Business and the Green Economy: The Role of Regulation

                                Image via WikipediaBy Ciara Cox

The Confederation of Business Industry (CBI) has acknowledged that, contrary to its primary instincts, environmental regulations are the most effective mechanism for introducing environmental improvement/transformations.

Without carefully chosen environmental regulations, necessary changes would not be implemented with the speed and decisiveness required to properly address the specific environmental challenges.

The question over what types of regulations work best has been addressed in the Hampton Principles, which underpin the Better Regulations initiative rolled out by the last government. These principles define the series of requirements for better regulations, the key ones being:

• The application of a risk assessment to ensure resources concentrate on the areas that need them most.
• Regulations should recognise that the activity being regulated should allow and indeed encourage economic progress.

The Hampton Principles were a major departure from the rigidity of prescriptive regulations which had been the norm up to that point. There are currently 278 regulations on the statute books covering environmental matters, the majority of which are still primarily prescriptive rather than risk based regulations.

What should be the guidelines for prioritising which prescriptive environmental regulation needs to be replaced by Hampton compliant regulations? In developing a response to this question, there is a very close similarity between the above Hampton Principles and the overall commercial objective of most businesses which strive to position the business in areas where the best risk/reward relationship resides.

This entails compromises between risk minimisation and reward maximisation. It follows that any external factor which can reduce the risk, provides more potential for the reward or profit to be improved. It is much more likely that transforming regulations from being prescriptive in nature to being based on risk minimisation should create the best conditions for business initiatives to prosper.

The benefits of regulation changes which would increase economic growth could in the round stretch to other sections of the economy through increased profit generation and environmental gain.

In illustrating this point, the example of the UK oil tank manufacturing industry can be looked at. One of the biggest environmental concerns currently is the existence of an inventory of circa 1.5 million oil tanks, of which the majority are single skin tanks with over 20 years service in largely rural locations which are reaching the end of their usable life.

For these single skin tanks, a tank failure risks a potentially catastrophic pollution incident, which would be avoided if a bunded (double skin) tank were used. There are no easy means by which high risk single skin tanks will present signs of potential failure. In most cases an environmental spill is the first indication of a failure of the single skin tank - by which stage the damage has already been done.

The plethora of regulations which cover the rules for choosing and installing oil tanks in the UK have been drafted in the days when prescriptive regulations were the norm. The many regulations relating to the type of oil tank which must be installed differ widely between England and each of the devolved administrations.

Each regulation differs in the distances to various building and land features beyond which single skin tanks are allowed. They also differ in respect of the different tank capacity thresholds and the applicability of market type applications (domestic, agricultural and commercial) each having different regulatory consequences.

This level of complexity means that there is a major impediment to any decisive or constructive action being taken on the replacement of aging single skin oil tanks. Many installers believe it to be quite acceptable to replace one high risk single skin oil tank with another, rather than replacing it with an environmentally preferred bunded tank.

If regulations were changed so that all single skin tanks were to be banned then all tanks, without exception, would be required to be bunded tanks. In such circumstances there would be a robust platform for introducing a Tank Scrappage Scheme. Without an accelerated replacement (scrappage) programme for the large inventory of aging single skin tanks, a creeping chronic environmental problem is more likely.

If these regulations were to be changed, this would not only introduce a requirement that single skin tanks be outlawed and replaced, within say 5 years, but because of higher demand would secure a very solid base for leveraging the cost savings from the economies of scale of the replacement and Scrappage Scheme market.

From a tank manufacturer perspective, support for such a scrappage scheme would be founded on the certainty of demand being an order of magnitude higher than has been the case in the current market.

The certainty of being able to upscale tank production plants will mean that lower prices can be guaranteed and this lower cost base can translate into lower prices to customers, replacing tanks within the single skin oil tank inventory.

Prices to the oil tank user would probably be halved if government were to contribute to an end user grant of typically 20% to the cost of replacing an ageing single skin tank with a much more secure bunded tank. This example illustrates the power of properly constructed regulations, which allow industry to benefit from and adapt to a shift in demand for products which meet regulatory requirements.

In fact, every player within the affected supply chain benefits from the opportunities afforded by the much clearer cut regulations - be that a consumer, industry, services or even government levels.

Furthermore, additional opportunities for environmental benefits in this instance can be introduced through the provision of state of the art fuel monitoring equipment on the replacement tanks, which may be specified in the environmental regulations. This could conservatively provide 10% fuel savings for the customer and could be an alternative option to payment of the winter fuel supplement by government.

Putting some additional metrics on the above scheme, one and a half million oil tanks being replaced at a rate of 150,000 per annum, generates a quadrupling of the market to 100 million dollars per annum. The net benefit to the consumer is circa 40 million dollars per annum via scrappage scheme discounts and grants.

Benefits from the avoidance of estimated 5000 pollution incidents per annum, with a cleanup cost of 50 million dollars per annum, are welcome savings. Fuel monitoring devices have the capability of saving 10% per annum of oil consumption, which is a considerable added bonus to the consumer and will generate fuel savings of 150 million dollars per annum if applied to the entire oil tank inventory.

In using the oil tank industry as a case study for regulatory reform, I have quantified the benefits, cost and opportunities for the main constituencies. These savings could be used to prioritise the legislative timetable for repealing the prescriptive legislation and enacting the Hampton based regulations.The example used, demonstrates the magnitude of the benefits that can be accrued from careful alignment of environmental and business objectives.

At a time when industry needs every ounce of government support, a change in the approach to regulations within the UK will not only serve to better regulate industry and achieve social objectives, but will act as a platform for economic growth and regeneration.

Ciara Cox currently holds the position of Marketing Manager for one of Europe's leading tank manufacturers, Clarehill Plastics Ltd. The company manufactures bunded heating oil tanks, bunded diesel tanks, AdBlue tanks, waste oil tanks, water tanks, ADR approved mobile diesel bowsers, rainwater harvesters and solid fuel bunkers. Products from Clarehill Plastics' Harlequin range of storage tanks can be viewed at http://www.harlequinplastics.co.uk

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ciara_Cox
http://EzineArticles.com/?Business-and-the-Green-Economy:-The-Role-of-Regulation&id=6835503

US Should Apply Space Race Mentality to Clean Energy

Image via WikipediaBy Mike Nemeth

When the Soviet Union launched Yuri Gargarin into space on April 12, 1961, the U.S. government and the public felt sucker-punched.

President John F. Kennedy, however, punched back, sinking tremendous resources into the budding space program and taking the Soviets' accomplishment as a challenge. Kennedy upped the ante, vowing to send a man to the moon.

While he didn't live to see Neil Armstrong take that first giant step, Kennedy launched what is considered one of the most aggressive drives to overcome huge technological hurdles in the nation's history. The United States sought to prove convincingly that American know-how can get the job done, whatever it is.

Give clean energy a shot

Give a similar push to clean energy, and the ramifications would prove spectacular. Imagine cheap solar five times more efficient than existing technology or algae fuel easily harvested and refined from simple CO2-fueled stagnant ponds. Perhaps tidal energy devices could harvest the 2,640 terawatts available on U.S. coasts.

Already the country's national laboratories have come up with amazing results in energy efficiency, biofuels and other renewables. But far more could be done on a regulatory level to encourage research, development and implementation of domestic energy self-reliance. Incentives could be provided through state and local government to implement existing technology, making even the average residential home a net-zero energy user.

After all, energy has become a security issue, and cost on that regard can no longer simply be measured in price per gallon. Yet, fossil fuels and their corporate cheerleaders have powerful lobbies and strong ties to the existing ways of doing business and will likely fight to maintain their part of the status quo. So let them have it. Offer a work-around.

Give oil its due

Sustainability is a big word that can encompass diversified fuel sources. Give oil its due. Petroleum made this country a world leader and rich beyond measure. And coal fuels many regional economies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made history with its recent ruling to curb emissions of coal-fired electricity plants, making even the sub-bituminous variety vastly less irritating to the environment.

Surging renewables could decrease upward pressure on oil prices. The full effect on energy markets is something analysts would have to ponder. But they may stabilize gas prices, let's say at $2.50 per gallon, giving old-world gearheads like me continued access to fuel for our internal combustion engines and leaving the electric hotrods to the younger set.

Another positive development could be declining importance of the Middle East. How about this headline? "Iran abandons nuclear program, cites cash crunch." Healthy competition from alternative energy sources is unlikely to put many in the oil patch out of business, but it would certainly shift the balance of power.

International competition

The funny thing is that other counties appear to be seizing the green opportunity. Germany, for instance, has sidelined its nuclear program and embraced clean energy. No politician there says it's easy, but the payoff could be amazing. Norway's also making a push, and China's not messing around either. Of course, the sleeping dragon of the East is going at every sector like it wants to dominate them all.

The key, at least in this country, is keeping government involvement to a minimum. Most in the clean energy sector would prefer to compete on their own terms, without subsidy. And that means innovation.

To a growing extent, that is already happening. In 2011, international spending in clean energy hit $260 billion, up 5 percent from the previous year and about five times what was spent in 2004, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Renewables already play a role

Solar has reached parity or near parity with fossil fuels, and wind is on the cusp. However, both are intermittent: wind dependent on the whims of Mother Nature and solar on the rotation of the Earth. Only geothermal could be argued a constant source, and its capacity to shoulder the energy burden is limited.

In all cases, and this includes biofuels, fuel cells and hydrogen, advances in production that simplify and reduce costs prove invaluable to the green energy movement. That's why we need some of the best minds focused on solutions. The nation's universities are primed for the challenge. Many already have taken up the charge. Their fledgling programs just need minimal funding to turn out the next big thing.

Bring on energy efficiency

This can't be done without efficiency. As Trevor Winnie, senior research analyst for consultant Clean Edge, so succinctly points out "the U.S. could save $1.2 trillion through 2020 by investing $520 billion" in energy efficiency and cut national energy use by more than a fifth by 2020 or 60 percent by 2050. Winnie cites multiple studies.

"Energy efficiency continues to be the cheapest way to get electricity," he says.

Pair the pursuit of energy efficiency with renewables and a smart grid attuned to a new generation of power sources, and not only would the nation have clean (and hopefully cheap) energy but it would have all the building blocks to fuel its rise to the top of the economic heap once again.

Falter and get dusted

We will have to get moving. In the initial space race, the Russians sent the first man into space, spurring American political leaders to respond. The USSR conquered a previously unimaginable frontier and winning the admiration and acclaim of the world community. Of course, the Nikita Khrushchev-led nation was an arch enemy and Cold War nemesis.

U.S. leaders then feared that control of space could lead to greater geopolitical control. But I tend to believe honor may have had more to do with the space race. The thought of the United States ceding something as monumental as manned flight beyond earth's atmosphere inspired then Kennedy to funnel resources, manpower and the hopes and dreams of the American people behind the Apollo project and getting man to the moon.

Consensus is needed

Kennedy didn't do it alone. His predecessor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, lit the space-race fuse with the signing of the signing the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, and support came flooding in from both sides of the aisle.

"We choose to go to the moon... not because they are easy, but because they are hard... because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win," Kennedy said in a speech to Rice University in Houston.

Kennedy said the United States was not built by those who rested and those who waited. He said the nation rode the first waves of the industrial revolution and modern invention. "This generation does not intend to founder in the backwash," he said, in a speech that sounds as relevent today as it did June 10, 1963.

Clean energy should be given treatment similar to that received by the space race. The stakes are high, perhaps higher. The nation's security is compromised by its dependence on foreign oil and national debt. Its skies are darkened by smog. Its children suffer from toxins in the air and environment. Our way of life is threatened.

No thanks Dr. Strangelove

Taking action is a heck of a lot better than the depressing scenario painted by TomDispatch blogger and author Michael T. Klare, who writes that pursuing no alternative course will result in potential serious conflict over the scant remaining resources. He identifies several hot spots "where energy, politics, and geography are likely to mix in dangerous ways in 2012 and beyond."

Klare warns to watch the Strait of Hormuz, the East and South China Seas, the Caspian Sea basin and the Arctic.

Wouldn't it be better to look the enemy square in the eye and yell like Slim Pickens' Major Kong?

Mike Nemeth, project manager of the San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization, spent 24 years working as a newspaperman editing and reporting from Alaska to California. The SJVCEO is a nonprofit dedicated to improving quality of life through increased use of clean and alternative energy.

The SJVCEO is based in Fresno, Calif. and works with cities and counties and public and private organizations to demonstrate the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy throughout the eight-county region of the San Joaquin Valley. For more information, go to http://www.sjvcleanenergy.org.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mike_Nemeth
http://EzineArticles.com/?US-Should-Apply-Space-Race-Mentality-to-Clean-Energy&id=6826389

Defining Cleantech

Image via WikipediaBy Douglas Hutchings

Today in business circles as well as in everyday conversation we are hearing the term "cleantech" used frequently. Considering the word "cleantech" is a relatively new term, having been coined within the last decade, it's important to understand what the term actually means.

Cleantech or "clean technology" refers mainly to industries and businesses associated with alternative energy production, processes and services. These include solar power, wind generation, hydropower, geothermal, and biofuels among others.

With widespread environmental pollution and growing evidence of global warming, the switch to renewable sources of energy is steadily increasing. Many startup companies are finding a share of the marketplace as the public becomes increasingly aware of environmental damage caused by the use of fossil fuels.

What investors realize, are the increasing number of business opportunities and resulting financial benefits associated with a growing environmentally conscious public. Cleantech also has an appeal to visionaries who see a sustainable energy future without the harmful impact to the environment which carbon based fuels are known to have. However, there is still resistance among cautious venture capitalists, hesitant to invest in what they see as an uncertain future.

In North America, the pollution of air, soil and water caused by the excavation, transportation and burning of oil and coal is becoming a major concern in many communities. Although it receives little publicity, this is evident in parts of central Appalachia where increasing numbers of residents are opposed to mountaintop mining.

As the name implies, mountaintop mining is the process of bulldozing or dynamiting the top layers off mountain tops in order to get to the exposed coal. Estimates say that nearly 500 mountain tops have been destroyed in this manner for the sole purpose of mining the top portion of them.

Additionally, adjoining valleys are also being destroyed by filling them with rubble and debris from the excavating process. Unfortunately the beauty of these pristine areas is being compromised by an energy ravenous nation. Hopefully the people directly affected by these issues will have a voice with any administration elected to office.

It's ironic that both the United States and Canada, which are mainly technology driven nations for the most part, have been slow to react to growing concerns of highly fluctuating costs of carbon based energy.

In contrast, many areas of Europe have been investing heavily in environmental technology for years. The largest single factor motivating European countries to invest in clean technology has been the rising cost and decreasing availability of fuel (primarily gasoline). In North America, we have been complacent over the years, relying on abundant resources and relatively low cost of oil.

However, it's a different world now, as we have seen the cost of oil climb to record prices per barrel, and many developing nations showing an ever increasing demand for fossil fuels. In order for North America to have any hope of becoming energy independent, the initial investment must be made soon, because the consequences of waiting will be disastrous to both the environment and the economy. Things are moving, but they are moving slowly.

For those genuinely concerned about the environment and future generations, it's an easy decision to begin supporting alternative energy solutions both at home and in the community. With what appears to be an infinite sustainable energy market looming on the horizon, those wise speculators who act now by investing in cleantech will be the real winners.

More importantly, with investment in cleantech and alternative energy sources, directly or indirectly, we will begin seeing immediate benefits, as well as for many years ahead.

Douglas Hutchings is an entrepreneur and small business owner with a passion for saving costs and eliminating inefficiencies. Douglas founded his first company while finishing his engineering PhD at the University of Arkansas and was immediately hooked on building companies.

Douglas founded Silicon Solar Solutions in 2008 which reduces the cost of silicon-based solar cells. The company has won numerous awards and been labelled one of the "Most Promising Cleantech Startups in the Nation" and Douglas was named one of "The Nation's Top New Inventors".

Douglas founded myDealCompass in 2011 which seeks to eliminate the paper waste associated with traditional coupons and promotions. myDealCompass gives business owners the tools they need to do their own digital coupons and daily deals. myDealCompass was built from the ground up from feedback from small business owners facing the challenges above and is designed to reduce your advertising costs and negative environmental impact while increasing your foot traffic and growing your revenues.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Douglas_Hutchings
http://EzineArticles.com/?Defining-Cleantech&id=6783736

Who pays for carbon taxes on airlines? The customers!

/business/article/43791

Deutsche Lufthansa AG will pass on to its customers an expected 130 million euros ($169 million) of costs for carbon permits it needs this year under a new European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Germany's biggest airline said on Monday it will add the costs from the ETS to its fuel surcharge, becoming the first carrier to provide details of how it plans to cope with the additional burden.

"In the face of intensive competition, especially of companies from non-EU countries whose production is subject to emissions trading to only a small degree, Lufthansa will have to pass on the burden via ticket prices, as suggested by the EU," it said in a statement.

However in the short term Lufthansa will not raise its existing surcharges, which it had increased last month -- to between 102 euros and 122 per flight leg for intercontinental flights and to 31 euros for domestic and European flights -- though it said at the time this was just to cover higher fuel costs.

From this year, all airlines touching down or taking off in the EU will have to account for their CO2 emissions as part of an expansion of the world's largest carbon market.

Airlines and their associations have balked at the scheme and even challenged it in court, saying it further burdened an industry already saddled with soaring fuel prices, fierce competition and national taxes.

Global airlines group IATA has said it estimates the annual industry-wide cost of the ETS will rise to 2.8 billion euros by 2020 from 900 million this year.

Europe's highest court last month backed the scheme, meaning all airlines will have to pay for emissions permits, drawing anger from the United States and China.

Airlines will collectively receive in 2012 free permits amounting to 85 percent of the sector's total emissions, but because the limit is based on emissions over 2004 through 2006, most carriers are expected to need to buy more.

Image credit: Shutterstock,  Erasmus Wolff

Article continues: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/02/us-lufthansa-emissions-idUSTRE8010B220120102

View the original article here

Ecuadorean Court Upholds Ruling Against Chevron

A weekly podcast of the biggest news and best stories from NPR's foreign correspondents from around the world.

Subscribe

View the original article here

The Race To Dig Deeper Ports For Bigger Cargo Ships

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A container ship prepares to leave the Port of Miami in 2010. Plans are under way to deepen the port to 50 feet to attract bigger ships coming from the Panama Canal, but they've recently been put on hold after environmental groups filed a petition.

In 2014, when expansion of the Panama Canal is complete, a new generation of superlarge cargo ships will begin calling on the East Coast. Cities like New York; Savannah, Ga.; and Miami are vying for the new business, as they race to deepen their ports and expand their facilities to accommodate the new ships.

But some of the cities are running into significant challenges. In Miami, where plans are under way to deepen the port to 50 feet, dredging is a hot topic. Some see it as a great business opportunity. To others, it's a threat to the environment.

The director of Miami's port, Bill Johnson, is one of those who's excited: "We are the only port south of Norfolk, Va. ... that has full approval from the U.S. Congress to go to that depth. It is the game changer," he says.

When you kill the grass beds, there's no filtration. There's nothing to hold the sediment that's there down anymore.

- Dan Kipnis, an environmental activist for Miami's Biscayne Bay

After expansion of the Panama Canal is complete in 2014, ports on the Gulf and East Coast will see more so-called post-Panamax vessels — ships that carry two or three times the load of standard freighters.

Miami expects to be ready, if it gets the green light to begin dredging its port. But it recently hit a snag: Environmental groups, concerned about how the dredging would affect Biscayne Bay, filed a petition with state regulators that, for now, has put the project on hold.

"We're going to lose the bay. It won't survive it," says Dan Kipnis, a former charter boat captain and now an environmental activist who has long worked on Biscayne Bay.

Blasting In The Bay

Kipnis grew up here on nearby Palm Island, and was active in efforts in the 1970s and '80s to restore the health of the bay. Today, the water is cleaner than in decades past, and the bay is a busy place.

Along with the cargo ships, it's one of the world's busiest ports for cruise ships. There are also sailboats, kayaks and jet skis and, Kipnis says, excellent fishing.

"I will catch you groupers that weigh 12 pounds, and hog snappers and Spanish mackerel," he says. "It's just amazing the amount of life we've got here — forgetting crabs and shrimp and all that."

Kipnis has joined with Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper and the Tropical Audubon Society in asking Florida to make sure the port dredging project won't damage the bay.

Enlarge Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Port of Miami Director Bill Johnson (right) speaks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott at the port. "It is the game changer," Johnson says of the city's plan to deepen its port to accept new, larger ships from the Panama Canal.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images Port of Miami Director Bill Johnson (right) speaks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott at the port. "It is the game changer," Johnson says of the city's plan to deepen its port to accept new, larger ships from the Panama Canal.

The bottom of Biscayne Bay isn't mud, but limestone. To make the shipping channel wider and deeper, the Army Corps of Engineers wants to conduct nearly two years of underwater blasting.

Kipnis is worried about the amount of sediment the dredging will put into the bay's crystal clear water.

"If you lift all this silt up year in and year out for two years, and get it in suspension, you're going to kill the grass beds. When you kill the grass beds, there's no filtration. There's nothing to hold the sediment that's there down anymore," he says.

At a recent port presentation, Johnson, the Miami port chief, said he's willing to work with environmental groups to make sure the dredging is done in a way that addresses their concerns.

"We're not about killing manatees; we're not about polluting the bay. We're about doing things that are right," Johnson said.

East Coast Cities Race To Dredge

Miami is not the only city where port dredging plans are controversial. In Georgia, a plan to dredge Savannah's port has riled up environmentalists and politicians. Environmental groups are concerned about some of the same sediment issues raised in Miami.

Regulators in South Carolina, just across the Savannah River, at first moved to block the dredging. But then South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley intervened. In part because of her help, Georgia was able to negotiate a deal with South Carolina regulators that allows the dredging to go forward.

Some in the state felt that Haley was unfairly helping the competition. South Carolina is working to expand Charleston and its other ports to accommodate the new post-Panamax ships. At a news conference, Haley said there will be enough business for ports in both states.

"Those Panamax ships are coming through Charleston, and it is going to be so vibrant and so strong, that the overflow is going to go to Jasper, [S.C.], and Jasper is going to be a great port," Haley says. "Without question, the ports are the best thing we've got going. It's an opportunity waiting to happen."

That's a message you can hear in New Orleans, Baltimore, and other ports along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. So far, only one port — Norfolk — is deep enough to accommodate the new superlarge ships. By 2014, a handful of other cities hopes to be ready. But there's a lot of work to be done before then.

In New York, the port is deep enough, but there's another problem: the Bayonne Bridge, which is currently too low to allow the new container-laden ships to pass. To fix that, the Port Authority is planning to raise the bridge 64 feet — a job that will take more than $1 billion and five years to complete.

Around the Nation

Subscribe to Around the Nation podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

All Things Considered–

More voters in the New England state are registered "undeclared" than Republican or Democrat.

Scientists aren't sure what's wrong with the orcas in Puget Sound, but they're hot on the trail.

It's been a year since the shooting that left six dead and 13 wounded, including Gabrielle Giffords.

View the original article here

Gulf Stream: Charting the Chaotic Current That Warms Norway

/climate/article/43794

ScienceDaily (Dec. 2, 2011) — The North Atlantic Current -- popularly known as the Gulf Stream -- warms Norway and Northern Europe. It is the chaos of the seas that warms the country, researchers have discovered. If its waters flowed smoothly north along the Norwegian coastline, the current would deliver far less warmth.

Norway is situated at the same high northern latitude as Greenland, Northern Canada and Northern Siberia, but thanks to the Gulf Stream, its climate is significantly more temperate.

If the Norwegian branch of the North Atlantic Current flowed evenly, it would surge past Norway at a speed approaching one metre per second, roughly as fast as many rivers run. At that rate, the waters would need only 60 days or so to travel the length of Norway's mainland and reach Svalbard. This would mean that less of the current's heat would be transferred to the atmosphere, resulting in a substantially colder climate for Norway.

In the research project POLEWARD: A drifter experiment to quantify the poleward transport, transformation and spreading of oceanic properties, scientists have discovered that the current takes more than 500 days to flow past Norway, giving the waters more time to release their heat and warm up the country. The project received funding from the research programme on Climate Change and Impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA) at the Research Council of Norway.

Using buoys to chart the current

By deploying 150 marine buoys tracked by satellite, the POLEWARD project researchers were able to chart in detail how the current flows northward along the Norwegian coast.

The buoys revealed that the current often travels quickly, but because it is so irregular and thus highly variable -- indeed, chaotic may be the best description -- the Gulf Stream's journey takes perhaps as much as ten times longer than it would if it flowed smoothly. In this way there is time for the warm ocean current to convey a vastly greater proportion of its heat into the atmosphere, from which the warm air is carried on the predominantly westerly winds towards mainland Norway.

Article continues: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111202091148.htm

Image credit: http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/03/30/will-the-gulf-stream-slow-down/

View the original article here

Solar Panels Compete With Cheap Natural Gas

Enlarge Brittany Randolph/AP

Rows of solar panels at a solar farm in Kings Mountain, N.C.

Brittany Randolph/AP Rows of solar panels at a solar farm in Kings Mountain, N.C.

Renewable energy is growing rapidly in the U.S., with wind and solar industries enjoying double-digit growth each year. Part of that growth comes from more homeowners choosing to install solar panels.

With government subsidies, some people can even make a financial argument for installing the panels. But in recent years, the price of one fossil fuel — natural gas — has declined so much that solar panels are having difficulty competing.

The reason natural gas prices have fallen is because production is way up, thanks to hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, as it's called, is a controversial drilling technology that some say harms the environment. But the process has also made it possible to extract oil and gas once thought to be trapped in rock too deep underground for drillers to reach.

Due in large part to a combination of fracking and horizontal drilling, there's been a nearly 30 percent increase in the amount of natural gas produced in the U.S. since 2005.

"We've got a classic situation of supply and demand," says Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group based outside Pittsburgh.

Natural gas demand has not gone up as quickly as supply, and Klaber says the price has dropped.

"A handful of years ago, natural gas could have been in the order of 12, 13, 14 dollars per million BTU," she says. "We're now down to three to four [dollars]."

This has allowed utilities that burn natural gas to produce electricity to hold the line on rates. For most of us, that's a good thing, but for those who've installed solar panels, it makes that investment less of a bargain.

Barbara Scott had 21 solar panels installed last March on her house in Media, Pa. Scott's family was the first in the community, and she was prepared to evangelize, "We can have open houses and write newsletter articles and promote the idea of solar," she said. But that was before the economics changed.

With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system. She figured it would take eight years to recoup that investment.

Enlarge Jeff Brady/NPR

Barbara Scott and Mac Given in Media, Pa., had 21 solar panels installed last March. With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system.

Jeff Brady/NPR Barbara Scott and Mac Given in Media, Pa., had 21 solar panels installed last March. With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system.

A lot of other people had the same idea at the same time, which sent the price of solar energy credits down sharply in Pennsylvania. Scott says that added another seven years to the payback period.

On top of that, Scott says, electricity rates aren't going up as quickly as she thought they would, thanks in part to low natural gas prices.

"So that, again, adds another two years to our payback period," she says. "We're up to 17 years, which is, essentially, the life of the system. And we haven't even considered what happens if the system breaks or what it's going to cost to take the system off the roof and dispose of it. "

Despite this, Scott says she's still happy to have the panels on her house.

"But now, knowing it's — at best — a break-even proposition, we're not so comfortable telling other people to do it," she says.

Her experience raises questions about the viability of much larger, utility-scale solar projects built in recent years. But for them, the balance sheet looks different.

"They get a fixed price contract with a utility or somebody else who will buy that power from them," says Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the Center for American Progress. Or with utilities, "they get to roll that into a rate base and recover that cost from electric power consumers."

Caperton says what's more interesting is to think about the wind, solar and even nuclear plants that are not being built now because producing with cheaper natural gas is more attractive to investors.

But natural gas prices could rise again quickly. If that happens, solar panels may seem like a good investment once again.

Energy

Subscribe to Energy podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

Morning Edition–

The economic picture in Greece is already bleak.

Cheap natural gas due to fracking makes more expensive forms of renewable energy less attractive.

The president risks political attacks if he rejects the project — and legal hurdles if he OKs it.

View the original article here

Zoo Crafts Love Nest To Save Ozark's Salamanders

Jeff Briggler/Missouri Department of Conservation

An adult Ozark hellbender is typically brown or green with black markings that help it blend in with its rocky river-bottom habitat.

It's flat. It's slimy. And it hides under rocks on the river bottom. It's the Ozark hellbender, and at up to two feet in length, it's one of the world's largest salamanders.

But Ozark hellbenders are disappearing: Fewer than 600 are left in the rivers of southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. Scientists have been making a huge effort to get them to breed in captivity. And now, thanks to a major effort at the Saint Louis Zoo, 2012 could be the year of new hope for hellbenders.

The zoo has built a kind of honeymoon resort for salamanders, assembling a mini water treatment plant and carefully tweaking water chemistry to recreate their cold, fast-flowing Ozark streams — minus any distracting predators or pollution.

Enlarge Veronique LaCapra/St. Louis Public Radio

Two outdoor raceways, or artificial streams, are home to 16 adult Ozark hellbenders at the Saint Louis Zoo. The screens keep the hellbenders in –- and unwanted predators like raccoons out.

Veronique LaCapra/St. Louis Public Radio Two outdoor raceways, or artificial streams, are home to 16 adult Ozark hellbenders at the Saint Louis Zoo. The screens keep the hellbenders in –- and unwanted predators like raccoons out.

"What we're looking at is two 40-foot-long raceways or simulated streams that we've constructed over the last two-and-a-half to three years," says Jeff Ettling, the curator for herpetology and aquatics at the zoo. "You'll notice that if you kind of look through the screen, you can see here there's an artificial nest box right here in front of us."

Buried in the gravel stream bed are concrete boxes with a narrow entrance tunnel at one end. They may not sound very comfy, but to a male hellbender, they're the perfect man cave — just what he needs to hunker down, fertilize and guard his stash of eggs.

But a hellbender doesn't exactly fit the image of a romantic Casanova.

"It's got these large wrinkles of skin on the side of its body. And it has a large flat head," says Jeff Briggler, the state herpetologist for the Missouri Department of Conservation. "It looks almost like a pancake, and [it has] little tiny beady eyes. A lot of people think they're not the prettiest animal in the world, but I've grown very fond of them."

A lot of people think they're not the prettiest animal in the world, but I've grown very fond of them.

- Jeff Briggler, state herpetologist for the Missouri Department of Conservation

Zookeeper Chawna Schuette loves them, too, and thinks they've gotten a bad rap.

"They have been called things like 'snot otters' and 'lasagna sides' because they're slimy and they've got frilly little sides on them," Schuette says.

Schuette has been helping to try to breed hellbenders at the zoo because wild hellbenders are in trouble. Development has destroyed a lot of their Ozark habitat; hundreds have been collected for the illegal pet trade, and others have been killed off by pollution and disease.

'There's Fertile Eggs In Here'

All these problems have made hellbender populations plummet. But even more alarming, says the Missouri Department of Conservation's Jeff Briggler, is that young hellbenders have disappeared.

"All we're seeing is these large adults, and once these die off there's not going to be any animals behind them," he says. Briggler says scientists realized if they didn't do something, Ozark hellbenders would soon go extinct. He and others started collecting fertilized eggs to raise them in captivity. And at the Saint Louis Zoo, the hellbender breeding program kicked into high gear.

Enlarge Mark Wanner/Saint Louis Zoo

Ozark hellbender embryos developing in their eggs at the Saint Louis Zoo.

Mark Wanner/Saint Louis Zoo Ozark hellbender embryos developing in their eggs at the Saint Louis Zoo.

At first, things didn't go so well.

"We've had females lay eggs, indoors, but the males were not fertilizing the eggs," says Ettling, the zoo project manager. "And when we looked at samples of sperm, they looked like they were malformed. And we just thought we have other problems."

Ettling says that's when they built the outdoor raceways with their high-tech water treatment system. This September, 16 Ozark hellbenders moved in. No one expected them to breed right away.

Then, one chilly October morning, Schuette put on her wetsuit and snorkeling gear to give the hellbenders their weekly checkup.

"And so I was just in the process of collecting animals, recording where they were at, getting weights on them, and all that sort of stuff, as well as checking just in the off-chance that there were eggs," she says. She opened one of the nest boxes.

"I knew right away — I was like, 'there's fertile eggs in here!' And I almost choked on the water in my snorkel, because I was so excited," she says.

Briggler was at the zoo that day, too. "We were, I mean, we were just, I can't even describe it. It excited us tremendously," he says.

A total of 185 have now hatched at the Saint Louis Zoo. Another 1,000-plus will arrive there this spring, raised from wild-fertilized eggs.

They'll stay at the zoo for another six or seven years until they're big enough to be released. The hope is they'll keep the wild population going until researchers can figure out — and fix — whatever is going wrong in the environment.

Animals

Subscribe to Animals podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

All Things Considered–

Scientists aren't sure what's wrong with the orcas in Puget Sound, but they're hot on the trail.

High-protein foods have umami flavor. Mushrooms do, too. That has protein-hungry cats confused.

View the original article here

Fracking Byproducts May Be Linked To Ohio Quakes

Melissa Block interviews John Armbruster, a seismologist with Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of Columbia University, about why he believes the waste from fracking in Ohio has led to the earthquakes there. He says the injection of waste water from the fracking process created pressure on nearby faults, and he expects the quakes to continue — even after the process is stopped.

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:

A series of earthquakes that have shaken Ohio over the last year were most likely caused by the injection deep underground of wastewater generated by drilling. That's the conclusion of a seismologist who's been studying the quakes and their connection to deep-injection disposal wells. Those wells in Ohio hold the waste fluids from hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Sand and chemicals are injected deep into the ground to fracture it, to make extracting natural gas easier. And then, something has to be done with that leftover wastewater, which brings us to John Armbruster, the seismologist, who Ohio regulators brought in to monitor these earthquakes. He's with Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

JOHN ARMBRUSTER: This fracking fluid that you bring back is a waste that goes on a truck and is taken to a well, such as we are going to discuss, in Youngstown, Ohio, where this is disposed of by pumping it back into the ground again.

BLOCK: And we should be clear that there are separate concerns about the fracking process itself, which has to do with contamination of drinking water. We're talking about the aftermath, which is the waste fluid and what you have found, apparently, is that it is tied to this string of earthquakes in Ohio.

How did you come to that conclusion?

ARMBRUSTER: Well, we look at the evidence. Youngstown is an area which doesn't have a history of earthquakes. This disposal well started operating in December of 2010. Three months later, the earthquakes began and the earthquakes are trickling along. From March to November, you have nine earthquakes, all of a similar size, 2.5, 2.1, 2.7.

On Christmas Eve, there was a magnitude 2.7 earthquake. Our location of that Christmas Eve earthquake was about one kilometer from the bottom of the well and the location of the earthquake was sufficient evidence that there could be a link.

BLOCK: Help us understand, Mr. Armbruster, what would be going on seismically. If you have this waste water fluid deep underground, why would that trigger earthquakes?

ARMBRUSTER: I would compare it to a hydraulic jack. You're pumping this fluid into a crack and the pressure of this fluid is pushing against the two sides, encouraging the fault to slip.

BLOCK: The injection well near Youngstown, Ohio, that we've been talking about was actually shut down last week by the Department of Natural Resources in Ohio. There was then a magnitude 4.0 quake on Saturday after that. What would account for that and what does that say about what might happen going forward?

ARMBRUSTER: Well, the well has been pumping for a year. It's going to take a period of time comparable to that for the effects of this pumping to completely dissipate away.

BLOCK: Who is responsible for monitoring or regulating these wells?

ARMBRUSTER: Each state has an environmental protection agency or something with that type of name that licenses and regulates these wells.

BLOCK: Now, Ohio has something like 177 of these deep injection wells. I read a statement from an industry group which says that these kinds of wells have been used safely and reliably since the 1930s to dispose of waste water from drilling. Is the record pretty good, pretty safe, do you think?

ARMBRUSTER: Yeah. I don't argue with that. It's a matter of luck. When you have a well, is there an earthquake waiting to happen close enough to that well that you can trigger it to occur? I would advocate monitoring of wells to know when triggering of earthquakes first begins. Then you can decide whether to continue using that well.

BLOCK: Well, Mr. Armbruster, thanks for talking to us.

ARMBRUSTER: You're welcome.

BLOCK: John Armbruster is a seismologist with Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

View the original article here

When Property Rights, Environmental Laws Collide

Fans get our favorite stories, exclusive videos and real-time messages while we're on the air.

join us

View the original article here

U.S. weighs retaliation over Europe carbon tax

/business/article/43817

The Obama administration is laying the groundwork for possible retaliation in response to a European law requiring airlines to pay for carbon emissions.

Discussions between key agencies have ramped up recently, although there is no consensus yet on what, if anything, the U.S. government should do unilaterally or in concert with other nations also upset with the law.

The EU law went into effect on January 1 and requires global airlines to pay for carbon emissions on flights to and from Europe.

Several experts said one option the United States could pursue would involve charging European airlines to maintain U.S. access to pressure EU policymakers. This strategy was used by the United States in a recently concluded dispute with Argentina over landing fees.

"We are contemplating a wide range of possible steps that we could take, or actions that we might take," a senior administration official told Reuters.

"All these are on the table, we haven't decided how to move forward on any specific one," the official said, while declining to give specifics on the possible steps.

U.S. airlines, some of which have already raised fares to offset the EU carbon trading scheme, expect a formal response from the Obama administration.

"We take the White House at their word that they are prepared to take action, which could include a country-to-country legal action, retaliatory measures or any number of steps to urge the withdrawal of the EU's unilateral scheme in favor of a global approach," said Steve Lott, a spokesman for the U.S. industry's leading trade group, Airlines for America.

The State and Transportation departments warned the European Union in December that the administration was prepared to "respond appropriately" if the EU did not reconsider the measure or seek a negotiated settlement through the United Nations.

Neither occurred before the law took effect, prompting outcry from airlines globally. Carriers said the change amounted to a new tax at a time when they are wrestling with historically high fuel costs and softening demand in domestic flights, especially in the United States.

Photo shows a Brussels Airlines aircraft preparing for landing in Cointrin airport during sunrise over the Mont Blanc in Geneva December 1, 2011. Credit: Reuters/Denis Balibouse

Article continues: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-eu-airlines-idUSTRE8051YU20120106

View the original article here

Oil-Drilling Wastewater Seen Causing Earthquake

A northeast Ohio well used to dispose of wastewater from oil and gas drilling almost certainly caused a series of 11 minor earthquakes in the Youngstown area since last spring, a seismologist investigating the quakes said Monday.

Research is continuing on seismic activity near the now-shuttered injection well at Youngstown, Ohio, but it might take a year for the wastewater-related rumblings in the earth to dissipate, said John Armbruster of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y.

Brine wastewater dumped into wells comes from drilling operations, including the so-called fracking process to extract gas from underground shale, which has been a source of concern among environmental groups and some property owners. Injection wells have also been suspected of helping to cause earthquakes in Arkansas, Colorado and Oklahoma, Armbruster said.

Thousands of gallons of brine were injected daily into the Youngstown well that opened in 2010, until its owner, Northstar Disposal Services LLC, agreed Friday to stop injecting the waste into the earth as a precaution while authorities assessed any potential links to the quakes.

After the latest and largest quake Saturday, at a 4.0 magnitude, state officials announced their belief that injecting wastewater near a fault line had created enough pressure to cause seismic activity. They said four inactive wells within a five-mile radius of the Youngstown well would remain closed. But they also stressed that injection wells are different from drilling wells that employ fracking.

Armbruster said Monday that he expects more quakes will occur, despite the shutdown of the Youngstown well.

"The earthquakes will trickle on as a kind of a cascading process once you've caused them to occur," he said. "This one year of pumping is a pulse that has been pushed into the ground, and it's going to be spreading out for at least a year."

The quakes began last March, with the most recent on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve — each occurring within 100 meters of the injection well. The quake Saturday in McDonald, outside of Youngstown, caused no serious injuries or property damage.

State Rep. Robert Hagan of Youngstown on Monday renewed his call for a moratorium on fracking and well injection disposal, to allow a review of safety issues.

"If it's safe, I want to do it," he said in a telephone interview. "If it's not, I don't want to be part and parcel to destruction of the environment and the fake promise of jobs."

He said a moratorium "really is what we should be doing, mostly toward the injection wells, but we should be asking questions on drilling itself."

A spokesman for Gov. John Kasich, an outspoken supporter of the growing oil and natural gas industry in Ohio, said the shale industry shouldn't be punished for a fracking byproduct.

"That would be the equivalent of shutting down the auto industry because a scrap tire dump caught fire somewhere," said Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols.

Nichols said that 177 deep injection wells have operated without incident in Ohio for decades, and that the Youngstown well was closed within 24 hours of a study detailing how close a Christmas Eve quake was to the well.

The industry-supported Ohio Oil and Gas Association said the rash of quakes was "a rare and isolated event that should not cast doubt about the effectiveness" of injection wells.

Such wells "have been used safely and reliably as a disposal method for wastewater from oil and gas operations in the U.S. since the 1930s," the association's executive vice president, Thomas E. Stewart, said in a statement Monday.

Environmentalists are critical of the hydraulic fracturing process, called fracking, which utilizes chemical-laced water and sand to blast deep into the ground and free the shale gas. Critics fear the process itself, or the drilling liquid, which can contain carcinogens, could contaminate water supplies, either below ground, by spills, or in disposed wastewater.

Permits to allow companies to perform hydraulic fracturing in Ohio's portion of the Marcellus and the deeper Utica Shale formations rose from one in 2006 to at least 32 in 2011.

Environment

Subscribe to Environment podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

The Associated Press–

A couple say the EPA, concerned about wetlands, infringed on their right to build their dream home.

The diver reunited it with the owner's grandson nearly 40 years later.

Experts discuss the different scientific phenomena that combine to make up the winter season.

View the original article here

Keystone Oil Pipeline Deadline Puts Obama In A Pinch

Nati Harnik/AP

TransCanada hoped to build a pipeline under the Niobrara River in north central Nebraska, seen here in October 2010. The pipeline's route has been challenged by environmental advocates.

When Congress gave the White House a tight 60-day deadline for approving or rejecting the controversial Keystone project, it seemed like a Christmas gift to TransCanada, the company building the pipeline that would carry oil from Canada all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

But TransCanada says it didn't ask for this deadline and it doesn't know how to handle this unwanted gift.

"We're heading into uncharted territory," says James Millar, a TransCanada spokesman.

We have essentially become the lightning rod for that broader debate around the consumption of fossil fuels.

- James Millar, TransCanada spokesman

Last year, environmentalists and ranchers in Nebraska succeeded in delaying the Keystone XL pipeline by arguing that it put a huge aquifer at risk. The company is looking for a new route through Nebraska, and it doesn't expect to have it pinned down until next fall.

The unrequested deadline was just the latest consequence of how politicized the Keystone pipeline has become.

"We have essentially become the lightning rod for that broader debate around the consumption of fossil fuels," says Millar.

Environmentalists made Keystone their prime target last year. Their protests helped persuade the president to delay a decision on whether the pipeline is in the national interest.

Environmentalists' biggest concern is that the massive amount of oil that would flow through the pipeline would come from tar sands, and it takes a lot more energy to pull oil out of tar sands than it does to pump a well. That translates into extra greenhouse gas pollution.

'It's Not Just A Pipeline; It's A Lifeline'

In recent weeks, Republicans and some labor unions have turned the project into another kind of litmus test — one that measures the president's commitment to creating new jobs.

David Mallino, a lobbyist for the Laborers International Union of North America, attributes all the controversy around the project to its enormous size.

"Seven billion dollars of private investment don't come along every day; they don't come along every year or every decade," says Mallino.

So what's a president to do, especially when key parts of his political base are on opposite sides of the issue?

People like Mallino are urging the White House to take advantage of the deadline and give the project a quick green light.

"The pipeline itself is essential to putting thousands of our members back to work. It's not just a pipeline; it's a lifeline for those members. This is the right thing to do," says Mallino.

TransCanada Committed For The Long Haul

But many environmentalists and legal scholars say President Obama can't approve it. It would be like granting a building permit when a construction company hasn't chosen a lot yet.

The State Department had warned Republicans that their deadline would make it unable to issue a permit.

"It would be essentially defenseless in a lawsuit if it tried to make a decision having acknowledged that it doesn't have adequate information," says Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School.

Environmental groups say they would sue if the Obama administration did approve the project.

Some energy experts think the president will reject the project this round but that will not be the end of it, because the Canadian oil is so valuable.

"The sequence of events could easily be: The president rejects this pipeline, we then have a crisis in the Middle East, we suddenly realize we're not having this Canadian oil when we could have, and then people are angry about that," says Amy Myers Jaffe, director of energy research at Rice University's Baker Institute.

A steady flow of Canadian oil through the pipeline would protect the United States from the potential disruptions of oil supply from unstable countries in the Middle East, Jaffe adds.

If the short deadline forces the Obama administration to reject Keystone on legal grounds, TransCanada would probably reapply.

In 2010, TransCanada completed a major pipeline — the Keystone — which runs from Alberta to Illinois. The company is now planning a second line, called the Keystone XL, that would run from Alberta to Nebraska with an extension from Oklahoma to the refineries on the Gulf Coast. But the company is now faced with the challenge of rerouting the pipeline to avoid ecologically-sensitive land in Nebraska.

The company says it's committed to the project for the long haul, no matter what political and legal storms it has to weather.

Energy

Subscribe to Energy podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

All Things Considered–

The economic picture in Greece is already bleak.

Cheap natural gas due to fracking makes more expensive forms of renewable energy less attractive.

The president risks political attacks if he rejects the project — and legal hurdles if he OKs it.

View the original article here