the introduction of the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006 has been a welcome step in addressing this issue, it is too early to determine if it has led to an improvement in planning timelines. The introduction of a specialist "Infrastructure Court", to deal with medium to large-scale planning and
construction cases, modelled on the successful Commercial Court (a list of the High Court that handles commercial cases of high value), could assist in cutting time and costs of delivery of our much-needed infrastructure.

* Continued and enhanced efforts will be required by Government Departments, agencies and business representative associations to ensure that businesses are fully aware of how best to exploit waste management reduction processes and technologies. Given that many organisations are already working with companies on a range of energy efficiencies, pollution prevention or resource conservation initiatives, continued efforts should also be made to develop a more integrated approach across a range of related issues.

Politics News-Bonn climate talks ‘augur badly’ for Copenhagen summit

The latest round of international climate talks in Bonn last week ended with disappointing results, raising concerns that a lack of progress is now effectively making a comprehensive climate deal in Copenhagen in December unrealistic.

Background:

The global community is currently engaged in negotiations to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bonn (29 March–8 April) launched negotiations for a draft agreement in view of the final conference in Copenhagen later this year.

The draft negotiating text, prepared ahead of June's second round of climate talks, revealed a divide between rich and poor countries. Developing nations are asking their industrialised counterparts to commit to sizeable CO2 reductions and to offer financial aid to help poor nations in their efforts. But developed countries have not made any firm commitments on funding, and only the EU has taken on a firm CO2 reduction target, which nevertheless fails to meet the developing world's demands.

In the meantime, the negotiating text has ballooned to hundreds of pages as all parties have reacted with amendments. No agreement was reached at the June talks on financing for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to global warming.

At the sidelines of a G8 meeting in Italy on 9 July, the Major Economies Forum, comprising 17 countries that are accountable for 75% of global emissions, agreed for the first time to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius but failed to come up with targets.

The informal talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 10-14 August were intended to cut down the negotiating text, which swelled to over 200 pages after the last talks in Bonn in June.

Only "selective" progress was made to consolidate the huge text, according to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stated. "If we continue at this rate, we are not going to make it," he warned.

Anders Turesson, climate negotiator for Sweden, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, agreed that progress is too slow. He argued that a dramatic change of gear will have to happen at the next round of talks in Bangkok in late September if a deal in Copenhagen is still in the cards.

Disagreement over who picks up the bill

Funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries remains the main stumbling bloc.

Poor countries that are just going through with industrialisation insist that rich nations have a historical responsibility for climate change and should assist them in acquiring technologies needed to halt greenhouse gas emissions. But the EU and other industrialised countries want the developing countries to chip in, at the very least, by compiling national emission reduction strategies, before they put any money on the table.

Another central disagreement remains the scale of each party contribution to emissions reductions in the spirit of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Little progress was made however last week to define the respective responsibilities.

Figures released by the UNFCCC on 11 August showed that the emission reduction pledges so far tabled by industrialised countries would result in a 15-21% cut from 1990 levels. But this falls far short of the 25-40% that the UN scientific body Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is necessary to halt global warming below the critical 2°C threshold.

Crucially, these numbers exclude the US, which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Including the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China would water down the overall goal as it only plans a return to 1990 emission levels by 2020 in its draft climate bill that pledges to cut emissions by 17% from 2005 levels.

Developing countries have called for the developed countries to shoulder their full responsibility by committing to at least 40% cuts in the midterm. The EU has so far made the most ambitious offer by pledging to raise its 20% goal to 30% in case other industrialised countries, notably the US, take on comparable targets.

The US has, however, clearly indicated that it will not budge from its 2020 targets, preferring to focus on the long-term instead.

"There has been a general feeling of unhappiness about the level of efforts that [developed nations] say they will take," China's climate ambassador Yu Qingtai told Reuters on the sidelines in Bonn. He accused the rich nations of trying to shift the burden to developing countries instead by demanding them to take action that might jeopardise their economic growth.

Industrialised countries, however, insist that developing countries make their contribution to the fight against climate change.

"We also need to see the cards of the developing countries," the EU's climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger argued. He said it is still not clear what these nations are prepared to contribute while developed countries have by and large already put their cards on the table.

Observers are now toning down their expectations for Copenhagen, as a complete agreement seems to be slipping out of sight in favour of a basic framework that could then be filled with substance in the course of 2010.

The next meeting carrying real political weight will be the Bangkok meeting at the end of September. Between now and the December climate conference in Copenhagen, only fifteen negotiating days remain, with the last meeting taking place in Barcelona in November.

Industry News-Green light for Cheshire waste fuelled power station

A new 95 Mega Watt power plant capable of turning 600,000 tonnes of waste each year into electricity and heat, to be built at Ince in Cheshire,was approved by the Government today.

The waste, which would have otherwise gone to landfill, will instead be used to generate electricity to power a new Resource Recovery Park.Excess electricity will also be exported to the National Grid.

The approval follows a public inquiry held into both the power plant and the Resource Recovery Park, which recommended that consent should be granted for the construction and operation of the plant and also that planning permission be given for the Resource Recovery Park.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Hunt said:

“We need to increase our use of renewable energy and to find solutions to the UK’s waste problem. This power plant will convert over half a million tonnes of waste each year into energy.

“The Inspector recommended the power plant be granted consent after a thorough public inquiry. I am satisfied that the mitigation measures to be put in place will protect the amenity of local villages.”

The separate planning permission for the Resource Recovery Park was also given today by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, John Denham.

Client News-MGT Power Announce 295 biomass power station at the Port of Tyne

MGT POWER ANNOUNCE PLANS FOR 295MW BIOMASS POWER STATION AT THE PORT OF TYNE

Date of Issue: Monday 10th August 2009

MGT Power Ltd today announce plans to develop a second major biomass power generation project at the Port of Tyne in the North Tyneside.

The proposed 295MW Tyne Renewable Energy Plant (Tyne REP) will be located on industrial land in the Port of Tyne, North Shields and is 10 kms east of Newcastle City Centre. The site is on the north bank of the River Tyne. The scheme will generate carbon neutral electricity for around 600,000 homes in the North East of England.

Subject to planning, this major plant, generating power from sustainable sources of biomass, is targeted for commercial operation in 2014.

Chris Moore, Director of MGT Power said: “With the Government committed to more renewable electricity generation over the next decade, our Tyne biomass project along with our consented scheme at Teesport will make a significant contribution to the Government’s targets. Large scale biomass projects can operate at baseload and each scheme will produce in one year as much green electricity as the largest 1,000MW wind farm project. Each biomass project will also save 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 from being emitted every year.”

As a first stage in the Tyne REP planning process, MGT Power has outlined details of the project in a “Scoping Document” which has been circulated to a large number of local and national organisations, including North Tyneside Council, the Environment Agency and the Department of Energy & Climate Change. The Scoping Document outlines the rationale for the project, the energy and planning policy framework and the technical studies and consultations that MGT Power will undertake as part of the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Chris Moore added: “Just as we did with our Tees Renewable Energy scheme, we are consulting widely from the start, both with key organisations and local people. We see the Tyne project as not only a major green power project for the UK, but one that will contribute positively to the local area and the North East economy, primarily in terms of local investment and employment. We intend to hold a public exhibition of our plans in September.”

North Tyneside Mayor, Linda Arkley, said: “Tyne REP would bring substantial benefits to the borough and the wider region, representing an investment of over £400 million, the creation of hundreds of construction jobs, future permanent on-site jobs, 300–400 indirect jobs and an annual spend of £30 million
in the local economy.

“We are committed to the regeneration of the North Bank of the Tyne and bringing jobs to the area. I welcome the fact that MGT Power Ltd have chosen North Tyneside as their preferred location and look forward to supporting them for the benefit of our residents.”

Andrew Moffat, Chief Executive of the Port of Tyne welcomed MGT Power’s plans: “Our mission is to provide a sustainable, vibrant Port of Tyne and the Tyne Renewable Energy Plant represents a major long term investment that will take full advantage of the excellent facilities, infrastructure and
capabilities offered by the Port.”

The biomass feedstock for the Tyne Renewable Energy Plant will be sourced from certified sustainable forestry projects developed by the MGT Power team and partners in North and South America and the Baltic States, and in the longer-term UK sources. The biomass is clean burning woodchip, which delivers 95% greenhouse gas savings in comparison to coal or natural gas through the life cycle and will not use high quality land suitable for food crops. The plant will use around 2.4m tonnes of woodchips per annum and will operate at baseload – 24 hours a day, all year round.

Notes to Editors:

1.Details of the Tyne Renewable Energy Plant and a copy of the Scoping Document can be obtained via a dedicated website www.mgttyne.com or by contacting MGT Power via email at info@mgttyne.com.

2.MGT Power (www.mgtpower.com) was established in December 2007 to develop biomass generation projects in the UK and Europe. The management team includes Chris Moore, Ben Elsworth, Thiago Azevedo and Noel Forrest who have backgrounds in UK power generation and the supply of renewable energy feedstocks. The company’s main shareholders include Trafalgar Asset Managers and MKM Longboat. The firm’s financial advisors are Ernst & Young and engineering consultants are Pöyry Energy and PB Power.

3.As a storable, concentrated energy form, wood biomass allows electricity generation 24 hours a day, all year round, in contrast to intermittent renewable sources such as wind or solar. MGT Power will use trees sustainably planted specifically for use as fuel, such as Short Rotation Forestry (eg. Eucalyptus, Pines) and Short Rotation Coppicing (eg. Willow, Poplar).


4.The Port of Tyne Authority, created by statute, is a trust port (www.portoftyne.co.uk). It is a deep river port, with round-the-clock access, 2.5 miles from the mouth of the river Tyne. Its main function is the improvement, maintenance and management of the Port. The Port is a commercial enterprise, but it is not funded by Government and has no shareholders. It has five main business areas: conventional and bulk cargoes; logistics;
car terminals; cruise and ferries; and estates. Any surplus is reinvested into a programme of continuous improvement to the benefit of the users, the community and the North East economy. The Port of Tyne Authority is chaired by Sir Ian Wrigglesworth.

5.MGT Power Ltd is the developer of the Tees Renewable Energy Plant, which secured planning consent from the UK Government on July 15th and is scheduled to start operating in 2012.

6.The Mayor and Cabinet have no involvement in the determination of planning matters and any application that is submitted by the developer will be dealt with in accordance with the Council's adopted planning process including if appropriate referral to the Planning Committee.

For further information:

MGT Power Ltd (www.mgtpower.com)

James Court (Taylor Keogh Communications): 020 3170 8467/07921330356

Call Jonny Mulligan (Taylor Keogh Communications): 07875019695

Political News-New Inquiry Adapting to climate change

Most of the changes in climate that will happen over the next 30 to 40 years have already been determined by past and present emissions of greenhouse gases. This means that changes in our climate are inevitable, even if we can successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

The kind of changes we could see include warmer and wetter winters, hotter and drier summers, sea level rise, and more severe weather events such as storms, floods, droughts and heat waves. Adapting to climate change is the process of building resilience and preparing households, businesses, infrastructure, public services and vulnerable parts of our society to cope with the impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of any new opportunities that result.

The Committee has commissioned a review from the National Audit Office (NAO) on climate change adaptation (see http://www.nao.org.uk/what_we_do/support_to_parliament/select_committees.aspx).

This provides an overview of climate change adaptation policy in England, including the implications of the Climate Change Act 2008, the cross-government 'Adapting to Climate Change' programme and the current capacity across Government Departments to assess and manage risks to their objectives from future climate change impacts.

The NAO's review is the starting point for a new inquiry into adaptation that is launched today. The purpose of the inquiry is to assess whether the Government is on the right path to embedding effectively climate change adaptation, and management of risks from future climate change impacts, into Government programmes, policies and decision making, and into those of the wider public and private sectors.

The Committee will also examine whether climate change adaptation is being sufficiently funded and supported as a challenge for the long-term and the extent to which short-term pressures could prevent effective adaptation.

In particular the Committee is interested in receiving written evidence that looks at:

* the extent to which the Adapting to Climate Change Programme will increase resilience by embedding adaptation and climate change risk assessment into the work of Government Departments;

* the extent to which Government departments have identified the risks from a changing climate that will stop them from meeting their objectives;

* the suitability of the processes and structures in and across Government departments for identifying, mitigating and managing these risks and determining the future
priorities of central government's approach to adaptation (and the National Adaptation Programme);

* how well the overall direction for work on adaptation has been set, the effectiveness of the statutory framework (including the use of the Reporting Power and its accompanying statutory guidance),
the allocation of powers and duties and how well issues like social justice are addressed in adaptation policies;

* whether short-term priorities for action including identifying and protecting key infrastructure and systems
(for example power, food, water, transport infrastructure, defence and security), have been identified and how these are or might be addressed;

* the funding, support, training and other resources available, including at a local and regional level, for:

o building capacity to adapt to climate change

o specific actions to adapt to climate change, such as investment in flood risk management or the resilience of critical national infrastructure

o helping individuals and organisations conduct their own climate change risk assessments and judge what actions they need to take;

* the monitoring and evaluation of work on adaptation, including thoughts on how progress on adaptation can be quantified and success measured;

*the effectiveness of communication within and between departments; and between government, local government, business and the general public on adaptation;

* whether work on adaptation should be embedded into existing sustainable development frameworks and, if so, how this might be achieved.

Responses dealing with one or two of the issues above are as welcome as more wide ranging responses. Those responding to this call for evidence are encouraged to look at the work done for the Committee by the NAO

(see http://www.nao.org.uk/what_we_do/support_to_parliament/select_committees.aspx).

The Committee invites organisations and members of the public to submit written evidence setting out their views on these issues. Submissions should be sent to the Committee by Monday 5 October 2009.

For full details and to see the committee website please click here

Political News-Taxpayer may pay for green failures

The failure of Government departments to cut emissions could leave the taxpayer facing large bills under a new carbon trading scheme coming into force next year, MPs have warned.

The Environmental Audit Committee said it was "unconvinced" the Government would exceed its own targets to cut emissions by 12.5% on 1999 levels by 2010/11.A review has shown reductions of just half that (6.3%) were achieved by 2007/08.

The committee also warned the Government was "backsliding" on renewable energy use on its own estate, with the proportion used by departments down to 22% last year from 28.3% in the previous year.

As a result, departments could end up paying money to private companies who are doing better than them at cutting emissions under the new Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, in which the Government is participating.

MPs have urged the Government to invest now in insulation, solar panels and energy efficient combined heat and power boilers in its offices to save money in the long run. The committee also said the Government needed to lead the way on green issues, using its "enormous buying power" to drive the transition to a low carbon economy.

"Leadership on these issues is crucial - the Government can't have one prescription for the country and another for its own operations," EAC chairman Tim Yeo said.

The CRC will require around 5,000 organisations to buy "allowances" costing £12 per tonne for all the CO2 they emit each year, and be judged on how much they are doing to cut their emissions.

Under the scheme, the money for purchasing allowances will go into a central pot and those cutting their emissions the most will get their original payment back plus a bonus, while those doing worst will be penalised by getting less back than they paid in.

MPs are concerned that if the Government does not cut emissions enough, the taxpayer will end up contributing "large sums" to companies who have done more.

To review the full report 'Greening Government' click here

Indutry News-Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast

Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries

In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.

But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.

In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil – mostly in the Middle East – would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010.

"One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day," Dr Birol said. "The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously," he said.

"The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about 40 per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future," he said.

There is now a real risk of a crunch in the oil supply after next year when demand picks up because not enough is being done to build up new supplies of oil to compensate for the rapid decline in existing fields.

The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.

"If we see a tightness of the markets, people in the street will see it in terms of higher prices, much higher than we see now. It will have an impact on the economy, definitely, especially if we see this tightness in the markets in the next few years," Dr Birol said.

"It will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years' time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices," he told The Independent.

In its first-ever assessment of the world's major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was "patently unsustainable", with expected demand far outstripping supply.

Oil production has already peaked in non-Opec countries and the era of cheap oil has come to an end, it warned.

In most fields, oil production has now peaked, which means that other sources of supply have to be found to meet existing demand.

Even if demand remained steady, the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030, Dr Birol said.

"It's a big challenge in terms of the geology, in terms of the investment and in terms of the geopolitics. So this is a big risk and it's mainly because of the rates of the declining oil fields," he said.

"Many governments now are more and more aware that at least the day of cheap and easy oil is over... [however] I'm not very optimistic about governments being aware of the difficulties we may face in the oil supply," he said.

Environmentalists fear that as supplies of conventional oil run out, governments will be forced to exploit even dirtier alternatives, such as the massive reserves of tar sands in Alberta, Canada,which would be immensely damaging to the environment because of the amount of energy needed to recover a barrel of tar-sand oil compared to the energy needed to collect the same amount of crude oil.

"Just because oil is running out faster than we have collectively assumed, does not mean the pressure is off on climate change," said Jeremy Leggett, a former oil-industry consultant and now a green entrepreneur with Solar Century.

"Shell and others want to turn to tar, and extract oil from coal. But these are very carbon-intensive processes, and will deepen the climate problem," Dr Leggett said.

"What we need to do is accelerate the mobilisation of renewables, energy efficiency and alternative transport.

"We have to do this for global warming reasons anyway, but the imminent energy crisis redoubles the imperative," he said.

Oil: An unclear future

*Why is oil so important as an energy source?

Crude oil has been critical for economic development and the smooth functioning of almost every aspect of society. Agriculture and food production is heavily dependent on oil for fuel and fertilisers. In the US, for instance, it takes the direct and indirect use of about six barrels of oil to raise one beef steer. It is the basis of most transport systems. Oil is also crucial to the drugs and chemicals industries and is a strategic asset for the military.

*How are oil reserves estimated?

The amount of oil recoverable is always going to be an assessment subject to the vagaries of economics – which determines the price of the oil and whether it is worth the costs of pumping it out –and technology, which determines how easy it is to discover and recover. Probable reserves have a better than 50 per cent chance of getting oil out. Possible reserves have less than 50 per cent chance.

*Why is there such disagreement over oil reserves?

All numbers tend to be informed estimates. Different experts make different assumptions so it is under- standable that they can come to different conclusions. Some countries see the size of theiroilfields as a national security issue and do not want to provide accurate information. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. A further factor is the expected size of future demand for oil.

*What is "peak oil" and when will it be reached?

This is the point when the maximum rate at which oil is extracted reaches a peak because of technical and geological constraints, with global production going into decline from then on. The UK Government, along with many other governments, has believed that peak oil will not occur until well into the 21st Century, at least not until after 2030. The International Energy Agency believes peak oil will come perhaps by 2020. But it also believes that we are heading for an even earlier "oil crunch" because demand after 2010 is likely to exceed dwindling supplies.

*With global warming, why should we be worried about peak oil?

There are large reserves of non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands of Canada. But this oil is dirty and will produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide which will make a nonsense of any climate change agreement. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. If we are not adequately prepared for peak oil, global warming could become far worse than expected.

For the full text of this article please click here

Industry News-EU mulls extending green criteria beyond biofuels

The European Commission has begun consultations on tackling indirect land-use change caused by agro-fuel production, floating the idea that such criteria could be applied more generally to a range of other agricultural commodities.

Background:

In December 2008, EU leaders reached agreement on a new Renewable Energy Directive, which requires each member state to satisfy 10% of their transport fuel needs from renewable sources, including biofuels, hydrogen and green electricity by 2020.

The directive also established sustainability criteria for biofuels. It obliges the bloc to ensure that biofuels offer at least 35% carbon emission savings compared to fossil fuels. The figure rises to 50% as of 2017 and 60% as of 2018.

However, concerns have been raised that increased biofuels production would result in massive deforestation and have severe implications for food security, as energy crops replace other land uses (indirect land-use change).

The Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive agreed as part of the climate change and energy package in December last year require the Commission to compile a report "reviewing the impact of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions" and seek ways to minimise its impact.

The report could be accompanied by proposals on developing a concrete methodology for calculating indirect land-use changes, which could be applied to other commodities.

The EU's new Renewable Energy Directive obliges member states to ensure that 10% of their transport fuel comes from renewable sources, including biofuels,by 2020. The goal was aimed at contributing towards the bloc's climate goals, but questions have been raised about the unintended consequences of replacing large forested areas and food production with energy crops.

To address this issue, the directive requires the Commission to present a report by the end of 2010 on how such "indirect land-use changes" impact on greenhouse gases and whether they should be tackled.

But a consultation paper seen by EurActiv reveals that the EU executive is ambitiously planning to come up with a document and potentially a legislative proposal as early as next March. This is to ensure that member states can take them into account when submitting their nationalrenewable energy action plans by the end of June 2010.

The non-paper, drafted by the Commission's transport and energy (TREN) and environment DGs, lists several options to take into account the effects of land-use change. It shows that the Commission is considering addressing the general issue of land-use change instead of limiting its approach to biofuels.

The document suggests that the restrictions on land-use change applied to biofuels could be imposed on other commodities and consuming countries. This could be done by encouraging other administrations to adopt the same restrictions and by encouraging other industries to apply these on a voluntary basis, it states.

Moreover, the EU could require that goods sold on its market are tagged with labels stating compliance with the restrictions, the non-paper reads.

One alternative would be to conclude international agreements to protect "carbon-rich habitats" like rainforests in countries where cultivation patterns are likely to be affected, it states.

However, the Commission believes that such a general approach would require putting in place measures that stretch beyond the scope of the report required by the Renewables Directive, and would take more time to execute.

The rest of the document thus specifically concentrates on biofuels. The minimum required greenhouse gas savings already included in the directive could either be tightened or considered as an adequate "cushion", ensuring that the policy delivers an "acceptably high" greenhouse gas benefit, it says.

Finally, the document floats the idea of promoting differentiated consignments for individual biofuels.

For example, bonuses could be increased for biofuels which do not come from land, or additional sustainability criteria could be set for agro-fuels produced from crops that are likely to cause damaging land-use change. Furthermore, an indirect land-use change factor could be included when calculating greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, once a methodology has been adopted.

Indeed, the Commission is already consulting researchers about models that could explain the effects of biofuel production on indirect land-use change, according to sources close to the process. These should be presented around September, feeding into a stakeholder consultation in October.

The Commission has already organised separate meetings with member states to chart the field, and has invited comments from stakeholders by the end of this week (31 July).

International trade implications

In addition to comments on the feasibility, uncertainty and administrative burden of the proposed measures, the Commission is seeking feedback on the international trade implications of biofuel sustainability criteria.

During internal negotiations on the directive, Brazil and many developing countries threatened to challenge it before the World Trade Organisation. Major exporting countries fear that the EU will sneak in strict provisions to limit their access to its market, favouring domestic production.

As the directive has now been published, it provides a clearer framework of what both domestic agro-fuel producers and third-country importers can expect from the EU. It sets down clear-cut figures for future greenhouse gas savings which biofuels will have to achieve compared to traditional fossil fuels, and stipulates that biofuels produced from land with "high biodiversity value" cannot be counted towards the target.

"Brazil has raised the issue [of EU sustainability criteria] in some meetings," a WTO spokesperson told EurActiv. But he added that so far no WTO member had requested the organisation to examine the directive's compatibility with its rules.

However, the legislation's potential provisions on land-use change or even the definition of the concept of "land with high biodiversity value" increase the uncertainty. Eventually, these addutions to the directive could expose it to a challenge before the WTO, experts said.

Moreover, it is far from clear whether it is possible to calculate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from land-use changes.

"We question whether it's possible to come up with any macroeconomic model that is able to explain indirect land-use changes because of the production of biofuels. We don't believe this is possible, but we need to wait and see what science is going to deliver," said Rob Vierhout, secretary-general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association.

He argued that any model would also have to include the positive effects of biofuel production. For example, animal feed is produced as a co-product of biofuels, which reduces the need to expand soy production in third countries in order to export it to Europe, he said, adding that biofuel production is also proven to increase yield per hectare of land.

Hinting that heated debates lie ahead, campaigners against biofuels have described this as "creative accountancy".

For the full version of this article click here

Industry News-Inventors look to crack electric car conundrum

Researchers grappling with the problem of developing the most fuel-efficient electric cars are using micro-jet turbine engines and 'supercapacity' batteries to help energy-conscious consumers drive further.

Background:

The push to develop a viable electric car has been driven by the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in order to curb climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

However, technical and logistical difficulties mean developing a mass market electric vehicle is not so straightforward. Critics say electric cars do not have a long enough 'range' (meaning they are not well suited to long-distance driving) and a major overhaul of power supply infrastructure will be required to make electric cars convenient for consumers.

Nonetheless, political support for greener transport has been growing. In an economic recovery package released last year, the European Union earmarked €5 billion for its Green Car Initiative. The US government is also heaping pressure on US automakers to lead the way on clean technologies.

The EU plan includes support for research into electric and hybrid vehicles, but also allocates funds for hydrogen powered-vehicles and fuel cell technology. High density batteries are seen as key to unlocking the problem of making electric cars compete with contemporary petrol engines.

Earlier this year, EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik challenged Europe's automotive industry to come up with workable solutions to electrify Europe's transport system by next year.

Companies from Europe, Japan and Israel believe on-board chargers and high-powered battery technology could give them an edge in the race to produce a commercially viable electric car – and investors are beginning to buy into the idea.

A Tel Aviv-based start-up, ETV Motors, has raised €8.4 million for R&D, and has adapted the top-selling Toyota Prius petrol-electric hybrid to test its theory. The new model does not have an internal combustion engine, but instead features an electric engine with a supercapacity battery and a mirco-jet turbine which powers the vehicle from the rear.

The notion of a turbine-powered electric car is not entirely new, but ETV wants to fine-tune its design for the mass market. It says it has developed a micro-turbine engine to act as an on-board charger and a high-density battery that can power a vehicle for about 60-80 km (35-50 miles) on one charge.

The test car uses newly-designed components which are still undergoing development, the company said, adding that the final product should be ready for tests next year.

Another Israeli project, Better Place, was launched in 2007 with €140 million of venture funding. It has been gaining momentum across the globe, pushing for fully electric cars that recharge by plugging in to a grid network.

Better Place has partnered with Renault and Nissan to develop electric car infrastructure, with Nissan expected to focus on the Japanese market, while Renault looks to bring electric cars to European roads by the end of the decade.

Renault unveiled its first demonstration model in Tel Aviv in May 2008, pledging to begin sales by late 2010 – which would make it one of the quickest vehicles to go from concept to market in automotive history.

Renault and Nissan will hold large-scale joint testing events for its new electric cars in Paris and Milan next year, ahead of mass production scheduled for 2012. The trial conducted in the Paris region will include testing of a new car-charging network, which is being developed in conjunction with electricity giant EDF.

"One hundred electric cars from the Renault-Nissan alliance [...] will be tested from September 2010 for a year by individuals, companies and local authority employees," Renault-Nissan and EDF said in a statement.

Toyota Motor Corp, another of the auto giants developing hybrid and plug-in technologies, said it would start leasing 500 plug-in cars globally by the end of this year.

Better batteries

Toyota said its car will be powered by lithium-ion batteries, and Japan's Nikkei business daily reported this month that the plug-in will be able to run 20-30 km (12-18 miles) on battery power alone at full charge.

ETV Motors says its batteries will power a car for more than twice as long. With its on-board charger, the vehicle will not be dependent on a complicated electric charging infrastructure, although it will be plug-in compatible.

The jet turbine system is also a departure from General Motors Corp's Chevy Volt plug-in, which is also powered by a traditional internal combustion engine. GM aims to introduce the Volt, with its 64 km (40 mile) range, by late 2010.

The game-changing development, said chief technology officer Arieh Meitav, was a higher density battery, based on Lithium Manganese Nickel Oxide.

The batteries will be the first to have 4.7 volt cells, in place of existing Lithium-ion batteries with 3.2 volts. This allows for a longer range with a smaller battery, and it is projected to last throughout the car's lifetime, he said.

The second part of the system, the electricity producing micro-turbine, is being developed with the help of an aviation company – though ETV Motors would not say which one.

The turbine can run off a variety of fuel sources, like gasoline, diesel and biofuel, the company said, and will only operate to charge the battery when it runs low, spinning at a constant 80,000 RPM for maximum efficiency.

The full article appears here

Industry News-ESB acquires two wind farms in Britain

THE ESB has bought its first wind farms in Britain for an undisclosed sum. One is based in Devon and the other is the West Durham.

An ESB spokesman said prices are not being disclosed "for commercial reasons".

The deals mean the Irish semi-state energy group has reached almost half its 2012 target for wind generation in Britain.In its corporate strategy the group said it wanted to have 200MW of electricity under generation in the renewable sector in Britain by 2012.

Fullabrook Wind Farm in Devon has permission to generate up to 66MW of electricity generation with construction expected to start early next year.The 24MW West Durham wind farm, near Tow Law in the north-east of England, started generating power last May.

The group also set out a target of having 3GW of electricity under generation in the conventional manner in Britain also by 2012. It has acquired two conventional plants there including a base in Southampton helping it to move towards its GW target.

ESB’s head of wind development, Joe O’Mahony, said the deals marked the first step in the company’s strategy to achieve 200MW of wind generation in Britain by 2012.

"We are committed to developing a balanced portfolio of generation with less reliance on fossil fuels. Market convergence between the UK and Ireland, and delivery of our low carbon strategic framework, means that ESB sees the UK as a key market. We are delivering on our strategic objectives to become a significant investor in the UK renewables market," he said.

ESBI launched a major investment strategy in Britain last November that has significant plans to develop or acquire wind energy projects.That is in line with the ESB’s strategy to halve its carbon emissions in 12 years and to achieve carbon zero emission by 2035.

Overall, ESB has allocated €4bn specifically for direct investment in renewable generation projects.


This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Thursday, July 30, 2009

Industry News-Extra finance to start flowing for wind power

Up to £1 billion of loans for onshore wind farms

Up to £10 million of Government grants for offshore wind technology development

Three UK-based banks start work today with the European Investment Bank (EIB) on a programme to lend up to £1 billion to onshore wind farms over the next 3 years.

The cash, part of the additional £4 billion of EIB lending to support UK energy projects announced in the Budget, will help get building started for onshore wind projects which have been hit by the credit crunch, particularly small and mid-sized wind farms.

The banks – RBS, Lloyds and BNP Paribas Fortis – have been teamed up with the EIB by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and HM Treasury, following the announcement in April’sBudget Statement that the Government wanted to get more EIB lending to UK renewables.

Firms can also apply for DECC cash from today to develop offshore wind technology. There will be up to £10 million in grants, part of the £120 million announced in the renewable energy strategy last week to support offshore wind. This is the second round of cash for development of offshore wind technology.

DECC is also confirming today that, subject to agreement on suitable grant offer conditions, it also intends to make an award under the first round of this programme for Vestas Technology UK Ltd’s research and development centre on the Isle of Wight. This proposed award – more than £6 million - would include over £3m of funding from the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). We expect to make other announcements on awards under this first round of funding shortly.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said:

“Earlier this month we laid out a transition plan to a low carbon economy that included a massive expansion of green wind energy. The resources we are announcing back up our plans with clear actions to ensure we deliver.

“The European Investment Bank funds will help the building start on consented wind farms that could provide 1 gigawatt of electricity, enough to power more than half a million homes.

“The money for the development of offshore wind manufacturing will help us generate green jobs on top of our success as the leading country in the world for the generation of offshore wind.

"Alongside these proposals, we are reforming planning laws, finding new ways of working with local communities and are determined to persuade people that we need a significant increase in onshore wind as part of the UK's future energy mix.

“That is essential for the generation of renewable energy and for Britain to have an industrial future in the production of onshore wind."

Ian Pearson MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:

“The £4bn of lending to the energy sector that we announced in the Budget is just part of the £10bn of lending that we hope to see coming into the UK economy from the EIB this year, nearly three times last year's total. I am pleased at the success we are having working in partnership with EIB to provide financing to this and other important sectors.”

EIB Vice President Simon Brooks said:

“The development of the UK’s wind energy capacity will support the European Union’s and national targets for renewable energy generation. As well as helping to reduce greenhouse gasses it will strengthen the security of energy supplies. This initiative underlines the EIB’s long involvement, as the EU’s financing arm, in the UK’s energy sector and reinforces efforts to reduce the impact of climate change”.

For full details on this press notice

Industry News- Government launches £1 million electric car infrastructure fund

At present there is very little infrastructure for charging low-carbon vehicles

The Department for Transport has launched a £1 million grant fund to encourage the installation of public infrastructure for low-carbon vehicles, including electric car recharging points.

Announced yesterday (July 22), the Infrastructure Grant Programme (IGP) is set to offer an average 50% grant for the installation of alternative refuelling infrastructure, including electric vehicle recharging, and natural gas, hydrogen and bio-methane refuelling.

The Programme is to be administered by the government's appointed low carbon vehicle delivery agency Cenex, and will run until 2011.

Rosie Snashall, electric vehicles and policy manager for the Department for Transport, said: "As our delivery partner, Cenex will leverage the demand from organisations wishing to install refuelling or recharging stations for vehicles, thus enabling them to bring down the costs of reducing carbon for everyone."

The scheme will offer funding for infrastructure hardware costs, and the cost of labour, civil engineering and ground works for each successful project Grants.Cenex said yesterday that both public and private sector applicants were welcome to apply for the scheme, and that firms of all sizes were eligible for grants.

But, speaking to New Energy Focus it added that: "applicants should also note that value for money is one of the assessment criteria and they are encouraged to maximise investment into the project before applying for a grant."

Robert Evans, chief executive of Cenex, said: "For fleet operators, the cost of installing, refuelling or recharging infrastructure has always been a barrier to switching fuel use. This programme will encourage operators to accelerate the introduction of lower-carbon technologies into the UK vehicle market, thereby helping cut the UK's total carbon emissions."

This programme follows on from a previous 30% grant scheme run by the Energy Savings Trust, that was set up to encourage the development of a nationwide network of public fuelling stations.Formed in 2005 and based at Loughborough University, Cenex is supported by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and aims to promote and stimulate the market for low carbon and fuel-cell technologies.

The organisation will run three Infrastructure Grant Programme information days over the next two months, in Edinburgh, Birmingham and Port Talbot in Wales.

Industry News-Not under our backyard, say Germans, in blow to CO2 plans

German carbon capture plan appears to be a victim of 'numbyism' - not under my backyard

It was meant to be the world's first demonstration of a technology that could help save the planet from global warming – a project intended to capture emissions from a coal-fired power station and bury them safely underground.

But the German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into the atmosphere, following local opposition at it being stored underground.The scheme appears a victim of "numbyism" – not under my backyard.

Opposition to the carbon capture plan has contributed to a growing public backlash against renewable energy projects, raising fears that Europe will struggle to meet its low-carbon commitments. Last week, the Danish firm Vestas blamed British "nimbies" opposing wind farms for its decision to close its turbine factory on the Isle of Wight.

Many countries continue to use coal for generating power as it is the cheapest and most readily available fuel in the world. It will probably power the development of China and India. But coal is also seen as the dirtiest fuel. So, Vattenfall's Schwarze Pumpe project in Spremberg, northern Germany, launched in a blaze of publicity last September, was a beacon of hope, the first scheme to link the three key stages of trapping, transporting and burying the greenhouse gases.

The Swedish company, however, surprised a recent conference when it admitted that the €70m (£60.3m) project was venting the CO2 straight into the atmosphere. "It was supposed to begin injecting by March or April of this year but we don't have a permit. This is a result of the local public having questions about the safety of the project," said Staffan Gortz, head of carbon capture and storage communication at Vattenfall. He said he did not expect to get a permit before next spring: "People are very, very sceptical."

The spread of localised resistance is a force that some fear could sink Europe's attempts to build 10 to 12 demonstration projects for carbon capture and storage (CCS) by 2015. The plan had been to transport up to 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the power plant each year and inject it into depleted gas reservoirs at a giant gasfield near the Polish border.

Scientists maintain that public safety fears are groundless: the consequences of escaping CO2 would be to the climate, not to public health. Many big environmental groups support CCS, both off and onshore, as a necessary evil in the battle against climate change.

But Jim Footner, a Greenpeace climate campaigner, said the German protests were "a stark warning to those that think CCS is an easy solution to the huge climate problems of coal-fired power stations".

The first wake-up call came in March, when a Dutch council objected to Shell's plans to store CO2 in depleted gas fields under the town of Barendrecht, near Rotterdam.

This was despite a successful environmental impact assessment and the enthusiastic backing of the Dutch government, which, in September, must decide whether to give Shell the green light, despite the council's opposition.

Wim van de Wiel, a Shell spokesman, said: "For Shell the only suitable location for the tender was, and still is, Barendrecht, because of the safety and the depleted status of the [gas] field."

Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the the Carbon Capture & Storage Association, said Vattenfall should study the example of Total, which made great efforts to engage the local community when it launched its CCS pilot project in Lacq, southern France.

Stuart Haszeldine, a CCS expert at the University of Edinburgh, warned of the danger of opposition towards CCS snowballing into a "bandwagon of negativity" if too many early projects were rejected. "Once you've screwed up one or two of them, people are going to think 'if they rejected this in Barendrecht, there must be a reason'," he said.

In the UK, CCS is one of the four "pillars" of the government's decarbonisation strategy. A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We plan to store the CO2 from CCS plants offshore, for example in depleted oil and gas fields in the North Sea. We are one of the first countries to have legislation … to regulate environmental and safety risks."

Politics News-EU launches reflection on future green policies

The European Union needs to reconcile its growth and jobs objectives with long-term environmental goals, says the European Commission in a report taking stock of the bloc’s decade-old sustainable development strategy.

Background:

The European Union first formulated its Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) during a 2001 European summit in Gothenburg. Although sustainable development is enshrined in the EU treaties, policy implementation remains a problem.

The European Commission's first stocktaking of the strategy confirmed that a number of unsustainable trends were continuing to worsen. It also highlighted the controversial relationship between the SDS and the Lisbon Agenda for growth and jobs.

A June 2006 summit of EU leaders saw the adoption of a renewed SDS strategyPdf external . It addresses seven main challenges: climate change and clean energy; sustainable transport; sustainable consumption and production; conservation and management of natural resources; public health; social inclusion, demography and migration; and global poverty.


Global demand for natural resources is growing fast, European fish stocks are depleting and forests and soils are increasingly challenged by climate change, says the report published on 24 July.

With its recently adopted climate and energy package, the EU has made a positive contribution to sustainable development, but "unsustainable trends persist in several areas," notes the report,which assesses progress made since the Union launched its sustainable development strategy in 2001. The EU executive estimates the annual loss of ecosystem services equivalent to €50 billion and the cumulated welfare losses are estimated equivalent to 7% of GDP by 2050.

Decoupling transport volumes from economic growth also remains a challenge and freight transport has even grown "faster than GDP", notes the report.


Towards renewed priorities

The report launches a reflection on how the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) should evolve in the future and how it could be better aligned with other cross-cutting EU strategies.The Commission particularly stresses the need to find greater synergy with the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs, which will be reviewed in 2010. The report calls for better coordination and linkage between climate change, energy, financial and social sustainability - policy areas covered by both strategies.

According to the EU executive, the SDS could be reviewed to better contribute to "a rapid shift to a low-carbon and low-input economy, based on energy and resource-efficient technologies and sustainable transport, and shifts towards sustainable consumption behaviour".

The progress report will now be handed to EU leaders, who are expected to review priorities and provide orientation for the future strategy later this year. In parallel, the EU is starting to reflect on revising its 2000 Lisbon Strategy, which sought to turn the EU into the "most competitive economy in the world by 2010". 'Green growth' and environmental sustainability are likely to feature high among the strategy's new priorities.

For the Full details of this article click here

Industry News-Latest protest leaves climate strategy twisting in the wind

From Shetland to the Isle of Wight, feelings run high as plans to transform the UK into a low-carbon economy hit further trouble.

Europe's largest onshore windfarm project has been thrown in severe doubt after the RSPB and official government agencies lodged formal objections to the 150-turbine plan, it emerged today.The setback adds to the problems facing the government's ambition to install 10,000 new turbines across the UK by 2020 as part of its plan to cut the carbon emissions causing climate change.

The proposed 550MW windfarm, sprawling across the centre of Shetland's main island, would add almost 20% to existing onshore wind capacity. But the objectors say the plans could seriously damage breeding sites for endangered birds, including a rare wader, the whimbrel, which was unexpectedly discovered by the windfarm developer's own environmental survey teams.

Other species at risk include the red throated diver, golden plover and merlin.

The RSPB heavily criticised the proposal from Viking Energy after initially indicating it could support the scheme. The RSPB also claims now that installation of the turbines could release significant carbon dioxide from the peat bogs affected, undermining the turbines' potential to combat global warming.

The group's fears have been endorsed by the government's official conservation advisers, Scottish Natural Heritage, and SNH has also objected to the "magnitude" of the scheme, claiming it could kill many of these birds through collisions with the 145-metre-high structures.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), which oversees pollution and waste laws in Scotland, has also formally objected, making it inevitable the scheme will now go to a full public inquiry and intensifying pressure on the developers to alter the scale of the project.

In a detailed critique of the proposal, Sepa has asked Viking Energy to significantly rethink its plans to cut out and dump up to 1m cubic metres of peat during construction, and asked ministers to impose tough conditions to protect local water quality and freshwater species .

Bill Manson, a director of Viking Energy, the community-owned company which is collaborating with Scottish and Southern Energy on the scheme, said it would be prepared to negotiate. "I believe there's a dialogue to be had, which will assuage their fears, I hope," he said.

A Scottish government consultation on the £800m scheme closed yesterday, with more than 3,600 of Shetland's 21,000 islanders signing a petition calling for the project to be scrapped.

The Shetland Amenity Trust, a local heritage and archaeological charity, and one of Scotland's major countryside access organisations, the John Muir Trust, have also objected, arguing that the proposal would have a "hugely damaging detrimental impact" on the treeless, hilly landscape.

The dispute has highlighted the conflicts arising over the siting of major windfarms on land, between the need to exploit the most windy locations and the desire to preserve the rural environment.

The government wants to have an additional 6,000 onshore and 4,000 offshore wind turbines installed by 2020 to meet its legally binding target of generating 15% of all energy from renewable sources. There are currently about 2,400 turbines.

ed Milliband, the energy and climate change secretary, has set out an ambitious plan to transform the UK to a low-carbon economy.

But the plans to change the planning system to make windfarm approvals quicker and give priority to renewable projects in granting national grid connections prompted significant criticism on the siting and cost of windfarms.Within a week, the newly formed National Association of Wind Action Groups pledged to campaign against the harmful impact of wind turbine developments on communities and landscapes.

Another blow came from the decision of Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas to close the UK's only blade manufacturing plant on the Isle of Wight. The company said the UK wind market was not growing fast enough and that projects had been slowed down by planning objections.Existing windfarms have 3,000MW of capacity, but another 9,600MW is in the planning process.

A further 6,000MW has planning permission but no funding and on Monday the government announced a £1bn loan package to try to fill that funding gap. It argues that the UK has the largest potential for wind power in Europe and already has more offshore wind installed than any other country. Miliband has said that climate change poses a greater threat to landscapes than windfarms and that opposing them should be "socially unacceptable".

Scotland is already home to more than half the UK's onshore wind capacity and Shetland is a key location. The islands reputedly experience the highest and most consistent wind speeds of any comparable place on earth. One small turbine at Lerwick, known as Betsy, is believed to be the world's most productive, reaching 59% of its potential output.

The Viking scheme, if approved by ministers, would alone generate a fifth of Scotland's domestic electricity needs and earn up to £37m a year in profits for Shetland. Manson said yesterday that the scheme had to be large-scale for the energy regulator and National Grid to agree to lay the £300m interconnector cable that would carry the electricity to the mainland. A scheme even half its current size would not be commercially viable.

But opponents claim that the scheme is far too large and that, with a further 62 miles of access roads, it would significantly affect a fifth of the main island's desolate interior and industrialise the landscape."We can't simply build our way out of climate change," said John Hutchison, chairman of the John Muir Trust."It is both cheaper and less destructive to reduce energy need and waste, rather than cover the wild landscapes that define Scotland and its people with wind turbines."

For the full version of this article in the guardian please click here