Congress Should Wake Up and Smell the Burnt Brussels Biofuels Brew Before Imposing Counterproductive & Harmful Renewable Energy Mandates in the US

http://euobserver.com/9/26454

EU Signals Retreat On Biofuels Target

By LEIGH PHILLIPS

EU Observer

July 7, 2008

European energy ministers have backed away from the EU's biofuels for transport target, admitting a gross confusion on their part in which they said they had been misreading policy documents since the target was initially proposed a year and a half ago.

The ministers, meeting in Paris for informal discussions, said that upon closer inspection, EU proposals that aim for a target of 10 percent of fuels for cars and lorries coming from biofuels by 2020 in fact only demand that 10 percent of fuels come from renewable sources, which may or may not be the controversial energy source.

Bioethanol from Brazil, produced from sugar cane, does not compete with food staples (Photo: Wikipedia)

"The member states realised that the commission's plan specifies that 10 percent of transport needs must come from renewable energy, not 10 percent from biofuels," French energy and environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo told reporters at the conclusion of the meeting. [OOPS!!!]

Until now, it was believed that EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to 10 percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010.

Jochen Homann, a state secretary in the German Ministry of Economics and Technology said he and his colleagues had "discovered" that the documents "do not speak of biofuels, but renewables," according to AFP.

"We have to decide if the quota can be kept," Mr Homann said. "It might be changed."

The retreat comes after months of pressure on the EU and US from environmental groups, development NGOs and international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations to adjust or abandon their biofuels policies.

Until a year ago, the alternative fuel source had widely been seen as a green alternative to petrol that also allowed European and developing world farmers to benefit from new markets for their crops.

At the international level however, there is now broad consensus that production of many biofuels releases as many greenhouse gases as the use of fossil fuels and that they have contributed to the global food crisis as farmers switch to growing crops for fuel instead of food.

The coup de grace for EU biofuels policy seems to have come on Friday, when a confidential internal World Bank report leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper concluded that biofuels were responsible for 75 percent of the skyrocketing rise in food prices.

Mr Borloo said at the meeting that the policy could instead be interpreted to mean the deployment of hydrogen fuel cells or electric cars using electricity from alternative sources. [NICE ATTEMPT TO COVER UP YOUR BLUNDER!!]

Nonetheless, despite the re-reading, there has been no official policy change proposed. Meanwhile, the ministers are mulling over a proposal for a biofuels accord with Brazil.

Green MEP Claude Turmes, the deputy responsible for shepherding renewable energy legislation through the European Parliament, has suggested that the EU reach a bilateral agreement with the South American country, the biggest producer of bioethanol in the world.

"My analysis shows the only country where we can sustainably import substantial quantities of agri-fuels to the EU at the moment is Brazil," Mr Turmes said following the meeting, according to Reuters. [THAT IS, UNTIL YOU AND YOUR FELLOW BUREAUCRATS CAN FIND A WAY TO DECLARE BRAZILIAN SUGAR CANE-BASED ETHANOL UNSAFE, UNHEALTHY OR UNSUSTAINABLE IN ORDER TO BLOCK ITS IMPORTATION!!!]

US Congress Must Pay Close Attention: EU Commission President Called Upon to Reverse Flawed Brussels Biofuel Policies Causing High Prices & Hunger

Dear Dr. Kogan,


Using crops to make biofuels is contributing to the global food crisis. This statement is made in a letter dated June 2, 2008 to the European Commission and EU Heads of State urging them to abandon the proposed 10 per cent target for the use of biofuels in transport and to dismantle associated support measures.


The co-signing organisations include: Friend of the Earth Europe, Oxfam International, World Vision International, Bread for the World, CARE International, Cordaid, FIAN International, MISEREOR, Natuur en Milieu, Practical Action, SWISSAID, Save Our Borneo, AEFJN (Africa- Europe Faith & Justice Network), Agrarbuendnis Oesterreich, Both ENDS, Climate Alliance, CORE (Centre for Organisation Research & Education), Corporate Europe Observatory, Down to Earth - the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia (UK), Fair-fish, FERN, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, GM-Free Ireland Network, Global Forest Coalition, KoBra (Kooperation Brasilien), Nature Alert (UK), The Centre for Orangutan Protection (Indonesia), Plataforma Transgenicos (Pt), Pro REGENWALD, Quercus, Rettet den Regenwald.


The co-signing organizations are critical of the stance of the European Commission for denying that the EU's continuing support for biofuels is contributing to food price rises and food shortages around the world. The co-signing organizations are writing to outline their "concerns around the role that increasing demand for biofuels is playing in this situation and to call on the European Union to drop the proposed 10 per cent biofuels target." These co-signing organizations stated that:


- "The European’s Commission’s own science and environmental agencies have called into question current biofuels policy. In addition, a growing body of scientific research shows that biofuels will not help to meet the EU’s objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."


- "[T]he European Commission has estimated conservatively that the 10 per cent target will drive up cereal prices by only 3 to 6 per cent..." However, "separate analysis suggests that this could translate to an extra 50 to 100 million hungry people than would otherwise have been the case."


- "[T]he IMF has commented that increasing demand for biofuels explains ’20 to 30 per cent’ of recent food price increases. This is corroborated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) which puts the contribution of biofuels to the crisis at 30 per cent."Please find attached the full document.


This document can be obtained from: http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/documents/Letter_food_prices_02June08.pdf


Sorin Straja

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

José Manuel Barroso
President of the European commission
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Copy: EU Heads of State


2 June 2008


Dear President Barroso


As you are aware, global food prices have risen sharply in the past three years – the World Bank estimates by 83 per centi. For the World’s poor, who typically spend 50-80 per cent of their income on food, this has proven devastating. Riots have broken out in numerous poor countries as millions of people have seen the price of food spiral out of their reachii. The World Bank has estimated that already 100 million people have been pushed into poverty as a resultiii, undermining already shaky progress towards the first Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger to which the European Union has made repeated commitments.


Contrary to what many seem to imagine, it is not just the urban poor that are being affected – the majority of poor rural households are also net consumers of food and so suffering the same fate. We are writing to outline our concerns around the role that increasing demand for biofuels is playing in this situation and to call on the European Union to drop the proposed 10 per cent biofuels target.


As you are also aware, the reasons for these price rises are numerous and complex. They include rising demand for meat and dairy foods in emerging economies; adverse weather events and poor harvests, most notably for wheat; and higher energy costs which translate to higher costs of production and transport. We note with alarm however the repeated refusal of the European Commission to acknowledge its own role, through the promotion of biofuels, in the crisis. This is
despite a clear consensus among prominent economists and international organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the OECD, the World Food Programme, and the Food and Agriculture Organization, that increasing demand for biofuels is an important contributory factor. For your information, we attach as an appendix a summary of recent commentary to this effect.


According to the IMF, “rising biofuel production in the United States and the European Union has boosted demand for corn, rapeseed oil and other grains and edible oils. Although biofuels account for only 1.5 per cent of the global liquid fuels supply, they account for almost half the increase in consumption of major food crops in 2006-07.”iv In a recent paper, the OECD concluded that between 2005 and 2007, “nearly 60 per cent of the increase in use of both cereals and vegetable oil was due to higher use in the biofuels industry.”v As a result, the IMF has commented that increasing demand for biofuels explains ’20 to 30 per cent’ of recent food price increasesvi. This is corroborated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) which puts the contribution of biofuels to the crisis at 30 per centvii.


This is not only the United States. The EU is already the World’s biggest producer and consumer of biodiesel, and its contribution to the food crisis is set to increase under current proposals to take biofuel consumption from under 2 per cent of transport fuel needs today, to at least 10 per cent by 2020. The Joint Research Centre has estimated that meeting this target would require 19 per cent of world vegetable oil productionviii. IFPRI has estimated that by 2020 existing plans for biofuel expansion will have pushed the price of edible oils up by 18 per cent, and corn by 26 per cent, with direct impacts upon hunger, most notably in Africaix. The OECD estimates that under current policies – primarily those of the US and EU – demand for cereal feedstocks will double by 2017, and that biofuels will account for over a third of the growth in vegetable oil consumption in the same period. For its part, the European Commission has estimated conservatively that the 10 per cent target will drive up cereal prices by only 3 to 6 per cent – separate analysis suggests that this could translate to an extra 50 to 100 million hungry people than would otherwise have been the casex.


In the meantime, the EU continues to heavily subsidise biofuels, the net effect of which is to incentivise the diversion of food and agricultural land into fuel production. IFPRI has commented that “subsidies for biofuels that use agricultural production resources are extremely anti-poor because they act as a tax on basic food, which represents a large share of poor people’s consumption expenditures and becomes even more costly as prices increase.”xi By reducing access to food in poor countries, biofuel policies such as those of the EU are undermining the Right to Food, recognised within International Law, and which states are legally obliged to respect internationallyxii.


Biofuels are not a ‘scapegoat’ for the food crisis. We acknowledge that a number of
factors are having a significant impact upon food prices. But, biofuels is undoubtedly a significant one. More importantly, it is the one factor that EU policymakers can do something about – changing global dietary patterns, the oil price, and the weather are all outside the scope of European policymaking. Biofuel demand is not. Analysis by IFPRI shows that an immediate global moratorium on biofuels would translate to rapid and significant reductions in the price of foodxiii.


The European’s Commission’s own science and environmental agencies have called into question current biofuels policy. In addition, a growing body of scientific research shows that biofuels will not help to meet the EU’s objective of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.


In light of this, we call on the European Union to act decisively to mitigate the food crisis by dropping the proposed 10 per cent biofuels target and dismantling associated biofuel support measures. To continue the current pursuit of biofuels in the face of the credible, impartial and growing opinion that this is exacerbating the food crisis would be wholly unacceptable.


Yours faithfully


Christine Fouarge
Policy Officer
AEFJN (Africa- Europe Faith & Justice Network)


Elisabeth Baumhoefer
Speaker
Agrarbuendnis Oesterreich


Danielle Hirsch
Director
Both ENDS - The Netherlands


Ms Danuta Sacher
Head of Department Policy and Campaigns
Bread for the World


Dr. Robert Glasser
Secretary General
CARE International


Thomas Brose
Director
Climate Alliance


Marjolein Dubbers
Manager Sector Entrepreneurship
Cordaid - Netherlands


Dr D Roy Laifungbam
Director
CORE (Centre for Organisation Research & Education)


Nina Holland
Corporate Europe Observatory


Carolyn Marr
Co-ordinator
Down to Earth - the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia (UK)


Heinzpeter Studer
Director
Fair-fish


Veerle Dossche
Bio-energy Campaigner
FERN


Dr. Flavio Luiz Schieck Valente
Secretary General
FIAN International


Magda Stoczkiewicz
Director
Friends of the Earth Europe


Ms. Meenakshi Raman
Honorary Secretary
Sahabat Alam Malaysia / Friends of the Earth Malaysia


Michael O’Callaghan
Co-ordinator
GM-Free Ireland Network


Simone Lovera
Managing Coordinator
Global Forest Coalition


Christian Russau
Member of Directory Board
KoBra (Kooperation Brasilien)


Dr. Martin Bröckelmann-Simon
Managing Director International Cooperation
MISEREOR (the German Catholic Bishops' Organization for Development
Cooperation)


Sean Whyte
CEO
Nature Alert (UK) and The Centre for Orangutan Protection (Indonesia)


Mirjam de Rijk
Director
Natuur en Milieu


Jeremy Hobbs
Executive Director
Oxfam International


Margarida Silva
Co-ordinator
Plataforma Transgenicos Fora, Portugal (Portuguese GM-Free Coalition)


Andrew Scott
Policy and Programmes Director
Practical Action


Hermann Edelmann
Coordinator
Pro REGENWALD


Hélder Spínola
President of the National Board
Quercus - Associação National de Conservação da Natureza


Reinhard Behrend
President
Rettet den Regenwald e. V.


Nordin
Co-ordinator
Save Our Borneo


Caroline Morel
Director
SWISSAID


John Githongo
Vice President, Policy & Advocacy
World Vision International


Appendix – recent commentary on biofuels and the food crisis


“We should cut back significantly on our biofuels programmes…the biofuel impact is
greater in the US because it’s a larger programme. In Europe, it’s still a real impact
though due to two things: to a modest extent food, wheat for example, is used for
creating biofuels in Europe and that amount is to multiply considerably in the years
ahead. Secondly, land that is crop-growing land is diverted from grains to rapeseed
and other inputs for biodiesel…neither makes much sense in terms of the
environmental effect, the energy balances or the food impact.”

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, Columbia University and former
Director of the Millennium Project and Special Advisor to Kofi Annan.


“Biofuels is no doubt a significant contributor [to the food crisis]. It is clearly the case
that programmes in Europe and the United States that have increased biofuel
production have contributed to the added demand for food.”

Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank


“Land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies
to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis.”

Professor Paul Krugman, Princeton University


“We need to pull [EU biofuel policy] back before it does real damage. We have
surely learnt enough about European agriculture to realise how important it is to kill
this incipient scam before we are engulfed by it.”

Professor Paul Collier, University of Oxford, and former Director of Research at the World Bank.


“[Governments need to] look more carefully at the link between the acceleration in
biofuels and food supply and give more thought to it.”

Josette Sheeran, Executive Director of the World Food Programme.


“Our analysis suggests that if a moratorium on biofuels would be issued in 2008, we
could expect a price decline of maize by about 20 per cent and for wheat by about 10
per cent in 2009-10. So it’s this significant.”

Joachim von Braun, Director General, International Food Policy Research Institute


Notes

i ‘Rising food prices: policy options and World Bank response’, World Bank, 2008.

ii For example Guinea, Cameroon, Niger, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mexico, Burkina Faso, Philippines, Bangladesh, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, Senegal, Yemen, Haiti, Mozambique.

iii ‘Implications of Higher Global Food Prices for Poverty in Low-Income Countries’, Policy Research Working Paper 4594, World Bank, Washington, 2008.

iv ‘World Economic Outlook 2008, IMF, April 2008.

v ‘Rising Food Prices: Causes and Consequences”, OECD, paper prepared for the DAC High Level Meeting, 20-21 May 2008.

vi Simon Johnson, Chief Economist of the IMF, speaking on The Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, 14th April 2008.

vii ‘Biofuels and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses’, IFRPI, 2008.

viii ‘Biofuels in the European Context: Facts, Uncertainties and Recommendations’, JRC Working
Paper, 19 December 2007.

ix ‘The World Food Situation: New Driving Forces and Required Actions”, IFPRI, 2007.

x Separate analysis suggests that for every percentage point rise in the price of food from today until 2025, an extra 16 million people will be hungry in 2025 than would otherwise have been the case. Applying this to the EU’s estimates for the impact of the 10% target on cereal prices suggests the target could result in an extra 50 to 100 million hungry people. See Runge, C. and Senauer, B., ‘How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor’, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007.

xi ‘The World Food Situation: New Driving Forces and Required Actions”, IFPRI, 2007.

xii General Comment No.12, “Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights: The Right to Adequate Food”, E/C.12/1999/5, 12 May 1999, para 36 states that “states parties should take steps to respect the enjoyment of the right to food in other countries, to protect that right, to facilitate access to food and to provide the necessary aid where required.”

xiii ‘Biofuels and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses’, IFRPI, 2008.

EU Energy Entrepreneurs Experience Economic Epiphany Exposing Elusive Emissions Endgame

http://www.enn.com/climate/article/31567

Power Users Warn EU Investment Stalls Over Climate

From: Reuters Published February 21, 2008 11:41 AM

By Huw Jones and William Schomberg

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Energy-intensive industries in Europe warned on Thursday that big investment decisions are being put on hold until the European Union hammers out its plan for fighting climate change after 2012.

A month after the EU's executive announced proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 27-nation bloc, executives from some of Europe's biggest companies said they could not afford to wait long for details of how the system will work.

Juha Rantanen, chief executive of Finnish stainless steel company Outokumpu, said the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, which will make companies pay increasingly for their pollution, was already hitting his company's plans to expand mining of ferrochrome, a stainless steel ingredient."With not knowing what the price of electricity will be beyond 2012, or what will be the price of emissions rights, we are not making that investment and instead we buy ferrochrome from South Africa and Kazakhstan, where it's being produced in an environmentally less efficient way," he told Reuters.

"This trading scheme puts a cost into operations in Europe which is higher than for competitors in other regions. That will ultimately lead to European industry investing less in Europe."

Jean-Pierre Clamadieu, CEO of French chemicals group Rhodia , noted that French cement maker Lafarge had recently suspended its investments in plants in the EU and said Rhodia might face a similar dilemma in the near future.

"It is important we get as quickly as possible visibility on (the EU plans)," Clamadieu said. "If we don't, then I think there will be lot of investment project delay or investment which will move to different regions of the world."

DECISION DEFERRED

EU governments aim to agree on a post-2012 reform of the Emissions Trading Scheme by the end of this year, but the Commission wants to defer the question of special treatment for energy-intensive industries until 2010.

The outcome will depend on whether there is an international agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, it argues.

Addressing the same conference on climate change and business, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso pledged again that if there were no global solution,

the EU would look at interim measures such as free emissions permits for energy-intensive industries.

Other executives voiced concern that Europe's ambitious plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions would hurt the competitiveness of industry.

The United States, the world's biggest economy, rejects the idea of mandatory emissions caps and major developing economies, such as China and India, say it is unfair to ask them to make big emissions cuts after centuries of pollution by richer countries.

U.S. Ambassador to the EU Boyden Gray suggested Europe should delay its ambitious targets for cutting emissions from 2020 until 2030 to allow time for technology to develop.
European industries that are the biggest consumers of power want special treatment under the new rules.

Michel Wurth, who sits on the management board of the world's biggest steelmaker, ArcelorMittal, said companies like his wanted know how the EU would define energy-intensive industries, what proportion of emissions rights they would have to pay for and how much funding they would get to finance research into cleaner manufacturing and new products.

"Today the European steel industry is at the top in terms of energy efficiency so if you force European steel to reduce or get out of production, the consequence will be the global steel industry will emit more than it does today," he said.

ArcelorMittal recently agreed to keep open a blast furnace in Liege, Belgium, until 2012 but possibly not longer due to the uncertainties about the next phase of the EU energy rules after that date, Wurth said.

(Additional reporting by David Lawsky, editing by Anthony Barker)

Mr. Clinton, Please Explain: US Must Adopt Europe's Economically Harmful Malthusian Negative Sustainable Development Climate-Energy Policies??

Bill Clinton Says Economic Slowdown Could Be Necessary To Fight Global Warming

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009891998

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=92235

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2008/02/01/bill-clinton-predicts-an-economic-slowdown-in-order-to-create-millions-and-millions-of-new-jobs-in-an-active-environment-plan

http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2008/01/bill-we-just-have-to-slow-down-our-economy-to-fight-global-warming

January 31, 2008 1:42 p.m. EST

Julie Farby - AHN Reporter

Denver, CO (AHN)-Speaking in Denver on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton did not mince words on how to combat global warming, telling the crowd that the fight against climate change required industrialized nations to "slow down their economies and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions."


Bill Clinton, who was traveling from state to state to campaign on behalf of his wife's presidential bid, spoke to the Colorado crowd about the importance of a good energy plan not only to curb greenhouse gas emission and global warming, but also to stimulate job growth as well.
Although Clinton said that an active environmental plan may require an initial slowdown of the economy, the former President assured the audience his wife was the best candidate for the White House, with a viable, sustainable energy plan to "help save the planet for our grandchildren."


Speaking on behalf of his wife's energy proposals, Bill Clinton told the crowd, "If you want a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future in America...if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles...and to create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

[THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLINTON WILL ADOPT WHOLESALE ALL OF EUROPE'S FLAWED ENVIRONMENT-CENTRIC ENERGY POLICIES THAT HAVE PLACED EUROPE AT A GLOBAL ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE VIS-A-VIS OTHER COUNTRIES. THESE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ELEVATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS 27 MEMBER STATES AT U.S. EXPENSE. NOW MS. CLINTON SHOWS HER TRUE COLORS AND OPENLY EMBRACES EXPENSIVE NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS BASED ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES THAT WILL RAISE THE COST OF LIVING FOR ALL AMERICANS WITHOUT PROOF THAT THE POLICIES WILL EVER WORK!!]

Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp


Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study


By Zoe Corbyn


RSC Chemistry World


21 September 2007


Growing and burning many biofuels may actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions, a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has shown.1 The findings come in the wake of a recent OECD report, which warned nations not to rush headlong into growing energy crops because they cause food shortages and damage biodiversity.



Crutzen and colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought - wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming. The work appears in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and is currently subject to open review.



'The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuel are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,' Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World. 'What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.'



"What we are saying is that growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse"
- Keith Smith


Crutzen, famous for his work on nitrogen oxides and the ozone layer, declined to comment before the paper is officially published. But the paper suggests that microbes convert much more of the nitrogen in fertiliser to N2O than previously thought - 3 to 5 per cent or twice the widely accepted figure of 2 per cent used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



For rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for about 80 per cent of the biofuel production in Europe, the relative warming due to N2O emissions is estimated at 1 to 1.7 times larger than the quasi-cooling effect due to saved fossil CO2 emissions. For corn bioethanol, dominant in the US, the figure is 0.9 to 1.5. Only cane sugar bioethanol - with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9 - looks like a viable alternative to conventional fuels.



Some previous estimates had suggested that biofuels could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40 per cent.2



Global picture



The IPCC's N2O conversion factor is derived using data from plant experiments. But Crutzen takes a different approach, using atmospheric measurements and ice core data to calculate the total amount of N2O in the atmosphere. He then subtracts the level of N2O in pre-industrial times - before fertilizers were available - to take account of N2O from natural processes such as leguminous plants growing in forests, lightning, and burn offs.



Assuming the rest of the N2O is attributable to newly-fixed nitrogen from fertilizer use, and knowing the amount of fertilizer applied globally, he can calculate the contribution of fertilizers to N2O levels.



The results may well trigger a rethink by the IPCC, says Smith. 'Should we go along the road of adding up the experimental evidence for each of the processes or are we better off using the global numbers?'



Critical reception



But other experts are critical of Crutzen's approach. Simon Donner, a nitrogen researcher based at Princeton University, US, says the method is elegant but there is little evidence to show the N2O yield from fertilized plants is really as high as 3-5 per cent. Crutzen's basic assumption, that pre-industrial N2O emissions are the same as natural N2O emissions, is 'probably wrong', says Donner.



One reason he gives is that farmers plant crops in places that have nitrogen rich soils anyway. 'It is possible we are indirectly increasing the "natural" source of N2O by drawing down the soil nitrogen in the world's agricultural regions,' he explains.



Others dispute the values chosen by Crutzen to calculate his budget. Stefan Rauh, an agricultural scientist at the Instituteof Agricultural Economics and Farm Management in Munich, Germany, says some of the rates for converting crops into biofuel should be higher. 'If you use the other factors you get a little net climate cooling,' he said.



Meanwhile, a report prepared by the OECD for a recent Round Table on Sustainable Development questions the benefits of first generation biofuels and concludes that governments should scrap mandatory targets.



Richard Doornbosch, the report's author, says both the report and Crutzen's work highlights the importance of establishing correct full life-cycle assessments for biofuels. 'Without them, government policies can't distinguish between one biofuel and another - risking making problems worse,' said Doornbosch.

Flawed policies encourage damaging biofuels, says Royal Society

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/14010802.asp


Flawed policies encourage damaging biofuels, says Royal Society


14 January 2008


Richard Van Noorden


RSC Chemistry World



Simplistic policies are encouraging biofuels that don't cut greenhouse gases, the UK's Royal Society has warned in a new report.



Not all biofuels are equally good at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, so rewarding the best should be a priority, explained John Pickett, who chaired the study. Yet current transport policies - such as the EU biofuels directive and the UK's renewable transport fuel obligation (RTFO) - only demand more transport fuel from renewable resources. 'Indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions,' said Pickett.



Instead, the report - Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges - favours policies that promote fuels with the lowest emissions by, for example, including greenhouse gas reduction incentives and certifying fuels for their emissions savings.



The recommendations came on the same day that EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas admitted that the EU had not forseen the social and environmental problems caused by its own biofuels targets - such as rising food prices and deforestation. 'We have to have criteria for sustainability,' he said.



But that could be easier said than done, the Royal Society says. 'How we develop these "sustainability criteria" in itself requires research,' commented report co-author Dianna Bowles, who works on novel agricultural products at the University of York.



Hard choices



Jeremy Woods, at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, said that ethanol from UK-sourced wheat, for example, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by anything from 10 to 80 per cent. The vast uncertainty simply reflected different agricultural practices and crop yields.



And it is not just agricultural processing that needs to be considered: effects on deforestation; food shortages; local climate; soil quality; distribution costs; the trade impacts of biofuel imports; and other unexpected variables could all affect the merits of any one biofuel process.



In other words, said Pickett, biofuel policy-makers are walking a thin line between making overly complex regulations, too costly and slow to research and implement - or being too simple, and so encouraging the wrong biofuels. Focusing on greenhouse gas reductions would be a good target to start with, but 'we must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change,' he said.



International concern



The UK's RTFO, whose first incarnation comes into force in April 2008, requires that 5 per cent of UK fuel comes from a renewable source by 2010. It is developing a carbon reporting and sustainability certification scheme. 'The RTFO is a reasonable start,' said Pickett. 'But unless certification is applied to the production of all biofuels, and is a system used by all countries, we will merely displace rather than remedy the potentially negative effects of these fuels.'

[OSTENSIBLY PRIVATE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES CAN PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISGUISED TRADE PROTECTIONISM]**


See: "Discerning The Forests From the Trees: How Governments Use Ostensibly Private and Voluntary Standards to Avoid WTO Culpability"

http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints%20KOGAN%20-%20Discerning%20the%20Forest%20from%20the%20Trees.pdf


Meanwhile, an OECD official has warned that even governments aware of the weaknesses of their biofuel policies - for example, the trade barriers that have been set up by Europe and the US - might now find it hard to backtrack on them. Speaking at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit in Paris, Leok Boonekamp, a division head in the OECD's Agro-food Trade and Markets Division, said, 'I'm not very optimistic that because we say that the policies are bad and wasteful that governments will go away and do something else.'

EU Commission Cited For Inherent Carbon Energy Policy Flaws: Scientists Question Value of Carbon Offsets

http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/carbon-offset-schemes-inherently-flawed/article-164715



Carbon-offset schemes 'inherently flawed'


Tuesday 19 June 2007 Updated: Wednesday 11 July 2007


Wouter Buytaert, University of Lancaster



The only long-term solution to climate change is to reduce carbon emissions, not to compensate with carbon-offset schemes, says Wouter Buytaert – Department of Environmental Science, University of Lancaster - in a June article for the Environmental Research Web.



Buytaert claims that carbon-offset schemes are controversial in their own right and deserve a scientific debate of their own. They divert attention from how we reduce our own emissions – and are considered as paying someone else for having reduced their greenhouse-gas emissions, thus buying one's way out of responsibilities, he adds.



Highlighting concerns over the effectiveness of carbon-offset schemes, Buytaert observes that a shortage of verification in the emerging – and lucrative – carbon-credits market, in which there are a plethora of different carbon-reduction projects, means that the impact of such actions can be called into question.



He claims that some practices are inherently flawed, such as preventing the clear-cutting of forests that would be preserved for conservation anyway, or selling credits for cleaner and more efficient production techniques that are introduced for economic reasons.



Other practices fail through insufficient scientific understanding of the system, such as reforestation in developing countries, claims the author. He points out that carbon-offset schemes focus on fast-growing trees, which are non-native and have far lower environmental and biodiversity benefits than native species, and cause severe problems for the water cycle and local water security. In the case of pine, Buytaert suggests that this species' higher water consumption may even result in a net release of carbon into the atmosphere.



Even if such scientific questions are solved, significant concerns remain about the sustainability of carbon pools in forests, insists the author. He claims that organic carbon capture can only continue if both the current forest is maintained, and ever-more area is forested – which is unsustainable in the long term.



Buytaert concludes that finding new ways to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions is a major scientific challenge that merits the full attention of society.


http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/30246


Jun 12, 2007



Carbon offset schemes are of questionable value


At this year's European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting, we challenged the scientific community to think about the carbon footprint of academic travel. This action resulted in a healthy debate about the environmental and social benefit of scientific conferences. One of the recurrent suggestions for concrete action was that the EGU should incorporate the cost of buying carbon credits in the meeting registration fee. The idea is to offset the carbon emissions of the event, including travel, and so to make the conference carbon neutral. However, carbon offset schemes are controversial in their own right and may be worth a scientific debate of their own. Here I highlight some reasons why we should be cautious.



A first concern is the effectiveness of carbon offset schemes. Increasing environmental awareness among companies and individuals has sparked an emerging and lucrative market in carbon credits based on a plethora of carbon reduction projects. But due to a shortage of verification, the impact of these actions may be questioned. Some practices are inherently flawed, such as preventing clearcutting of forests that would be preserved for conservation anyway, or selling credits for cleaner and more efficient production techniques that are introduced for economic reasons. Other practices fail because of insufficient scientific understanding of the system.



For instance, (re)forestation in developing countries is one of the most popular offset schemes. Forests are a convenient method of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon. There are also several positive side effects. Many forests, in particular where native species are used, are a breeding ground for biodiversity. Forests may be planted on degraded areas and reduce erosion, and they may also provide a sustainable source of firewood and other environmental services for local inhabitants.



But there are negative side effects too. Carbon offset schemes tend to focus on fast-growing trees, such as eucalyptus and pine, which are non-native and have a far lower environmental and biodiversity benefit than native species. Tree plantations also tend to consume more water than grasses and shrubs. On a global scale, tree plantations decrease streamflow by about 200 mm per year (roughly 50%). This may have serious impacts on the local water cycle. For instance, extensive parts of the Andean páramo have been forested with pine for carbon sequestration purposes. The páramo is an ecosystem that consists of extensive grasslands in the upper parts of the tropical Andes, and stores vast amounts of water in its soils, swamps and lakes. It provides many environmental functions, but the most important is water supply for the highland area, including major cities such as Bogotá, Columbia, and Quito, Ecuador. Forestation with pine reduces streamflow by about 70%. Since most of this reduction affects low flow conditions, the consequences for local water security are serious.



What's more, the higher water consumption of pine may even result in a net carbon release to the atmosphere. Páramo wetlands store high amounts of organic carbon. This accumulation of organic matter is strongly linked to water saturation of the soils for large periods of the year. Dessication of the soils after forestation induces faster organic matter decomposition, which may offset carbon storage in the biomass above-ground. In Indonesia, the conversion of peat bogs into oil palm plantations has had similar effects.



Forestation activities in the Andes now focus more on biodiversity and use indigenous species such as Polylepis. However, there is no scientific consensus about the historical vegetation patterns of the páramo. What is considered reforestation may well be forestation of valuable and original grassland ecosystems. And since the impact of those forests on the local water cycle is not well understood, care should be taken not to disrupt a delicate and valuable hydrological system.



Even if such scientific questions are solved, significant concerns remain about the sustainability of carbon pools in forests. Forests capture most carbon early in their life cycle. The biomass of a mature forest is nearly stable, and organic carbon capture can only be maintained if carbon is transferred to another sink, such as the soil. As this is not always the case, organic carbon capture can only continue if both the current forest is maintained and ever more area is forested. Although this may seem preferable from an environmentalist viewpoint, it is not sustainable in the long term.



This lack of sustainability points to the essence of the problem. Our current carbon footprint is too high, and the only long-term solution is to reduce carbon emissions, not to compensate them by carbon offset schemes. This is also why carbon offset schemes are opposed from an ethical viewpoint. They are considered as paying someone else for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and, as such, buying your way out of responsibility. And the schemes may distract attention from the real problem of how we reduce our own emissions. This is a double challenge for scientists. Finding new ways to decrease our society's greenhouse gas emissions is a major scientific challenge that merits our full attention. Considering whether the scientific value of a trip to the other end of the world outweighs the use of resources and the carbon footprint is a much more personal challenge.

About the author


Wouter Buytaert is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Environmental Science at Lancaster University.

Terminating Global Warming, Energy Dependence or Private Property Rights?

By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.


http://www.itssd.org/Publications/Terminating-Global-Warming.pdf


Protecting the Public?


Earlier this month, western governors unveiled their long awaited clean energy plan for the western half of the United States. Admittedly, the plan contains several voluntary features, and
its recommendations seem, at first glance, plausible. Its measured language even appears couched more in science and economics than in environmentalisms.


Appearances can be deceiving, however. Is this really an energy security plan that can also ensure regional energy reliability? Can this plan immediately lessen the western U.S. region’s foreign energy dependence? Can it promote low-cost, affordable new energy generation? Or, is it actually another back-door’ environmental regulatory ‘takings’ regime that will benefit some at the expense of others, while claiming to protect the public against the phantom menace known as global warming?


The plan’s stated goal is to provide energy reliability and security for the American west. However, rather than objectively place all energy source alternatives on the table for consideration in a region that has limited energy supply but great energy demand, the plan summarily dismisses substantive consideration of: 1) nuclear power; 2) Alaskan-based liquified natural gas (LNG); 3) offshore oil and gas drilling; and 4) most readily available sources of coal, America’s most bountiful and inexpensive natural resource. In fact, the plan mentions only two
very expensive ‘clean coal’ technologies – 3rd generation integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and supercritical and ultra-supercritical pulverized and circulating fluidized bed combustion. The plan prefers these new and promising technologies because they are said to provide total sequestration – i.e., zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But, by restricting the plan’s coal portfolio to only these two costly and emerging technologies, the plan’s sponsors
seek to effectively ban the construction of more than a few new coal ‘builds’ within the western half of the nation for the foreseeable future. These restrictions simultaneously place more pressure on existing but over-extended natural gas, hydro and coal sources that require substantial upgrading to meet regional energy security and reliability needs.



The governors’ long-term preference for developing emerging windmill, solar, hydro and biomass-generated energy technologies is laudable, but they do not provide practical or efficient short-term solutions. Many of these technologies are not currently available for collective large scale use, and even when fully matured, are unlikely, by themselves, to deliver more than a fraction of the region’s energy supply. Instead, a holistic portfolio of energy source options must be offered that includes many currently available and environmentally clean technologies, including those coal-related. Such a menu should also include indigenous offshore (west coast) oil and gas, and clean and inexpensive Alaskan LNG that could be delivered in short order to west coast ports if only California environmentalists would drop their irrational opposition to the issuance of the necessary construction permits. In addition, the west’s use of safe, cheap and infinitely available nuclear energy must also be continued and expanded, despite the fear-inspired propaganda-based claims made by nuclear energy-averse environmentalists. Indeed, scientists have shown government policymakers how adequate design, construction and management of LNG and nuclear facilities within and off the coast of California can mitigate earthquake and other natural disaster–related health and environmental risks. Among other reasons, this is precisely why a number of European governments are reconsidering nuclear power.



Furthermore, the plan’s over-reliance on conservation and efficiency measures is also unrealistic. First, conservation and efficiency mandates must be delivered through mechanisms that are performance and not merely process-based – i.e., they must be measured in scientific, technical and economic terms, rather than expressed as political preferences. Poorly designed and symbolic renewable portfolio standard mandates are unlikely to produce much if any energy cost savings, and may actually be counterproductive – they may prove more costly in terms of innovation, productivity and economic growth if the necessary underlying energy supply is
curtailed. Second, according to scholars, what the plan obliquely refers to as ‘incentive regulations’, are not as well understood by regulators as is commonly claimed, and are susceptible to political manipulation. While the plan uses language such as ‘market-based incentives subject to science and cost-benefit’, it is highly questionable how market-friendly regulations can actually be, and how truly objective state environmental regulators will be in implementing them, especially given their interstate nature. Will it really be the least commerce-restrictive alternative available to achieve the energy security, reliability and environmental objectives identified? How will extra-regional energy (‘leakage’) be treated? For these reasons, individual businesses and consumers should be worried about the potential economic impact that the governors’ clean energy plan mandates will impose upon state and regional power generators, which can be expected to be passed downstream to them.


Or, Deceiving the Individual?


Moreover, it is also difficult to see how the types of changes to the western states’ regulatory landscape that would be needed to implement this plan would not also substantially diminish the economic values of existing business and personal assets and investments located throughout the region, so as to make them virtually worthless. This is particularly a concern in California, Oregon and Washington, which intend to adopt an interstate Model Rule requiring each state to impose strict CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions caps.


Putting aside the interstate commerce, federal preemption and supremacy clause (constitutional law) issues this plan engenders, it will also likely threaten the fundamental and alienable constitutional right to exclusive private property, a central tenet of collective individualism upon which this great nation was founded.


The U.S. Supreme Court has long grappled with overly aggressive regulations used in the exercise of a state or municipal government’s ‘police’ and/or ‘eminent domain’ powers. Indeed, many such rules have proliferated in recent years under the guise of environmental or economic blight. Some have mandated significant new private plant and equipment investments or imposed substantial environment-related product and plant use restrictions to address perceived environmental, health and safety hazards. And, others have authorized the dispensation of public funds for economic redevelopment of perceived ‘economically blighted’ areas to serve an ostensible public good. However, in the end, they serve only to benefit some private interests at the expense of others – i.e., they have had the effect of disenfranchising many small businesses and homeowners. Admittedly, Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area has been less than clear; one need only ask the Connecticut residents who were victimized as the result of the Court’s twisted reasoning in last year’s Kelo [1] decision.


Furthermore, many other citizens throughout the United States have faced similar types of disguised governmental ‘economic and environmental blight’-premised measures. Some of them have already lost their homes and small businesses, while others now fear such loss. In fact, enough Americans, at this point, have become sufficiently outraged by what they perceive to be the steady erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed individual private property rights, at the hands of wealth redistribution-minded government officials, that they have appealed to President Bush to step into the political fray.


And the President has complied, with the issuance last week of a new Executive Order, "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People”. [2] This E.O. makes clear, as a matter of U.S. federal policy, that economic-development-related private property ‘takings’ entitled to just compensation must actually serve a ‘general public use’. In other words, a government cannot take away one private party’s (citizen’s) property ownership or use “merely for the purpose of [directly, or indirectly,] advancing the economic interest of [other] private parties [citizens]…” [3] By issuing this new E.O., President Bush’s policy has largely remained consistent with, and has expanded the scope of, a prior E.O. issued by former President Ronald Reagan during March 1988.



Executive Order 12630, “Presidential Executive Order 12630 Governmental Actions and Interference With Civil Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”, recognized that “governmental actions that do not formally invoke the [eminent domain] condemnation power, including regulations, may [in fact] result in a taking for which just compensation is required.”[4] It also established broad guidelines that the General Accounting Office subsequently found had been essentially abandoned during the Clinton era.[5] Generally speaking, these guidelines require officials to consider whether governmental ‘actions’ and ‘policies’ could have ‘takings’ implications before rather than after they are pursued, i.e., to perform a ‘takings impact assessment’ where there is a high probability that a government action or policy could affect the use of any real or personal property.


Interestingly, E.O. 12630 also ses forth a standard to determine whether environment, health and safety (EHS) regulations so affect the value and/or beneficial use of private property as to be deemed a ‘taking’ for public use that is also entitled to just compensation. The governors of the states of California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland, would do well to consider these guidelines prior to adopting/or implementing the strict carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions caps, renewable portfolio standards, and energy efficiency and conservation requirements they are now contemplating.


This E.O. predates the current international debate about whether expensive European-style socialist) regulations based on the nonscientific principle of precaution (‘better safe than sorry’) should also be adopted as the basis for U.S. regulation. Nevertheless, it eerily seems to have anticipated it. “…[T]he mere assertion of a public health and safety purpose is insufficient to avoid [having the regulation deemed] a taking…Actions…asserted to be for the protection of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and substantial threats to public health and safety, be designed to advance significantly the health and safety purpose, and be no greater than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose” (emphasis added). [6]


All politicians should take note, as have these executive orders, that the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to find that such laws, regulations and policies will qualify as illegal ‘takings’ of private property, even where other than total beneficial use and enjoyment of private property has been impaired. This admonition applies to the now-centrist-leaning California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is one of the Western Governors’ Clean Energy Plan’s chief supporters, and especially, also to his Democratic opponent Phil Angelides. Mr. Angelides, who is a very rich land developer, and perhaps, even a renewable energy source investor, is not unfamiliar with how to exploit regulations that redesign the economic and environmental landscape for his and his political allies’ private benefit. And, should he be elected California’s governor, Mr. Anglides is even more determined than the Governator to use the Kelo decision as the portal through which to catapult the state and the region into a grand new universe of regulatory ‘takings’ that benefit some private property owners at the expense of others.


This raises an important question: If Californians and other westerners embrace the governors’ clean energy plan as the recommended solution to their perceived global warming problems, how many of them will later find themselves bidding farewell (“Hasta la vista, baby!”) to their private property rights, which is more than possible, or to the threat of global warming and foreign energy dependence, which is not?

ITSSD: Congress Should Do its 'Homework' Before Adopting Costly Euro-Style Energy/Climate Change Rules

The Energy Daily


June 21, 2007


http://www.theenergydaily.com/pr/pr.php?iid=17472



PRINCETON, N.J., June 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Although the 110th U.S. Congress should now be considering how best to promote America's future energy and economic security, it is actually devising costly and unscientific environmental mandates and tax schemes that will drain the pocket-books of Americans and diminish their fundamental individual rights, including private property.


Arguably, Congress should have already learned about the market distortions and personal hardships triggered 'across the pond' by Europe's environment-centric energy policies. Crafted by unelected bureaucrats, environmental activists and socialist party 'kingpins' and supported by most European leaders, such policies have focused more on promoting sustainable development via consumer and business sacrifices than on securing desperately- needed regional energy supplies.


Ordinary Europeans have been denied a broad portfolio of cheaper local energy options that include newly drilled oil, gasified and liquefied 'clean' coal, and nuclear, hydro and geothermal power. Instead, they have been provided 'bird-slicers', solar panels, natural gas pipelines, severe energy- use restrictions and poorer performing 'energy efficient' cars and appliances. The result: lower economic productivity and innovation rates, higher petrol, manufacturing, services, food, housing and transportation costs, and greater reliance on opportunistic foreign oil and gas resources.


In a new white paper entitled, Europe's Warnings on Climate Change Belie More Nuanced Concerns, international attorney Lawrence Kogan discusses how there is more to Europe's globally inspired climate change campaign than meets the eye. According to Mr. Kogan, "An evolving Europe is experiencing many internal problems that ultimately render it incapable of serving as a positive role model for multilateral energy and environmental action."


http://www.itssd.org/White%20Papers/Europe_sWarningsonClimateChangeBelieMoreNuancedConcerns.pdf


In Mr. Kogan's view, "As long as Europe's self-identity remains in question and is tied to an unreformed United Nations, heavily subsidized welfare-state economics, conditional positive individual rights and risk- averse political correctness, Congress must resist following in Europe's environmental footprints down the primrose path towards global governance."


"Otherwise," says Kogan, "Americans will be afforded fewer economic opportunities and private property protections against wanton governmental intrusions than they are currently guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights."

EU Commission Admits Flawed Biofuels Policy; EU Consumers Pay Higher Cost of Living

The defenders of "global warming" hint at biofuels as renewable energy sources that may ensure a smooth transition from an oil-based polluting economy to a clean-fuel economy.


However, the defenders of "global warming" do not discuss the negative impacts of biofuels, such as the growing price that people will have to pay for food. Fortunately, the UK government distanced itself from imposing biofuels.


The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) established by the UK Government in November 1997, released a new document "Are biofuels sustainable?" on January 21, 2008 (see attached; also available from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/76/76.pdf).


EAC concludes that "1...most first generation biofuels have a detrimental impact on the environment overall" and that in general "biofuels produced from conventional crops should no longer receive support from the Government."


"2. The Government and EU’s neglect of biomass and other more effective policies to reduce emissions in favour of biofuels is misguided.The current policy and support framework must be changed to ensure that sustainable bioenergy resources maximise their potential to generate energy for the lowest possible greenhouse gas emissions. In general biofuels produced from conventional crops should no longer receive support from the Government. Instead the Government should concentrate on the development of more efficient biofuel technologies that might have a sustainable role in the future."


Furthermore, according to the report Summary:


"3. EAC reports that the EU Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, recently admitted that the Commission did not foresee all the problems that EU biofuels policy would cause. He indicated that certification would be used to address the negative impacts of biofuels. This is not good enough. The Government should seek to ensure that EU policy changes to reflect the concerns raised in this report. This means implementing a moratorium on current targets until technology improves, robust mechanisms to prevent damaging land use change are developed, and international sustainability standards are agreed. Only then might biofuels have a role to play. In the meantime, other more effective ways of cutting emissions from road transport should be pursued. It will take considerable courage for the Government and EU to admit that the current policy arrangements for biofuels are inappropriate. The policy realignments that are required will be a test of the Government’s commitment to moving the UK towards a sustainable low carbon economy.


The policy realignments that are required will be a test of the Government’s commitment to moving the UK towards a sustainable low carbon economy."