Related posts:

1. Jurdy: Inauguration day distractions
2. Jurdy: Catching forty (green) winks
3. Jurdy: Ducking the issue

The most recent warning to that effect came today from WWF-UK and The Cooperative Financial Services, which together released a report titled, “Toxic fuels, toxic investments: Why we need mandatory greenhouse gas reporting.” The report finds that today’s lack of carbon reporting requirements is allowing oil and gas companies to invest heavily in high-carbon energy developments such as Canada’s tar sands without having to disclose potential future risks to investors.

“Emitting carbon dioxide will become more and more expensive in the future, as regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is progressively tightened up,” the report’s executive summary states. “Yet oil and gas companies are not disclosing to investors the potentially huge costs they will have to pay in order to continue emitting massive amounts of CO2 and other GHGs in the future … The failure of companies to measure and disclose their exposure to future carbon costs obscures the risk associated with high-carbon investments, and contributes to a misallocation of resources.”

And that’s in the UK, which falls under the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme that is at least trying to establish a baseline price for carbon pollution. Such is not the case with top polluters China — which is talking about implementing “half-mandatory” carbon trading by 2014 — and the US, where the much-vaunted hope for a climate bill before this November’s mid-term elections has withered into a resounding “Nope.”

Such developments in the world’s number-one and number-two carbon emitting countries threaten existing carbon markets that are already struggling in the ongoing shaky economy. With EU carbon prices at record lows, carbon brokers are losing their jobs left and right.

Could this be a precursor to the first death rattles for carbon trading? Energy analyst/investment advisor Chris Nelder seems to think so, warning that the carbon emissions legislation game is one that “cannot be won.” His solution? For the US, anyway, he believes the answer lies with a comprehensive energy plan that incorporates all energy sources, phases in an increasing proportion of renewables and makes the most of “every last BTU.”

But is that realistic? Can we really transition from fossil fuels to clean energy using the approach of carrots for renewables versus sticks for oil, gas and coal? And can we do it in a reasonable time frame that addresses both declining fossil fuel reserves and accelerating climate change?

Where do you place your bets? Let us know.

Related posts:

1. Expect sharp increases in carbon, electricity prices
2. Breaking: Global carbon trade risks the next ’sub-prime’ collapse
3. CBI proposes carbon prices…

The key question looming with the energy statement’s release is whether the government’s plans have enough teeth to turn paper goals into reality. Among the proposed actions that appear to come closest are:

• A commitment to double environmental inspections of offshore oil and gas rigs and undertake “a full review of the oil and gas environmental regime following the outcome of investigations into the causes of the Gulf of Mexico incident.”
• A call for the European Union to raise its 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions reducttions from 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
• A commitment to remove obstacles to the development of new nuclear power as long as plants can be built without public subsidy.

Other elements in the statement’s 32-point action plan, however, are on the fuzzy side:

• The government is launching a new Green Deal to remove the barriers to energy efficiency and help “every participating householder to save money by insulating their home.” However, the Green Deal as described looks to be voluntary on the part of energy companies, which still appears to put energy efficiency in the “nice to have” rather than “must have” category.
• The statement also singles out the fuel poor as a “super priority” group, and notes the Energy Act 2010 gives the government the power to mandate energy companies to support this group. However, it doesn’t commit to using that mandate but says the government will “take a decision on whether to introduce mandatory support following the Spending Review.”
• Officials reiterate their support for a Green Investment Bank that can help provide the £550 billion in funds needed to meet the UK’s 2020 climate and clean-energy goals. However, the statement for now commits only to publishing proposals for the bank after the government’s Spending Review.

The references to decisions to be made after the Spending Review raise some red flags in light of the coalition government’s recently announced significant cuts to low-carbon technologies and investments.

Alongside the new energy statement, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) also released a prospectus outlining how to meet the previous government’s goal of 100-per cent smart metering across the UK by 2020 and announced it would review Ofgem’s role as regulator of Britain’s energy markets. Furthermore, it published a report outlining ways in which to meet the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and launched an online calculator to help policy-makers, energy companies and consumers track the implications of such strategies.

“The 2050 Calculator provides the most comprehensive, long term analysis ever undertaken by government,” said Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne. “The challenge is ambitious but achievable.”

Huhne added, “The era of cheap, abundant energy is over. We must find smart ways of making energy go further, and value it for the costly resource it is, not take it for granted. And even as we reduce overall demand for energy, we may need to meet a near doubling in demand for electricity, as we shift industry, transport and heating onto the grid … Choosing the high carbon alternative would be high risk. It would lock in exposure to volatile oil prices, declining global reserves and rapidly increasing global energy demand. We’d risk having a dead-end economy lagging behind those with the foresight to grab a share of growth in green industries.”

Related posts:

1. UK’s low-carbon spending cuts: Penny wise but …
2. Scotland misses EU energy standards deadline
3. Carbon offsetting – Friends of the Earth’s statement

Short answer: not much, probably.

Yes, as Dudley himself has said, the new BP will end up a much smaller version of the company today, with $30 billion in assets expected to be sold to help raise revenues to cover the costs of the Gulf disaster. And it’s likely the oil firm will try to adopt stricter standards and controls for its operations, if for no other reason than to appease investors’ concerns about exposure to future risks.

But the company’s fundamental raison d’etre won’t change. Despite BP’s green branding efforts over the past decade, don’t expect it to now — for real — move “beyond petroleum.”

Because, so long as there isn’t a fair and universal price on carbon, petroleum is the energy source where the money is to be made. It’s also an energy source that’s growing ever harder to extract, with a rising proportion of world reserves now located in politically troubled, dangerous parts of the globe … or in deep, deep reservoirs far below the ocean floor. Unlike, say, fine cigars or vintage wines, though, petroleum isn’t a product people stop buying when their wallets run thin. So whatever it costs BP to extract the world’s remaining oil, it knows it will be able to pass those costs on to consumers.

In other words, the Gulf oil disaster (along with all the other petroleum disasters that receive less scrutiny in our corner of the world) in the long run isn’t BP’s problem … it’s ours. And it will continue to be until the global price of carbon reflects the true cost of our oil addiction.

Related posts:

1. Are the costs of deep-ocean oil too high?
2. Museum goes climate-neutral … but not the usual way
3. Depressed Gulf Coast awakens to cleaner, greener possibilities

Obviously, sellers don’t want to spend too much money because they are selling their homes. However, a few green tips can help them achieve improvements without costing a fortune. Following are five tips to get home-sellers started in the right direction:

1. Household fixtures: Showers, sinks and toilets can waste a lot of water if they are not fitted with energy-efficient controls. Fittings to control the flow of water are fairly cheap to buy and, in most cases, you can install them yourself. The advantage of having these low-water control fittings is you don’t waste water and you will notice the difference in your water bills when they come in. That’s something you can point out to a potential buyer.
2. Electrical appliances: Many of the electrical items you buy these days will have already been adapted to be energy efficient. However, appliances that came as fixtures with your house might not be quite as up to date. Check your dishwasher and see if it has energy- and water-efficient stickers on it. These stickers are found on items that have already been adapted for maximum energy efficiency. You might find, if your house is a few years old, that fixtures like your water heater do not meet eco-friendly standards. Replacing it with an approved Energy Star-rated heater will result in savings on your power and water. So whilst you may not want to spend any money, you could save more in the long run by having a more energy-efficient water heater installed.
3. Insulation: You would be amazed at the difference proper insulation makes to your home. Instead of sweltering in summer or freezing in winter, having good insulation puts back some control over the temperatures in your house. Insulation doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive, either; many DIY stores sell insulation that you can install yourself. Even if you want to fix only some of the small areas that let in draughts, such as round doorways and windows, you’re still adding value to your property.
4. Floors: Polished wood floors add that extra bit of appeal to a home, which accounts for their popularity with many home-buyers. But wood floors are expensive both to buy and install. An environmentally friendly alternative is bamboo. You still get the natural wood effect in your house, but with less expense and the added bonus of being a natural, eco-friendly product. Bamboo is extremely durable and suitable for most rooms, and can be purchases in tiles, strips or planks for easy installation.
5. Thermostats: Not always an obvious consideration when looking at energy saving, but one well worth thinking about. Being able to program your thermostat and maintain constant temperatures throughout your home will make a huge difference to your power bill. If you are at work in the day and don’t want to waste energy and money keeping your house cool, you can set your thermostat to automatically start cooling or heating your home at a time that suits. Programmable thermostats are reasonably inexpensive to buy and can be purchased from most of the larger hardware stores.

It’s also a good idea to have a talk with your real estate agent and get his or her suggestions on green tips you could use to improve the value of your home and save you money in the meantime.

Editor’s note: This article was written by William Eve, who writes about saving money, investment loans and real estate for Home Loan Finder, which also provides information for first-time home-buyers and those looking to refinance.

Related posts:

1. New Vegas home: luxury minus the energy footprint
2. Want fewer power plants? Make outdoor lighting more efficient
3. New lab sets sights on energy-efficient ‘Zero’ house

The VisLab Intercontintental Autonomous Challenge set off from Parma, Italy, today with the goal of safely — and greenly — traveling the 13,000 kilometres to Shanghai over the next three months. The convoy consists of four autonomous (ie, no human driver) vehicles followed by four RVs and four support trucks. En route to Shanghai for the 2010 World Expo, the expedition will stop for public demonstrations at various locations, with the first one set to be held in Belgrade.

The vehicles will actually be unmanned only during the demonstrations. En route, they will carry passengers who, while they won’t act as drivers, can intervene to control the vehicles if safety issues arise.

“No one has ever tried anything like this,” explains VisLab’s FAQ. “It’s the first time in history that vehicles with no driver and without using oil-based propulsion travel on an intercontinental route. If everything will go as planned, this will be a huge milestone in the history of mobility and robotics.”

The expedition is aimed at building on the knowledge gained from earlier tests of autonomous vehicles in places like the Mojave Desert. This time, however, the route will be even more challenging, taking the vehicles through extreme weather conditions and terrains in places where there are often no maps available for guidance.

The key to navigating such a course will be an operator-controlled leader vehicle that operates autonomously most of the time but is manned so a human can take control when road conditions require a decision to be made. The lead vehicle’s position is then broadcast via GPS to the follower vehicle, which responds accordingly and automatically.

Each autonomous vehicle is equipped with a solar panel to keep the autonomous driving system charged. The vehicles themselves are also electric, but will be recharged by generators in some locations along the way where electric outlets aren’t available.

Related posts:

1. Top green tips for… social networks
2. Woo, woo: Future ‘road trains’ could make for driverless travel
3. China: “More funds for green cars”

In its latest interim management statement, issued this week, SSE reported that “weather conditions” during April, May and June contributed to a full 30 per cent drop in electricity output from its wind farms, hydroelectric facilities and Slough biomass heat and power plant. Output from those sources fell to 700 gigawatt-hours during that period, compared to the 1,000 gigawatt-hours generated during the last quarter of 2009.

While SSE didn’t elaborate on those “weather conditions,” one factor certainly had to be the fact that the first half of 2010 saw the “driest first six months of the year for 100 years,” according to the UK’s Met Office. And, as the climate continues changing, Britain can expect that type of situation to become more common, the agency warns.

If hydroelectric power sources are threatened by climate change, wind energy’s greatest shortcoming is its great variability, Lovelock warns in his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia:

“Used sensibly, in locations where the fickle nature of wind is no drawback, it is a valuable local resource, but Europe’s massive use of wind as a supplement to baseload electricity will probably be remembered as one of the great follies of the twenty-first century … ,” he writes.

Lovelock argues the only clean energy sources that make sense for society are nuclear and solar thermal energy. All the rest aren’t viable without heavy injections of government subsidies and green cheerleading, he says.

Lovelock acknowledges he sometimes takes a bit of hyperbolic licence to make his points — as when he warned that global warming will lead to a die-off of billions of humans this century, resulting in only a “few breeding pairs of people” left in the Arctic. But does he have a point here? Is the bit of news from SSE a warning sign that we’d be better off by aggressively developing nuclear and concentrating solar power (such as that proposed in the Desertec project), and forgetting more intermittent clean-energy sources?

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

Related posts:

1. Top green tips for… social networks
2. Energy efficiency? Alone, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be
3. Video: Tom Hanks promotes electric cars on MySpace

The 46-foot WWF Solar is part of WWF Spain’s “Embárcate” (Get on Board) campaign to promote clean energy and marine ecosystem conservation. The vessel, which set off last week, will sail along the Mediterranean coastline for the next three summers to promote its message.

“The WWF Solar is powered completely by the sun,” said José Luis García Varas, head of the marine programme at WWF Spain. “It does not use sails, and it does not use any fossil fuels. It is a boat that causes no pollution — it does not emit any CO2 whatsoever. The Solar shows that we can easily substitute fossil fuels with renewable energy.”

At every stop it makes, the WWF Solar and its crew plan to disseminate information about endangered Mediterranean  habitats and species and the need for sustainable resource use. During the first few days of the voyage, WWF staff and volunteers also led locals and tourists on trips on the WWF Solar, as well as on diving expeditions and guided hikes.

Among the spots the WWF Solar is set to visit are marine protected areas such as the Cap de Creus Canyon, which is home to the greatest density of submarine canyons in the Mediterranean.

“We can safeguard the Mediterranean region’s biodiversity in a way that benefits both people and the environment,” said García Varas. “Renewable energy is an important part of this as is raising awareness that there are many other sustainable practices, such as operating small-scale fisheries, that make it possible for people and the environment to thrive.”

Photovoltaic panels covering the WWF Solar’s 65-square-metre roof provide enough power to allow the boat to travel at an average speed of 5 knots. When fully charged, the boat’s batteries can run its engines for 90 nautical miles, which is the equivalent of two full nights of sailing (around 18 hours of power).

The WWF Solar set a Guinness World Record in 1997 when a crew of five took it from Basel, Switzerland, to New York City to complete the first clean-energy-powered motorised crossing of the Atlantic Ocean. After that trip, the boat’s developer — the Swiss association Transatlantic 21 — donated the vessel to WWF.

Related posts:

1. REA: Focus on renewables to promote electric cars
2. Sun shines on solar sails for giant cargo ships
3. Solar boat sails the Serpentine

We had a fantastic bunch of business delegates: open-minded, deeply concerned about the state of the earth and climate change in particular, and all incredibly keen to see themselves and their companies as part of the solution rather than the cause of the problem.

For a lot of them, the highlight of the week was the sharing of a new film, Carbon Nation. This picks up from where An Inconvenient Truth leaves off, with 80% of the content focused on developments in energy efficiency and renewables in the US. It’s a smart piece of work, interviewing both the usual suspects (Amory Lovins, Lester Brown and so on) and treehuggers, with some “salt of the earth” entrepreneurs, farmers, community activists and even military types.

It was the first time I’d heard of the Pentagon’s Green Hawks. They’re driving a programme of energy efficiency through the US armed forces (particularly “in theatre” in Afghanistan and elsewhere) which makes most civilian enterprises look weak-kneed by comparison. Its success can largely be put down to its appeal to patriotic and nationalistic sentiments — summed up neatly by Thomas Friedman (author of the brilliant Hot, Flat and Crowded) with the soundbite, “Green is the new red, white and blue.”

This stuff works in the US. Friedman’s latest rallying call is that American environmentalists should give up on their “Earth Day” rhetoric and focus instead on the emerging “Earth Race” — the race between the US and China to become the dominant player in the burgeoning cleantech sector. This is a big deal: the cleantech market is worth around $150 billion a year at the moment, but will need to grow to a minimum of $500 billion a year if we are to meet today’s targets for reducing greenhouse gases.

Tough-talking army officers and aggressive entrepreneurs add a new dimension to the way all this sits with US citizens. But it’s still a tug of war. On the one hand, a Gallup poll in March showed that 46% of US citizens are now persuaded that climate change is caused by natural factors rather than man-made emissions. On the other, a big piece in Time Magazine a few months ago highlighted what it called the new “Responsibility Revolution” sweeping America, with 40% of US citizens claiming to put the environment at the heart of their purchasing decisions.

On one thing, however, everybody agreed: the US political system is broken. Any dreams of bi-partisanship have withered in the face of Republican intransigence; Capitol Hill is besieged as never before by lobbyists of every description; and that good old US “pork-barrel” is as prominently displayed at the heart of Congress as it’s ever been.

The likelihood of getting any climate treaty passed is close to zero. Indeed, the requirement to have a majority of two-thirds in the Senate means that there are already 45 international treaties stuck in the logjam waiting to be ratified. To that resonant election catchphrase “Yes We Can!,” have been added the words “but we probably won’t … !”

And so Barack Obama is increasingly dependent on going over the heads of such a chronically dysfunctional Congress. With the emphasis on energy security, new jobs, skills and innovation, he’s out with a nationwide crusade around the “Clean Energy Economy.” By all accounts, this has hardly been barnstorming Barack at his best, and hopes are fading that it could parallel JFK’s summons of the entire nation in support of efforts to get a man on the moon — before the Russians did!

It’s hard to go over the heads of Congress, directly to the people, if you can’t rely on the media’s help. And that just isn’t happening. When I’m in the US, I’m invariably over-taken by a bizarre compulsion to tune into Fox News, immersing myself masochistically in its melee of misinformation and madness.

What’s most scary about Fox News is that it gives no more standing or authority to science (as in the pursuit of evidence for or against any particular hypothesis) than to political opinion or “received wisdom.” Whether Fox News is simply reflecting a growing denialist trend, or actively fashioning it, the implications for policy-makers are grim. And it’s not just businesses that find this very perplexing indeed.

Editor’s note: This article was written by Jonathon Porritt, Founder-Director of Forum for the Future. This piece originally appeared in Green Futures, which is published by Forum for the Future and is the leading magazine on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable — and can be profitable, too. WWF-UK is a Forum for the Future partner. Jonathon’s blog is available as a podcast at: www.JonathonPorritt.com. Listen to Jonathon at: www.ipadio.com/phlog/JonathonPorritt.

Related posts:

1. Top green tips for… social networks
2. Video: Tom Hanks promotes electric cars on MySpace
3. Big Blue tries big green consulting push

Being powered by a petrol engine which seeks assistance from an electric motor, the CR-Z gets a hybrid badge slapped onto the back of it. This one detail could have a profound effect on how the public judges the car.

But don’t fear, because this is a different sort of hybrid. It is one you want to drive and want to be seen in.

I took the CR-Z away for four days to see how well it could juggle being environmentally conscious whilst also trying to appeal to people who like to drive well made, drivers’ cars.

The CR-Z looks like no other hybrid on the road today. Being a short coupe with 2+2 seating, it automatically distances itself from the perception people have of hybrids. The car in many ways has two personalities, both in design and technology. With an aggressive front which goes from being cheeky at some angles to angry at others, the CR-Z can be looked at for hours. With its sharp angles, it has a great futuristic, Japanese look.

The rear is a bit more subdued, with its hunched stance over the rear wheels and an aerodynamically effective tear-drop shape. These two design styles show the two personalities of the car. It is like a reverse mullet: party at the front and business at the back.

One thing I have noticed about the CR-Z is that it is very colour-sensitive. Having such striking futuristic lines, the car
looks best, in my opinion, in white or dark gray. I have seen the car in both red and aqua blue and it doesn’t pull off the same strikingly sporty look on the road.

The interior of the car is very driver-oriented. Sitting in the sporty driver’s seat, you’ll find that everything is accessible with all the major buttons being ergonomically centred toward the driver. The major touch points for the driver are good, but even better if the car is in “S” or “GT” spec.

However, the passenger side can be a lonely and plasticky place to sit, with the glove box and dash surrounds being made of low-quality plastics which are scratchy to touch. The rear seats are nothing more than a shelf with accompanying seatbelts.I found that flattening the seats to open up the cavernous 401 litres of space was a lot more sensible option. The use of the cheap plastics and poorly designed rear seats could have been a cost-cutting exercise to keep the car affordable at £17,000, as the major cost of the car is the hybrid power train.

When first reviewing the CR-Z, I thought it was a hybrid car with sporty credentials, but after living with it for a while I have found out that it is a sporty car with hybrid credentials. With its short wheelbase, short-throw manual gearbox and accurately weighted steering in a package which makes a good noise, it is a seriously fun car to drive on the twisty stuff. You can easily forget about the hybrid nature of the car because it is a slightly different system compared to other hybrids on the market.

Unlike the Toyota Prius, Lexus 450h and Honda Insight, the CR-Z cannot work solely off the electric motor.  Instead,
the electric motor is there to assist the traditional 1.5-litre, i-VTEC petrol engine to give you a boost and save fuel. The electric motor provides its peak torque instantly, improving initial acceleration and making the car feel nippy around town or out of corners. The torque curve of this new hybrid is unusually flat for a naturally aspirated engine, with the peak arriving at just 1,500 rpm so the car feels more balanced through the rev range. Think of it as a super-efficient, techy turbocharger.

Honda’s CR-Z produces a total power output of 122bhp with 14 of those horses coming from the electric motor. This produces a 0-62 time of 9.9 seconds, which breaks the 10-second mark though it’s not blistering. But with a good chassis and steering, with an exhaust note which wants to be heard, it is far from boring.

This car is about more than hooning, though. Remember, it has two personalities and these mood swings are dictated by the three driving modes:

To the right-hand side of the driver are three buttons. You can choose from either “Sport,” “Normal” or “Econ” and — depending on your decision — the throttle, steering, idle stop timing, climate control and the level of assistance provided by the electric motor will change.

“Sport” mode sharpens the throttle response, gets the most power from the hybrid system and increases the weight of the electric power steering to give the driver more feel. It’s all essential for a solid driving experience, but it can become a bit grouchy at slower speeds so you find yourself changing the driving mode to suit.

“Econ” mode is used for best efficiency and fuel economy. The throttle is numbed and less responsive so you don’t fly away from the lights, the air-conditioning is given a rest and the dashboard changes colour to a red mist when you start getting wasteful with the fuel. This mode is better suited for traffic and commuting, as the looser throttle lends to a more comfortable driving experience.

“Normal” achieves the best of both worlds and is what people will probably use most of the time, as “Sport” mode can be a bit aggressive all of the time.

The driving modes have one more trick up their sleeve in the shape of Eco Assist. Together with the “Econ” mode, the CR-Z uses Eco Assist to help educate drivers to achieve high fuel economy and therefore minimise exhaust emissions
and time and money at the pumps, through illuminating various displays with a rainbow’s worth of colour. This is a system transferred from the CR-Z’s bigger brother, the Honda Insight. Eco Assist can be treated as an Eco Tamogotchi and it can become a very addictive interactive experience. Small leaves will “grow” above the bar in the digital
display to show the driver’s eco progress, with more leaves and eventually a flower added if the system records a “perfect” score.

There is also an orbing light centred around the rev gauge which changes from a happy green if you are driving efficiently, to a moody blue, to an angry red if you are driving really inefficiently.

The CR-Z is also fitted with a shift indicator light (SIL), which alerts the driver to shift up or down at the most efficient time. Eco Assist, combined with the SIL, can improve fuel consumption by up to 10 per cent and leave you becoming incredibly geeky about your fuel consumption. On a 600-mile journey, I averaged 49 miles per gallon on mixed terrain whilst trying out all the driving modes.

So is the CR-Z a gamechanger? Yes it is. Its schizophrenic nature will help it to appeal to a new breed of drivers and even some to some critics of early hybrids, as it is a solid driver’s car. Starting at £17,000, it is also the cheapest and greenest car in comparison to its rivals, the VW Scirocco and Peugot RCZ.

Honda set out to make a sporty hybrid and many people, including me, thought that was just a hyperbolic oxymoron. But it is not an oxymoron. It is reality, and I want one.

Related posts:

1. Honda Civic Hybrid voted greenest car
2. Honda revs up for hybrid price war
3. Honda unveils Insight, the “more affordable” hybrid