 |
| Part I, Hindustan Times, 19 March, 2013 |
Showing posts with label ENVIRONMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENVIRONMENT. Show all posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Dr. Veer Bhadra Mishra, Planetary Hero - by Oopali Operajita
Friday, September 11, 2009
UK 'could face blackouts by 2016'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Coal-fired power station
The lights could go out when coal and nuclear power stations are phased out
The government's new energy adviser says the UK could face blackouts by 2016 because green energy is not coming on stream fast enough.
Ministers have previously denied that the UK is heading for an energy gap.
But David MacKay, who takes up his post at the Department of Energy on 1 October, says that the public keep objecting to energy projects.
This, he says, is creating a huge problem, which could turn out the lights.
Professor MacKay is a researcher at Cambridge University.
His recent book, Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air, won applause for its examination of current government plans to keep the lights on whilst also cutting carbon emissions.
It concluded that policy is moving in the right direction, but the sums on energy provision simply do not add up - not enough power capacity is being built.
Speaking unofficially, he told BBC News that this meant that Britain could face blackouts in 2016 - when coal and nuclear stations are phased out.
Professor David MacKay: "The scale of building required is absolutely enormous"
"There is a worry that in 2016 there might not be enough electricity. My guess is that what the market might do is fix that problem by making more gas power stations, which isn't the direction we want to be going in," he said.
"So we really should be upping the build rate of the alternatives as soon as possible."
Professor MacKay blamed the public for opposing wind farms, nuclear power, and energy imports, whilst demanding an unchanged lifestyle.
You cannot oppose them all, he said, and hope to have a viable policy on energy and climate change.
Blackouts might make people realise we need to invest in modern nuclear power stations and other means of clean fuel
"We've got to stop saying no to these things and understand that we do have a serious building project on our hands," he said.
Professor MacKay said he looked forward to engaging the public in a more open debate about what he calls the realities of energy policy when he takes up his post.
His says his new masters in Department of Energy and Climate Change have impressive commitment to solve the issues.
Professor MacKay's many supporters will hope that he is allowed to continue speaking openly to the public after he takes office.
Environment analyst, BBC News
Coal-fired power station
The lights could go out when coal and nuclear power stations are phased out
The government's new energy adviser says the UK could face blackouts by 2016 because green energy is not coming on stream fast enough.
Ministers have previously denied that the UK is heading for an energy gap.
But David MacKay, who takes up his post at the Department of Energy on 1 October, says that the public keep objecting to energy projects.
This, he says, is creating a huge problem, which could turn out the lights.
Professor MacKay is a researcher at Cambridge University.
His recent book, Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air, won applause for its examination of current government plans to keep the lights on whilst also cutting carbon emissions.
It concluded that policy is moving in the right direction, but the sums on energy provision simply do not add up - not enough power capacity is being built.
Speaking unofficially, he told BBC News that this meant that Britain could face blackouts in 2016 - when coal and nuclear stations are phased out.
Professor David MacKay: "The scale of building required is absolutely enormous"
"There is a worry that in 2016 there might not be enough electricity. My guess is that what the market might do is fix that problem by making more gas power stations, which isn't the direction we want to be going in," he said.
"So we really should be upping the build rate of the alternatives as soon as possible."
Professor MacKay blamed the public for opposing wind farms, nuclear power, and energy imports, whilst demanding an unchanged lifestyle.
You cannot oppose them all, he said, and hope to have a viable policy on energy and climate change.
Blackouts might make people realise we need to invest in modern nuclear power stations and other means of clean fuel
"We've got to stop saying no to these things and understand that we do have a serious building project on our hands," he said.
Professor MacKay said he looked forward to engaging the public in a more open debate about what he calls the realities of energy policy when he takes up his post.
His says his new masters in Department of Energy and Climate Change have impressive commitment to solve the issues.
Professor MacKay's many supporters will hope that he is allowed to continue speaking openly to the public after he takes office.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Barack Obama's $1.8bn vision of greener biofuel
• President takes on the powerful farming lobby
• Switch from food crops to fight climate change
The Obama administration took on the powerful farming interests in America's heartland today, making clear it does not see corn-based ethanol as part of the long-term solution to climate change.
The new proposals on the biofuel – in the face of intense pressure from agricultural companies and members of Congress from corn-growing states – were seen as the first test of Barack Obama's promise to put science above politics in deciding America's energy future.
Ethanol had once appeared to provide a transport fuel which did not increase carbon dioxide. But studies have suggested that the fuel needed to process the corn meant the ethanol could be more polluting than the fossil fuel it was meant to replace. Furthermore, the use of food crops for biofuel was blamed for a substantial part of the large price rises seen in 2008.
Administration officials set out a $1.8bn (£1.19bn) plan to develop a new generation of more environmentally-friendly biofuels that are not made from food crops and have a lower carbon footprint, while also providing an immediate bail-out of existing corn ethanol producers, which are suffering in the global economic crisis: falling petrol prices have undercut demand for ethanol at the pump.
Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, made clear she does not see corn-based ethanol as a permanent part of America's clean energy mix. "Corn-based ethanol is a bridge... to the next generation of fuels ," she said.
The EPA proposed a new standard for advanced biofuels, ensuring they are at least 50% cleaner than petrol. Jackson said existing bio-ethanol resulted in a 16% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The agency said it would also take into account the environmental impact of turning land over to biofuel crops, a key demand of the industry's critics.
Environmentalists saw the move as an early indication that the Obama administration would stand its ground against powerful industrial interests.
"For an administration that has already staked so much on restoring science to the process of governing, this was a really critical test," said Nathanael Greene, a renewable energy expert at the National Resources Defence Council. "This was the first big industry where we are starting to see some of the potential changes required by climate policy and the administration is ready to stick to the science and not get rolled by industry."
The country's fuel producers gave a cautious welcome to the announcement, but added that they would continue to challenge the EPA's criteria for measuring the environmental cost of fuel crops.
The impact on the ethanol industry of the agency's proposal, which now undergoes public review, was softened by Obama's decision to put the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, who is from the corn growing state of Iowa, in charge of a new task force that will oversee biofuel development. The officials also said there would be considerable sums available to farmers to make the transition from using corn to make biofuels to using pulp and agricultural waste.
The programme envisages $1.1bn to help ethanol producers market the fuel, and to convert their processing plants from fossil fuels to renewable energy. "There is over $1.1 billion of opportunity here," Vilsack said.
Energy secretary Steven Chu said there would be an additional $786m towards the development of new biofuel refineries and the design of flex-fuel cars.
The administration's move on ethanol comes nearly two years after Congress ordered fuel refineries to increase their use of ethanol, and by 2022 to step up the share of advanced biofuels in the country's fuel mix.
The law ordered all ethanol produced after 2007 to meet a standard 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and for advanced biofuels to meet a 50% reduction target.
Existing ethanol producers will be exempt from those targets, but new plant will be required to make the grade. That represents a big challenge for the production technology.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
• Switch from food crops to fight climate change
The Obama administration took on the powerful farming interests in America's heartland today, making clear it does not see corn-based ethanol as part of the long-term solution to climate change.
The new proposals on the biofuel – in the face of intense pressure from agricultural companies and members of Congress from corn-growing states – were seen as the first test of Barack Obama's promise to put science above politics in deciding America's energy future.
Ethanol had once appeared to provide a transport fuel which did not increase carbon dioxide. But studies have suggested that the fuel needed to process the corn meant the ethanol could be more polluting than the fossil fuel it was meant to replace. Furthermore, the use of food crops for biofuel was blamed for a substantial part of the large price rises seen in 2008.
Administration officials set out a $1.8bn (£1.19bn) plan to develop a new generation of more environmentally-friendly biofuels that are not made from food crops and have a lower carbon footprint, while also providing an immediate bail-out of existing corn ethanol producers, which are suffering in the global economic crisis: falling petrol prices have undercut demand for ethanol at the pump.
Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, made clear she does not see corn-based ethanol as a permanent part of America's clean energy mix. "Corn-based ethanol is a bridge... to the next generation of fuels ," she said.
The EPA proposed a new standard for advanced biofuels, ensuring they are at least 50% cleaner than petrol. Jackson said existing bio-ethanol resulted in a 16% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The agency said it would also take into account the environmental impact of turning land over to biofuel crops, a key demand of the industry's critics.
Environmentalists saw the move as an early indication that the Obama administration would stand its ground against powerful industrial interests.
"For an administration that has already staked so much on restoring science to the process of governing, this was a really critical test," said Nathanael Greene, a renewable energy expert at the National Resources Defence Council. "This was the first big industry where we are starting to see some of the potential changes required by climate policy and the administration is ready to stick to the science and not get rolled by industry."
The country's fuel producers gave a cautious welcome to the announcement, but added that they would continue to challenge the EPA's criteria for measuring the environmental cost of fuel crops.
The impact on the ethanol industry of the agency's proposal, which now undergoes public review, was softened by Obama's decision to put the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, who is from the corn growing state of Iowa, in charge of a new task force that will oversee biofuel development. The officials also said there would be considerable sums available to farmers to make the transition from using corn to make biofuels to using pulp and agricultural waste.
The programme envisages $1.1bn to help ethanol producers market the fuel, and to convert their processing plants from fossil fuels to renewable energy. "There is over $1.1 billion of opportunity here," Vilsack said.
Energy secretary Steven Chu said there would be an additional $786m towards the development of new biofuel refineries and the design of flex-fuel cars.
The administration's move on ethanol comes nearly two years after Congress ordered fuel refineries to increase their use of ethanol, and by 2022 to step up the share of advanced biofuels in the country's fuel mix.
The law ordered all ethanol produced after 2007 to meet a standard 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and for advanced biofuels to meet a 50% reduction target.
Existing ethanol producers will be exempt from those targets, but new plant will be required to make the grade. That represents a big challenge for the production technology.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama's stimulus bill green lights green spending
Obama's stimulus bill green lights green spending
BusinessGreen.com takes the microscope to the environmental spending in President Obama's wide-ranging economic stimulus package
John Sterlicchi, BusinessGreen, 17 Feb 2009
Barack Obama
US President Barack Obama will today sign the $787bn (£551bn) economic stimulus package in Denver, Colorado with proponents of green business celebrating that a tenth of the money will be directly targeted at environmental initiatives.
Echoing the sentiments of many environmentalists, Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, hailed the bill as a landmark in America's transition to a lower carbon economy.
"Years from now, long after the economy has recovered, this moment may well be remembered as the time that progressives, led by Obama, began the transition to a sustainable economy built around green jobs," he said.
The final compromise on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed the House on Friday by 246-183 without a single Republican vote, having passed the Senate by 60-38 with the help of three Republican senators.
The stimulus bill initially passed by the House had a projected cost of $820bn and the Senate's was even higher at $838bn, but the lower final figure was agreed in an attempt to bring the Republican senators on board and assure the bill's speedy passage.
Environment America, a federation of state-based, environmental advocacy organisations, analysed the final bill and said there were $32.80bn in funding for clean energy projects, $26.86bn for energy efficiency initiatives and $18.95bn for green transportation, giving a total of $78.61bn directly earmarked for green projects.
Obama has said that he hopes the act will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, and a sizable chunk of these jobs are now expected to be so-called "green-collar jobs".
While some popular projects took a hit as a result of the compromise deal, environmentalists were as pleased almost as much at what did not make the final cut as what did.
For instance, in the Senate version of the package there was a provision for $50bn in federal loan guarantees that could have been utilised by the nuclear and coal industries. Its original inclusion caused 243 advocacy groups to send a joint letter to senators expressing their "dismay and anger over the inclusion by the Senate Appropriations Committee of a provision in the economic stimulus bill to provide up to $50bn in additional taxpayer loan guarantees that could be used for construction of new nuclear reactors and 'clean coal' plants" .
The provision was subsequently ditched from the final bill, in a move that Kevin Kamps of campaign group Beyond Nuclear hailed as "a big victory for common sense and the American taxpayer".
"This toxic nuclear pork had no place in a bill designed to put Americans back to work and salvage our economy," he said. "Our legislators are to be applauded for getting their priorities right and saying no to yet another blatant attempt to prop up an industry that has never stood on its own financial feet."
However, less contentious green investments also took a hit with the plan to upgrade the country's electricity transmission system to better take advantage of renewable energy and improve efficiency seeing proposed funding of $11bn cut to just $4.5bn. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acting chairman Jon Wellinghoff said the funding was "seed money... but it really isn't enough money to make huge advances in the overall backbone grid that we're talking about to integrate substantial amounts of wind."
The full investment to meet the type of renewable growth that Obama's targeted would cost more than $200bn, he said, but added that based on the proposals already submitted to the agency he now expected the rest of the funding to come from the private sector.
The need for private capital to piggyback the US government’s initiatives was highlighted by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin writing in this week's Nation magazine. Banks could be required to devote a percentage of loan portfolios to green investments, he wrote, while expanded tax credits could be provided to homes and businesses for installation of solar and other renewable energy. Funds from a cap-and-trade emissions programme or a carbon tax could also be recycled back to the public in rebates to spend on energy saving measures, he predicted.
Pollin also joined with green groups in praising a stimulus package that will simultaneously cut carbon emissions and create jobs.
"The central facts here are irrefutable: spending the same amount of money on building a clean energy economy will create three times more jobs within the US than would spending on our existing fossil fuel infrastructure," he observed. " The transformation to a clean energy economy can therefore serve as a major long-term engine of job creation."
His comments were echoed by the Solar Energy Industries Association, which forecasts that the stimulus package will create 67,000 solar jobs in 2009, and 119,000 in total through 2010. The stimulus plan will "catapult the US to be the world's largest solar market by the end of 2010", predicted Suvi Sharma, chief executive of Solaria, a solar-cell maker.
Striking a similarly upbeat note was Kevin Surace, president and chief executive of Serious Materials, a Silicon Valley company that makes green building materials. With the final document providing $5bn for a Weatherization Assistance Program, enough to supposedly prevent 9.7 million tons of global warming pollution and create 375,000 jobs, he predicted that the company would "be hiring hundreds of people over the next 12 to 18 months".
Plans to invest $8bn in new high-speed rail projects also secured praise from an unlikely quarter, when Florida Republican House representative John Mica, who voted against the package, issued a statement praising the focus on high-speed rail.
"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," he said.
A spokesman for Mica said that he voted against the bill as he saw the high-speed rail provisions as just a "silver lining". It has become a popular tactic for politicians to tout in press releases local benefits of legislation they voted against in the hope that voters did not follow the debate too closely.
As well as green initiatives, the new act will provide money for road building, new bridges, new schools and the expansion of broadband networks to rural communities, all of which it could be argued could help curb overall emissions. There are also funds to computerise healthcare records, extend federal unemployment benefits and boost healthcare funding for low-income and disabled Americans. It also provides an estimated $280bn in tax cuts.
The White House is establishing a website to track the spending, and green groups can now be expected to be keeping a close eye on how and where the new funding will be spent.
"This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but the beginning,'' President Obama said over the weekend. "The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread. Our response must be equal to the task."
He could of just as easily been talking about climate change, as well as the economic crisis – and given the make up of his stimulus package, perhaps he was.
BusinessGreen.com takes the microscope to the environmental spending in President Obama's wide-ranging economic stimulus package
John Sterlicchi, BusinessGreen, 17 Feb 2009
Barack Obama
US President Barack Obama will today sign the $787bn (£551bn) economic stimulus package in Denver, Colorado with proponents of green business celebrating that a tenth of the money will be directly targeted at environmental initiatives.
Echoing the sentiments of many environmentalists, Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, hailed the bill as a landmark in America's transition to a lower carbon economy.
"Years from now, long after the economy has recovered, this moment may well be remembered as the time that progressives, led by Obama, began the transition to a sustainable economy built around green jobs," he said.
The final compromise on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed the House on Friday by 246-183 without a single Republican vote, having passed the Senate by 60-38 with the help of three Republican senators.
The stimulus bill initially passed by the House had a projected cost of $820bn and the Senate's was even higher at $838bn, but the lower final figure was agreed in an attempt to bring the Republican senators on board and assure the bill's speedy passage.
Environment America, a federation of state-based, environmental advocacy organisations, analysed the final bill and said there were $32.80bn in funding for clean energy projects, $26.86bn for energy efficiency initiatives and $18.95bn for green transportation, giving a total of $78.61bn directly earmarked for green projects.
Obama has said that he hopes the act will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, and a sizable chunk of these jobs are now expected to be so-called "green-collar jobs".
While some popular projects took a hit as a result of the compromise deal, environmentalists were as pleased almost as much at what did not make the final cut as what did.
For instance, in the Senate version of the package there was a provision for $50bn in federal loan guarantees that could have been utilised by the nuclear and coal industries. Its original inclusion caused 243 advocacy groups to send a joint letter to senators expressing their "dismay and anger over the inclusion by the Senate Appropriations Committee of a provision in the economic stimulus bill to provide up to $50bn in additional taxpayer loan guarantees that could be used for construction of new nuclear reactors and 'clean coal' plants" .
The provision was subsequently ditched from the final bill, in a move that Kevin Kamps of campaign group Beyond Nuclear hailed as "a big victory for common sense and the American taxpayer".
"This toxic nuclear pork had no place in a bill designed to put Americans back to work and salvage our economy," he said. "Our legislators are to be applauded for getting their priorities right and saying no to yet another blatant attempt to prop up an industry that has never stood on its own financial feet."
However, less contentious green investments also took a hit with the plan to upgrade the country's electricity transmission system to better take advantage of renewable energy and improve efficiency seeing proposed funding of $11bn cut to just $4.5bn. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acting chairman Jon Wellinghoff said the funding was "seed money... but it really isn't enough money to make huge advances in the overall backbone grid that we're talking about to integrate substantial amounts of wind."
The full investment to meet the type of renewable growth that Obama's targeted would cost more than $200bn, he said, but added that based on the proposals already submitted to the agency he now expected the rest of the funding to come from the private sector.
The need for private capital to piggyback the US government’s initiatives was highlighted by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin writing in this week's Nation magazine. Banks could be required to devote a percentage of loan portfolios to green investments, he wrote, while expanded tax credits could be provided to homes and businesses for installation of solar and other renewable energy. Funds from a cap-and-trade emissions programme or a carbon tax could also be recycled back to the public in rebates to spend on energy saving measures, he predicted.
Pollin also joined with green groups in praising a stimulus package that will simultaneously cut carbon emissions and create jobs.
"The central facts here are irrefutable: spending the same amount of money on building a clean energy economy will create three times more jobs within the US than would spending on our existing fossil fuel infrastructure," he observed. " The transformation to a clean energy economy can therefore serve as a major long-term engine of job creation."
His comments were echoed by the Solar Energy Industries Association, which forecasts that the stimulus package will create 67,000 solar jobs in 2009, and 119,000 in total through 2010. The stimulus plan will "catapult the US to be the world's largest solar market by the end of 2010", predicted Suvi Sharma, chief executive of Solaria, a solar-cell maker.
Striking a similarly upbeat note was Kevin Surace, president and chief executive of Serious Materials, a Silicon Valley company that makes green building materials. With the final document providing $5bn for a Weatherization Assistance Program, enough to supposedly prevent 9.7 million tons of global warming pollution and create 375,000 jobs, he predicted that the company would "be hiring hundreds of people over the next 12 to 18 months".
Plans to invest $8bn in new high-speed rail projects also secured praise from an unlikely quarter, when Florida Republican House representative John Mica, who voted against the package, issued a statement praising the focus on high-speed rail.
"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," he said.
A spokesman for Mica said that he voted against the bill as he saw the high-speed rail provisions as just a "silver lining". It has become a popular tactic for politicians to tout in press releases local benefits of legislation they voted against in the hope that voters did not follow the debate too closely.
As well as green initiatives, the new act will provide money for road building, new bridges, new schools and the expansion of broadband networks to rural communities, all of which it could be argued could help curb overall emissions. There are also funds to computerise healthcare records, extend federal unemployment benefits and boost healthcare funding for low-income and disabled Americans. It also provides an estimated $280bn in tax cuts.
The White House is establishing a website to track the spending, and green groups can now be expected to be keeping a close eye on how and where the new funding will be spent.
"This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but the beginning,'' President Obama said over the weekend. "The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread. Our response must be equal to the task."
He could of just as easily been talking about climate change, as well as the economic crisis – and given the make up of his stimulus package, perhaps he was.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The ripple effect of cutting water
The ripple effect of cutting water
Clare Davidson, BBC News
Port Sunlight, Merseyside
Less water meant smaller bottles and less packaging
"For far too long, businesses like ours have been effectively shipping water around the globe," says Gavin Neath, a spokesperson for Unilever.
He leans across a table in the firm's London office, as if confiding something secretive.
Like other multinational firms, Unilever is assessing its environmental impact, including how it uses water.
In doing so the firm is reassessing the way it does business, but this also creates a number of benefits.
The firm singles out two detergents - Small and Mighty, and Surf Excel - as examples of this shift. Small and Mighty, for example, requires half as much water per bottle and half as much packaging.
Shift in size
As we arrive at the firm's Port Sunlight factory, near Liverpool, Keith Rutherford - who has been closely involved in developing small & mighty in the UK - has set up a display of detergents to illustrate the change.
Brands sold in different countries over the years are neatly arranged.
What would have been considered the norm now appear absurdly big in scale.
"In the past, especially in the US, big was always best," explains Mr Rutherford.
Old and new versions of detergent
In the past, especially in the US, big was always best
Keith Rutherford, a director of Unilever's laundry R&D
"And the more bubbles and foam the better."
Making goods smaller challenges such assumptions.
As we enter liquid factory number one, we are hit by an intense waft of perfumed detergent.
As a robotic arm lifts bottles into a cardboard box, Mr Rutherford lists the benefits across the supply chain of making the detergent more concentrated.
Smaller bottles mean less packaging, meaning fewer carbon emissions.
"It also means more can be transported on fewer lorries which reduces fuel, which in turn lowers emissions.
"And making a more concentrated liquid means more goes further, so customers don't have to lug as much detergent from the supermarket as often."
'Whole puzzle'
As part of its overall environmental assessment, the firm has also looked at the consumer's role.
This is effectively about looking at water used across the supply chain. While embedded carbon has been much talked about, embedded water, the water that is used in the life cycle of the product, has not. It is also called virtual water.
Water consumption at all stages is calculated; irrigation of the raw materials, the manufacturing process, water per consumer use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions.
"By looking at water we have an opportunity to look at the whole puzzle," says Mr Rutherford, gleefully.
A brief look at the firm's range of goods, from brands such as Knorr stock to Dove soap, underlines how important the end user's role is.
"It might be through boiling a kettle for tea, or making stock cubes or putting on the laundry", he lists.
Even pasta in tomato sauce needs water, albeit indirectly, since pasta needs to be boiled in water.
In fact, Unilever estimates that the water added by end users represents around 45% of the total water used for its products.
For detergent that figure is even greater - around 95% of the water is used by the consumer, mostly for rinsing.
Education
"But you can't just abdicate that aspect, you need to raise awareness," says Mr Neath.
In countries such as India, washing clothes can represent around a quarter of the domestic water used and most water is used in the rinsing phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAVINGS SMALL & MIGHTY
Water: 41 million litres
Shelf space: 36 football fields
Carbon dioxide: 1 030 000 kg
Plastic: (equivalent) 272 million bags
Card: (equivalent) 383 million A4 sheets
Surf Excel Quick Wash, used in India, produces less lather, so the clothes need less rinsing, saving around two buckets of water per wash.
Some parts of the world where Unilever operates are water stressed, and many areas have no piped water.
Reducing the amount of water needed not only cuts the water required, it also means less physical work, with women and girls standing to benefit the most since they do most of the water carrying, said Mr Neath.
So reducing the water in goods not only stands to benefit the environment. It also has social implications.
Much has changed since the days of William Hesketh Lever, who co-founded the eponymous soap firm with his brother long before it was incorporated into Unilever.
But he might smile to think that aspects of his mission statement had been carried out.
"To make cleanliness commonplace; to lessen work for women; to foster health and contribute to personal attractiveness."
Clare Davidson, BBC News
Port Sunlight, Merseyside
Less water meant smaller bottles and less packaging
"For far too long, businesses like ours have been effectively shipping water around the globe," says Gavin Neath, a spokesperson for Unilever.
He leans across a table in the firm's London office, as if confiding something secretive.
Like other multinational firms, Unilever is assessing its environmental impact, including how it uses water.
In doing so the firm is reassessing the way it does business, but this also creates a number of benefits.
The firm singles out two detergents - Small and Mighty, and Surf Excel - as examples of this shift. Small and Mighty, for example, requires half as much water per bottle and half as much packaging.
Shift in size
As we arrive at the firm's Port Sunlight factory, near Liverpool, Keith Rutherford - who has been closely involved in developing small & mighty in the UK - has set up a display of detergents to illustrate the change.
Brands sold in different countries over the years are neatly arranged.
What would have been considered the norm now appear absurdly big in scale.
"In the past, especially in the US, big was always best," explains Mr Rutherford.
Old and new versions of detergent
In the past, especially in the US, big was always best
Keith Rutherford, a director of Unilever's laundry R&D
"And the more bubbles and foam the better."
Making goods smaller challenges such assumptions.
As we enter liquid factory number one, we are hit by an intense waft of perfumed detergent.
As a robotic arm lifts bottles into a cardboard box, Mr Rutherford lists the benefits across the supply chain of making the detergent more concentrated.
Smaller bottles mean less packaging, meaning fewer carbon emissions.
"It also means more can be transported on fewer lorries which reduces fuel, which in turn lowers emissions.
"And making a more concentrated liquid means more goes further, so customers don't have to lug as much detergent from the supermarket as often."
'Whole puzzle'
As part of its overall environmental assessment, the firm has also looked at the consumer's role.
This is effectively about looking at water used across the supply chain. While embedded carbon has been much talked about, embedded water, the water that is used in the life cycle of the product, has not. It is also called virtual water.
Water consumption at all stages is calculated; irrigation of the raw materials, the manufacturing process, water per consumer use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions.
"By looking at water we have an opportunity to look at the whole puzzle," says Mr Rutherford, gleefully.
A brief look at the firm's range of goods, from brands such as Knorr stock to Dove soap, underlines how important the end user's role is.
"It might be through boiling a kettle for tea, or making stock cubes or putting on the laundry", he lists.
Even pasta in tomato sauce needs water, albeit indirectly, since pasta needs to be boiled in water.
In fact, Unilever estimates that the water added by end users represents around 45% of the total water used for its products.
For detergent that figure is even greater - around 95% of the water is used by the consumer, mostly for rinsing.
Education
"But you can't just abdicate that aspect, you need to raise awareness," says Mr Neath.
In countries such as India, washing clothes can represent around a quarter of the domestic water used and most water is used in the rinsing phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAVINGS SMALL & MIGHTY
Water: 41 million litres
Shelf space: 36 football fields
Carbon dioxide: 1 030 000 kg
Plastic: (equivalent) 272 million bags
Card: (equivalent) 383 million A4 sheets
Surf Excel Quick Wash, used in India, produces less lather, so the clothes need less rinsing, saving around two buckets of water per wash.
Some parts of the world where Unilever operates are water stressed, and many areas have no piped water.
Reducing the amount of water needed not only cuts the water required, it also means less physical work, with women and girls standing to benefit the most since they do most of the water carrying, said Mr Neath.
So reducing the water in goods not only stands to benefit the environment. It also has social implications.
Much has changed since the days of William Hesketh Lever, who co-founded the eponymous soap firm with his brother long before it was incorporated into Unilever.
But he might smile to think that aspects of his mission statement had been carried out.
"To make cleanliness commonplace; to lessen work for women; to foster health and contribute to personal attractiveness."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Energy and emissions top Obama's green tasklist
Energy and emissions top Obama's green tasklist
What can be reasonably expected of the man who was the strongest environmental contender for the White House in US history?
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 January 2009 10.44 GMT
Barack Obama is raising expectations of swift action on the environment - possibly within his first few days in the White House.
At one of two green balls for this year's inauguration, environmentalists were already describing Obama as America's first green president.
Obama, since his election, has repeatedly indicated he wants to push ahead on his campaign promise to create jobs by investing in renewable energy.
He used his last appearance before the start of celebrations for his inauguration on Tuesday to talk up his clean energy plans at an Ohio factory that makes components for wind turbines.
"A renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future," Obama said during the factory visit. "It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."
Such early gestures, the appointment of a team of respected scientists and experienced legislators, have fuelled anticipation of what Obama might do in the White House.
Environmentalists praise Obama for putting the environment at the heart of his economic renewal plan - part of the solution to the crisis, rather than the source.
They say there has been little sign that Obama has scaled back his thinking in response to the economic crisis.
"Obama gets it," said Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon congressman who is a member of the house committee on energy independence and global warming.
However, Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins, of the Breakthrough Institute, argue that as the recession has deepened, Obama has been relatively silent on cap and trade emissions schemes similar to the one operating in Europe in which companies can trade permits to emit carbon dioxide. "With green jobs now positioned as 'the solution' to both the economy and the climate, Obama has cover to take the politically expedient route of short-term green stimulus while ignoring serious climate policy," they write.
"Obama has made it increasingly clear that public investment is his preferred climate policy mechanism. What Obama has not made clear is whether or not he will embrace the type and scale of investments necessary to seriously confront the climate challenge."
So, once Obama is president, what can be reasonably expected of the man who was the most strongly environmental contender for the White House in US history?
On the campaign trail, Obama supported a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. He embraced the goal of obtaining 10% of America's electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and 25% by 2025.
Environmentalists see that translating into results almost immediately after Obama is sworn in with a number of executive orders overturning some of the most controversial decisions by George Bush.
These could include:
• Directing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide. The Bush administration refused to act on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency regulatory and enforcement power.
• Granting authority to California and 16 other states to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions
• Ordering a ban on mountain-top removal coalmining
Next on the agenda is an economic stimulus package which Obama hopes to pass within the first three weeks. Environmentalists expect a heavily green component in the $775-825bn package.
"I think we are going to see a very large infrastructure proposal with a very strong green component - everything from putting solar panels on the rooftops of government buildings to providing tax credits to home owners to make their homes more energy efficient to retrofitting older buildings to beginning to stress mass transit," said Michael Moynihan.
Obama's stimulus plan revealed last week calls for doubling the production of renewable energy in three years. It envisages energy-efficient retrofits for 75% of government office buildings, and weather-proofing some 2m homes.
He said the plan would create nearly half a million new jobs in production of wind turbines and solar panels, and the building industry.
An early draft of the bill showed about $54bn in measures on weatherisation and retrofitting.
Democratic leaders in Congress hope to pass the package by February 20.
In the longer term, environmentalists were cheered by Hillary Clinton's confirmation as secretary of state last week. They see Clinton as a strong advocate for reaching a successor to the Kyoto protocol. "We have got a whole series of people who want to move in the same direction as the president-elect," said Eileen Claussen of the Pew Environment Group.
But the picture is mixed on domestic cap and trade legislation. Environmentalists who are in regular contact with Obama's advisers say his White House would be prepared to consult widely with Congress.
However, while the Democratic leadership is squarely behind cap and trade legislation, Republicans as well as some Democrats from coal-producing states are not behind a domestic cap and trade regime. Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, said earlier this month that she was not hopeful of passing legislation this year.
What can be reasonably expected of the man who was the strongest environmental contender for the White House in US history?
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 January 2009 10.44 GMT
Barack Obama is raising expectations of swift action on the environment - possibly within his first few days in the White House.
At one of two green balls for this year's inauguration, environmentalists were already describing Obama as America's first green president.
Obama, since his election, has repeatedly indicated he wants to push ahead on his campaign promise to create jobs by investing in renewable energy.
He used his last appearance before the start of celebrations for his inauguration on Tuesday to talk up his clean energy plans at an Ohio factory that makes components for wind turbines.
"A renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future," Obama said during the factory visit. "It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."
Such early gestures, the appointment of a team of respected scientists and experienced legislators, have fuelled anticipation of what Obama might do in the White House.
Environmentalists praise Obama for putting the environment at the heart of his economic renewal plan - part of the solution to the crisis, rather than the source.
They say there has been little sign that Obama has scaled back his thinking in response to the economic crisis.
"Obama gets it," said Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon congressman who is a member of the house committee on energy independence and global warming.
However, Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins, of the Breakthrough Institute, argue that as the recession has deepened, Obama has been relatively silent on cap and trade emissions schemes similar to the one operating in Europe in which companies can trade permits to emit carbon dioxide. "With green jobs now positioned as 'the solution' to both the economy and the climate, Obama has cover to take the politically expedient route of short-term green stimulus while ignoring serious climate policy," they write.
"Obama has made it increasingly clear that public investment is his preferred climate policy mechanism. What Obama has not made clear is whether or not he will embrace the type and scale of investments necessary to seriously confront the climate challenge."
So, once Obama is president, what can be reasonably expected of the man who was the most strongly environmental contender for the White House in US history?
On the campaign trail, Obama supported a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. He embraced the goal of obtaining 10% of America's electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and 25% by 2025.
Environmentalists see that translating into results almost immediately after Obama is sworn in with a number of executive orders overturning some of the most controversial decisions by George Bush.
These could include:
• Directing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide. The Bush administration refused to act on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency regulatory and enforcement power.
• Granting authority to California and 16 other states to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions
• Ordering a ban on mountain-top removal coalmining
Next on the agenda is an economic stimulus package which Obama hopes to pass within the first three weeks. Environmentalists expect a heavily green component in the $775-825bn package.
"I think we are going to see a very large infrastructure proposal with a very strong green component - everything from putting solar panels on the rooftops of government buildings to providing tax credits to home owners to make their homes more energy efficient to retrofitting older buildings to beginning to stress mass transit," said Michael Moynihan.
Obama's stimulus plan revealed last week calls for doubling the production of renewable energy in three years. It envisages energy-efficient retrofits for 75% of government office buildings, and weather-proofing some 2m homes.
He said the plan would create nearly half a million new jobs in production of wind turbines and solar panels, and the building industry.
An early draft of the bill showed about $54bn in measures on weatherisation and retrofitting.
Democratic leaders in Congress hope to pass the package by February 20.
In the longer term, environmentalists were cheered by Hillary Clinton's confirmation as secretary of state last week. They see Clinton as a strong advocate for reaching a successor to the Kyoto protocol. "We have got a whole series of people who want to move in the same direction as the president-elect," said Eileen Claussen of the Pew Environment Group.
But the picture is mixed on domestic cap and trade legislation. Environmentalists who are in regular contact with Obama's advisers say his White House would be prepared to consult widely with Congress.
However, while the Democratic leadership is squarely behind cap and trade legislation, Republicans as well as some Democrats from coal-producing states are not behind a domestic cap and trade regime. Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, said earlier this month that she was not hopeful of passing legislation this year.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
New UN-backed reports warns of costs of inaction on climate change
New UN-backed reports warns of costs of inaction on climate change
Source: United Nations
Published Aug. 25, 2008
Government leaders must take urgent action to ensure that weather-related hazards, which are becoming more intense and frequent due to climate change, do not lead to a corresponding rise in disasters, a new United Nations-backed report released on Friday said.
The new study identified India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia as being among global warming’s “hotspots,” or countries particularly vulnerable to increases in extreme drought, flooding and cyclones anticipated in coming decades.
Commissioned by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the non-governmental organization (NGO) CARE International, it examined the possible consequences of global warming in the next 20 to 30 years.
The so-called hotspot nations are already facing considerable political, social, demographic, economic and security obstacles, the report said.
“Climate change will greatly complicate and could undermine efforts to manage these challenges,” said Charles Ehrhart, one of its authors, who serves as Climate Change Coordinator for CARE International.
The impact of a natural disaster is determined by several factors, such as access to proper equipment and information, as well as the ability to exert political influence, he noted. “The striking lack of these explains why poor people – especially those in marginalized social groups like pastoralists in Africa, women and children – constitute the vast majority of disaster victims.”
The report cited the most effective means to curb human vulnerability to disasters are: boosting the ability of local and government institutions to respond to crises; empowering local people to have a stronger say in disaster preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation; and providing services and social protection for the most vulnerable populations.
The authors expressed hope that point out hotspots around the world will spur leaders to take action and encourage aid workers to modify their strategies to take into account the realities of new risks posed by climate change.
The new study’s launch coincided with the gathering of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that kicked off yesterday in Accra, Ghana.
The seven-day event is the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations, bringing together more than 1,600 participants to discuss future greenhouse gas emission reduction targets ahead of a major summit set for 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Source: United Nations
Published Aug. 25, 2008
Government leaders must take urgent action to ensure that weather-related hazards, which are becoming more intense and frequent due to climate change, do not lead to a corresponding rise in disasters, a new United Nations-backed report released on Friday said.
The new study identified India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia as being among global warming’s “hotspots,” or countries particularly vulnerable to increases in extreme drought, flooding and cyclones anticipated in coming decades.
Commissioned by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the non-governmental organization (NGO) CARE International, it examined the possible consequences of global warming in the next 20 to 30 years.
The so-called hotspot nations are already facing considerable political, social, demographic, economic and security obstacles, the report said.
“Climate change will greatly complicate and could undermine efforts to manage these challenges,” said Charles Ehrhart, one of its authors, who serves as Climate Change Coordinator for CARE International.
The impact of a natural disaster is determined by several factors, such as access to proper equipment and information, as well as the ability to exert political influence, he noted. “The striking lack of these explains why poor people – especially those in marginalized social groups like pastoralists in Africa, women and children – constitute the vast majority of disaster victims.”
The report cited the most effective means to curb human vulnerability to disasters are: boosting the ability of local and government institutions to respond to crises; empowering local people to have a stronger say in disaster preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation; and providing services and social protection for the most vulnerable populations.
The authors expressed hope that point out hotspots around the world will spur leaders to take action and encourage aid workers to modify their strategies to take into account the realities of new risks posed by climate change.
The new study’s launch coincided with the gathering of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that kicked off yesterday in Accra, Ghana.
The seven-day event is the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations, bringing together more than 1,600 participants to discuss future greenhouse gas emission reduction targets ahead of a major summit set for 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Solar power
Solar power
Glowing after dark
Aug 7th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Looking to leaves for a way to store solar power after sunset
PLANTS absorb sunlight, produce energy, consume carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. It is a perfect model for power generation, but copying Mother Nature is difficult. Although research into solar power has come a long way, sunset still poses a problem. Storing solar-made electricity in batteries can be expensive and inefficient. So to be really successful, the solar industry needs another way to keep power for use at night. Now researchers have found a chemical cocktail that might do the trick.
By adding cobalt and phosphates to water and passing a mild current through the solution with a glass electrode, Matthew Kanan and Daniel Nocera of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were able to break water apart and force oxygen to bubble to the surface. Protons left behind by the oxygen migrated to a second electrode made of platinum and formed into hydrogen.
<A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3728/3/0/%2a/m%3B36321810%3B0-0%3B0%3B7058143%3B799-350/300%3B17002217/17020112/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/a1/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.economistsubscriptions.com/ecom517/global"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/711766/250x250_1.gif" BORDER=0></A>
Although the process appears simple, it is difficult in practice. Given enough electricity, there are already ways to break water apart. The problem is that the amount of energy required may significantly exceed that which the hydrogen can subsequently be used to generate. Scientists have tried adding chemicals to reduce the amount of electricity needed, but most of the ingredients have been rare and expensive. By using easily obtainable cobalt and phosphates, the MIT work could make it a lot more viable to obtain hydrogen directly from solar cells.
The researchers suggest splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen during the day whenever electricity from solar cells is not needed for anything else. At night the hydrogen could be burned or run through a fuel cell to create power.
The process, reported in Science, is similar to how plants work. When they do not need energy immediately, plants transform it into sugar which is stored. When energy is required, the sugar is used—regardless of whether the sun is up or down. Although their experimental work is yet to be commercialised, the MIT researchers suggest that within ten years solar cells using cobalt-based reactions to store energy could help to power some buildings.
Glowing after dark
Aug 7th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Looking to leaves for a way to store solar power after sunset
PLANTS absorb sunlight, produce energy, consume carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. It is a perfect model for power generation, but copying Mother Nature is difficult. Although research into solar power has come a long way, sunset still poses a problem. Storing solar-made electricity in batteries can be expensive and inefficient. So to be really successful, the solar industry needs another way to keep power for use at night. Now researchers have found a chemical cocktail that might do the trick.
By adding cobalt and phosphates to water and passing a mild current through the solution with a glass electrode, Matthew Kanan and Daniel Nocera of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were able to break water apart and force oxygen to bubble to the surface. Protons left behind by the oxygen migrated to a second electrode made of platinum and formed into hydrogen.
<A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3728/3/0/%2a/m%3B36321810%3B0-0%3B0%3B7058143%3B799-350/300%3B17002217/17020112/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/a1/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.economistsubscriptions.com/ecom517/global"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/711766/250x250_1.gif" BORDER=0></A>
Although the process appears simple, it is difficult in practice. Given enough electricity, there are already ways to break water apart. The problem is that the amount of energy required may significantly exceed that which the hydrogen can subsequently be used to generate. Scientists have tried adding chemicals to reduce the amount of electricity needed, but most of the ingredients have been rare and expensive. By using easily obtainable cobalt and phosphates, the MIT work could make it a lot more viable to obtain hydrogen directly from solar cells.
The researchers suggest splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen during the day whenever electricity from solar cells is not needed for anything else. At night the hydrogen could be burned or run through a fuel cell to create power.
The process, reported in Science, is similar to how plants work. When they do not need energy immediately, plants transform it into sugar which is stored. When energy is required, the sugar is used—regardless of whether the sun is up or down. Although their experimental work is yet to be commercialised, the MIT researchers suggest that within ten years solar cells using cobalt-based reactions to store energy could help to power some buildings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
