Tom Simonite presents the best attempts to meet our challenge of defining the big bang in a single twitter message

Reuters, Friday September 11 2009
By Lesley Wroughton
WASHINGTON, Sept 10 (Reuters) - The United States should show decisive leadership at the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh this month and rally heads of state to prepare for the next global crisis — climate change.
In a speech before the G20 meeting on Sept. 24-25, Nancy Birdsall, president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development, said preparing for climate change was key because it was a new issue and because the world’s poor will be severely hurt by it.
Influential think tanks in Washington typically schedule briefings and speeches ahead of big international gatherings in a bid to influence the agenda. This week, G20 ministers are meeting in Washington to finalize the agenda for Pittsburgh.
“To make this summit a success the heads of government must look beyond the current (financial) crisis and begin to prepare for the crisis next time,” said Birdsall.
She proposed G20 leaders pledge to work together, before the next summit in Seoul, South Korea, on reaching agreement on ways to implement a future global climate pact.
International climate talks resume in December in Copenhagen where countries will try to thrash out a new international climate change regime beyond 2012 amid increased discord over the role development countries can play in reducing harmful green gas emissions.
Birdsall said the G20 should agree on the role the World Bank, the world’s biggest development agency, should play in preparing the poor for the effects of climate change, she added.
She said the G20 should call on the World Bank and other development institutions to develop innovative risk management tools for poor countries, including insurance against natural disasters and bonds indexed to terms of trade.
“I believe that all parties can agree in principle on the importance of effective implementation of whatever (climate change) agreement is eventually reached,” she said.
“Beginning now to identify the functions and appropriate institutional arrangements has intrinsic value and it can be a way of creating common ground that can help in getting to yes on a meaningful accord,” she added.
She said the World Bank was poorly designed and ill-equipped to deal with such issues as combating trade protectionism and global epidemics to investing in research on renewable energy and climate-resilient crops.
Birdsall said focusing on the poor was especially important because they live in high-risk areas, poor families depend on agriculture for income and to feed themselves, and poor countries have fewer resources to manage and adapt to climate change risks.
“Irreversible climate change could wipe out much of the development progress of the past, and the put future progress, especially in the low-income countries that are not represented in the G20, at grave risk,” Birdsall added. (Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Carol Bishopric)

Reuters, Friday September 11 2009
* Investor says Tesla, BrightSource good cases for IPO
* Says green sector watching potential A123 Systems IPO
By Poornima Gupta
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors and solar thermal energy firm BrightSource Energy would not launch their initial public offerings until 2010 if market conditions don’t improve, a venture capital investor in both companies said on Thursday.
“There’s a group of companies that is pretty close (to an IPO),” Stephan Dolezalek, managing director of VantagePoint Venture Partners, told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.
Tesla, BrightSource and smart-grid networking firm Silver Spring Networks are among the most likely candidates, he said.
“If the market stays the way it is today, at the earliest is end of 2010,” he said, referring to potential IPOs from Tesla and BrightSource. “There is no rush to go public.”
After a spate of IPOs by alternative energy companies in 2007 that performed well, there have been very few newcomers to the market.
Both Tesla and BrightSource, which has $9 billion in booking contracts for solar plants, have no urgent need to tap the public markets but being a successful company is “critically important” for growth, Dolezalek said.
“Most of us have a longer term view. The IPO is a financing event, it’s not an exit,” Dolezalek said. “We easily see those companies as being $5 billion to $10 billion.”
Silicon Valley-based venture fund VantagePoint has funded more than 20 green technologies companies that cover a number of sectors including solar, electric vehicles, technology that extracts fertilizers from waste water and biofuels.
Its investments include electric car infrastructure firm Better Place, LED manufacturer Bridgelux, biofuel firm Solazyme, energy efficiency firm Tendril along with Tesla and BrightSource.
Both BrightSource and Tesla are on a growth path. Tesla said operations were profitable for the first time in July, when the electric car manufacturer shipped a record 109 electric sports cars.
Privately held BrightSource has picked up big contracts to deliver solar thermal power to California utilities Edison International Inc and PG&E Corp.
BrightSource’s Chief Executive John Woolard told the Reuters Summit on Tuesday that the health of the public markets was a major consideration. ID:nN08295809
“They are perfectly capable of raising money,” Dolezalek said. “There is no pressure to say let’s rush this into a public market where things are still uncertain.”
VantagePoint, which has more than $4.5 billion in committed capital overall, has a sector-specific investment strategy focused on funding the leading companies in the sector it believes has big potential to grow such as solar thermal and energy storage.
Dolezalek said he expects cleantech IPOs to debut in the fall.
“I suspect (A123 Systems) will be first,” he said. “I think at least there’s a 50-50 chance that somebody else will be the first out.”
Lithium ion battery maker A123 System, which counts General Electric among its investors, has set terms for its IPO in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week.
The company, which Chrysler has chosen to produce lithium-ion batteries for its upcoming electric cars, set an IPO price range of $8 to $9.50 per share, which would raise up to $244 million, based on the 25.7 million shares it plans to sell.
A123 System’s efforts at raising money from public markets is being closely watched by the green technology sector. Analysts have said a successful IPO from A123 could jump-start the cleantech IPO sector.
Dolezalek said the green market needs a successful model.
“It requires a bellwether company so that people could say you can actually make a return,” he said. (For summit blog: http://blogs.reuters.com/summits/) (Reporting by Poornima Gupta; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

We are changing the rules governing user commenting on the site to encourage more lively and informative posts. See the new policy and some friendly dos and don’ts

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Germany’s climate adviser and respected physicist, shares his stark but simple view of how much CO2 we can emit by 2050.
Carbon Commentary
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 September 2009 11.42 BST
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is the German government’s climate protection adviser and a distinguished physicist. He was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel last week and gave a starkly simple view of how much CO2 the world can emit.
To achieve a two-in-three chance of keeping temperature increases below 2 degrees, humanity can only emit about 750 billion tonnes of CO2 between now and 2050, he said. (I assume that after 2050 Schellnhuber believes that net emissions must fall to zero or below.) 750 billion tonnes spread over today’s world population of 6.7bn means about 110 tonnes per person between now and mid-century.
It sounds a lot. But European countries today emit about 11 tonnes annually for each inhabitant. It would be more if we counted the embedded emissions in goods we buy from China and elsewhere. Using Schellnhuber’s rough numbers, Europeans will exhaust their allowance within ten years if emissions do not fall.
Put another way, to meet the target Europe’s countries need to reduce per person emissions by about half a tonne a year every year for the next twenty years. Achieving this would require a near 5% cut next year, rising to 10% a year by 2020 and 20% annual reduction by 2025. As Stern has pointed out (Stern Review, p. 231) the only time even a 5% emissions reduction has ever been achieved over a large country for several years was the 1989 to 1998 period in the former Soviet Union, when emissions fell 5.2% per year.
The 110 tonnes figure for the maximum permitted emissions per person omits consideration of the probable 40% increase in world population by 2050. This would cut the figure to 85 tonnes or so – less than eight years of current European per capita emissions. It also assumes that all world citizens have an equal right to a certain volume of emissions even though the developed world has been responsible for more than 80% of the increase in CO2 in the last century. Schellnhuber points out that if we allocated emissions rights in inverse proportion to historical CO2 output the developed countries would already be ‘carbon insolvent’.
He concludes by saying that the richest one sixth of the world should pay $100 a year per person to help reduce the future emissions of low income countries. In effect, we would be paying poor states to hold their cumulative emissions per head below 110 tonnes so that we can overshoot our allowance. Compensating the least polluting countries for the almost certain failure of the developed world to keep within our quota must surely be the broad outline of any Copenhagen scheme that will be acceptable to the global south?
• From Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network

A huge show of popular support should empower our political leaders to reach a wise and visionary agreement in Copenhagen
Bob Ward
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 September 2009 12.06 BST
We have reached a defining moment in the global battle against climate change, and the role of the public is now more crucial than ever.
There are now less than 100 days until the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, which my colleague Nicholas Stern, the former head of the UK Government Economic Service and author of the Stern review has described as “the most important international meeting since the second world war”.
A strong international agreement on climate change can still be achieved at Copenhagen, which would set the world on a path that avoids the huge risks from “business as usual” emissions of greenhouse gases. But many significant hurdles remain which could prevent a treaty for action on mitigation and adaptation.
Agreement will only be possible if political leaders begin to focus now on the task of agreeing measures that will reduce emissions, while ensuring sustainable, low-carbon economic growth. The conference will be a failure if politicians are too distracted by other issues, such as the global downturn. Recession may be significant now, but it does not pose long-term risks to people’s prosperity and well-being in the same way as climate change. Hence public pressure on political leaders to concentrate on reaching an agreement that can make a real impact.
But that is not all people can do to increase the chances of success in Copenhagen. They can also demonstrate firm support for constructive, far-sighted domestic measures to tackle climate change as well.
UK policies on climate change are now guided by the recommendations by the Committee on Climate Change, which has charted a route for reducing the nation’s emissions by at least 80% by the middle of this century.
At present, the UK emits the equivalent of 11.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide per head of population each year. By 2050, that figure needs to be cut to about two tonnes per head. This is the UK’s most important long-term challenge.
The Committee on Climate Change calculates that the UK can reach its target cost-effectively if it reduces emissions at an average rate of two or three per cent each year, over the next four decades. The 10:10 campaign could provide a big first step towards the target if it persuades many people to cut their annual emissions by 10% next year.
In a survey of European countries carried out earlier this year, 77% of UK respondents claimed to have personally taken actions aimed at helping to fight climate change, a higher proportion than for any country except Sweden. This is despite the fact that 40% thought that climate change is “an unstoppable process”.
These results suggest that the overwhelming majority of the public will take at least some action to tackle climate change, even if many do not believe that the scientific evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. Public support for domestic climate change policies will perhaps provide the strongest impetus for political leaders ahead of Copenhagen. They are no doubt aware that a low-carbon economy would provide many new opportunities and benefits, without suffering the crippling economic and social consequences of climate change from current emissions.
But they also recognise that changing our current high-carbon economy will involve initial costs and difficult choices for taxpayers and consumers. There is a danger that the small but vocal minority, who perceive their short-term vested interests to be best served by maintaining the high-carbon status quo, will frame the public debate only in terms of these initial costs.
Instead we need a strong and vigorous public discussion about how best to promote future prosperity and well-being, not just for us now, but for our children and future generations as well.
If the leaders of developed nations such as the UK can make strong and credible commitments on climate change, based on well-informed domestic policies with solid public backing, then there is a very good chance of success in Copenhagen. A huge show of popular support, together with vigorous public action in cutting emissions, should empower our political leaders to reach a wise and visionary agreement.
• Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.
• Sign up for 10:10 at www.1010uk.org

Reuters, Friday September 11 2009
* Gas and efficiency may win near-term cleantech race
* Avoiding dangerous climate change may need breakthroughs
By Gerard Wynn and Peter Henderson
LONDON/SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Humble, established technologies including natural gas and energy efficiency are top picks to lead a clean energy race through 2020, policymakers and senior executives told Reuters this week.
But a longer fight to avoid dangerous climate change including droughts, floods and rising seas may require multiple breakthroughs in nuclear power, farming, biofuels, as well as today’s top renewables — solar and wind energy.
Industry and banks are placing bets on the climate-friendly energy of the future in a contest that may have many winners, business and policy leaders told Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit.
“If one wins and others lose, we’ve all lost,” said Google Inc Green Energy Czar Bill Weihl. Coal, maligned for its emissions of greenhouse gases that stoke global warming, won’t give up its dominance in electricity generation easily.
Competing priorities such as U.S. healthcare and global recession threaten fast movement and decisive action at a major U.N.-led climate meeting in Copenhagen in December.
Both Californian and British officials saw energy efficiency as top priority. Efficiency actually makes money, by cutting fuel bills, unlike expensive solar power, for example.
Britain’s minister for energy and climate change, Joan Ruddock, said efficiency “is the most critical thing” to meet Britain’s 2020 goal to cut greenhouse gases by more than a third.
California’s chief climate official, Mary Nichols, said efficiency would contribute most carbon cuts from electricity generation — not renewable energy.
The United Nations’ top climate official, Yvo de Boer, said energy efficiency was a no-brainer. “We’re rather stupid not to be driving that revolution more forcefully than we are anyway,” he said. “The odd thing for me to say is that you don’t need Copenhagen to drive a revolution in energy efficiency.”
But not enough people are actually buying efficiency. “It’s a failure of economics,” rued Richard Kauffman, chief executive of green venture investment firm Good Energies.
The head of Deutsche Bank’s global asset management Kevin Parker saw another existing fuel — natural gas — as a sure winner because of new reserve finds, low prices, and an established supply network. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but burns much cleaner than oil or coal.
BREAKTHROUGH
Longer term, transportation may usher in the biggest changes in energy use — especially if they run on electricity instead of biofuels.
“The key thing that will look different is we will be consuming a lot more electricity as we substitute electricity for heating and transport,” said Paul Golby, chief executive of the UK arm of German utility E.ON AG.
“Potentially, the road ahead is a golden age for electricity … because of a shift to transport,” said HSBC’s Nick Robins. “That is where the potential for disruptive breaks occurs, for costs — particularly in solar — to come down considerably.”
Beyond 2020, electricity would also have to be supplied by an untested technology to trap and bury carbon emissions from coal plants, called carbon capture and storage (CCS), said the head of Britain’s science academy, Martin Rees.
“Unless CCS can be implemented in the 2020s there is no chance whatever of turning around the graph where carbon emissions are rising,” he said.
“In 20 years we are not going to phase out coal completely, no way,” said Google’s Weihl, agreeing carbon capture was an important bet to make.
“Biofuels, genetic (crop) modification, fourth generation nuclear power, fusion, battery technology should all be developed with urgency,” Rees added.
In developing countries with no power grids, roof-top solar power generation could leap-frog centralised power plants, said Carl Pope, executive director of Sierra Club.
“In very many parts of the world we haven’t begun to tap the solar potential,” said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme. “We are just beginning to tap the wind power potential.” (Reporting by Gerard Wynn in London and Peter Henderson in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Michael Szabo and Nina Chestney in London, Alister Doyle in Oslo, Svetlana Kovalyova in Milan, Matt Daily in New York; Editing by Gary Hill)

Rich countries should pay €100bn a year by 2020 to cover the cost of climate change in developing countries, and the EU should contribute up to €15bn, says Stavros Dimas
Ian Traynor in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 September 2009 18.08 BST
Rich countries should be paying around €100bn (£88bn) a year by 2020 to cover the cost of climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, according to the EU’s environment commissioner.
The announcement is the first time that Brussels has identified the cost of tackling global warming in poor countries, an issue that is central to achieving a global deal at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Europe’s top climate official, Stavros Dimas, said that the EU should contribute between €2bn and €15bn of the total. It is likely to be seen by many observers as an opening bargaining position.
“A deal on financing will be central to achieving agreement at Copenhagen,” said the commission proposal. “UN negotiations are dangerously close to deadlock.”
Dimas added: “This cannot, of course, be a blank cheque. But if there is no money from the developed countries, there will be no deal in Copenhagen.”
Today’s announcement is the first detailed set of proposals from any side before Copenhagen, although Dimas’ figures are similar to the $100bn price tag proposed by Gordon Brown in a speech two months ago.
“With less than 90 days to go the clock is ticking,” said the UK’s Department for Energy and Climate Change. “We welcome the commission’s constructive contribution on how the world puts in place the finance that’s needed to tackle climate change. We stand firm to the commitment to contribute our fair share.”
The announcement was greeted with ridicule by some NGOs and campaign groups. Greenpeace, Oxfam and WWF said the EU should be contributing around €35bn. The World Wildlife Fund called the EU’s calculations “financial jiujitsu”.
“The methodology is flawed and the amounts are totally insufficient … It is hoped that the optimistic assumptions in Europe’s favour are not seen by others as unwillingness to live up to its obligations,” said a spokesperson for the charity.
Dimas’s proposed total annual figure is made up of three parts. If Copenhagen achieves an agreement for a 30% cut in greenhouse gases by 2020 in the developed world and slowing rate of emissions growth by up to 30% in the developing world, the commission proposed that international public funding of €22-50bn should be provided to the poor countries annually by 2020.
Additionally, it concluded that the international carbon market could supply a further €38bn a year, and predicted that private and public finance in the developing countries themselves would generate up to €40bn.
But diplomats, analysts and campaigners said the proposals were deliberately vague and riddled with problems, potential conflicts and inconsistencies. It is not clear, for example, how much of the EU fund could be diverted from existing aid money to the developing world, reducing the volume of genuinely new funds.
Elise Ford, the head of Oxfam International’s EU office said it would be “scandalous” to divert money from existing aid budgets. “This would rob tomorrow’s hospitals and schools in developing countries to pay for them to tackle climate change today. This will undermine progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals,” she said. “Funds to help developing countries to tackle climate change must be additional to aid – not instead of it.”
The commission blueprint enshrines “the principle of additionality” for climate change funds without quantifying what proportion would be “additional” to existing development aid. Also, the EU admitted that the “size of the carbon market cannot be predicted with certainty”.
The British government said that no more than 10% of aid budgets could be used for the climate change fund.