The latest news of return2earth http://www.return2earth.co.uk en-us http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-17-britain-starts-new-push-for-nuclear-power.html Britain gave the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations on Thursday, setting no limits on nuclear expansion and adding momentum for a worldwide renaissance of atomic energy. The ruling Labour government considered nuclear power unattractive as recently as 2003 but now says it will help Britain meet its climate change goals and avoid overdependence on imported energy as North Sea oil and gas supplies dwindle.Nuclear power stations provide about 18 percent of Britain\'s electricity now, but many are nearing the end of their lives."We want Britain to be more secure in its energy supply," Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters. "We are inviting companies to express an interest in building a new generation of power stations to replace the existing ones."Energy Secretary John Hutton said he would set no limit on the construction of new plants.Nuclear operators welcomed the move and announced plans for at least four new reactors with the first running by late 2017.Environmental group Greenpeace, which succeeded in blocking an earlier pro-nuclear decision, said the public had been misled during recent consultations and its lawyers were already considering a fresh challenge."This is bad news for Britain\'s energy security and bad news for our efforts to beat climate change," Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven said, adding that government plans to store highly radioactive waste underground were not safe.RENAISSANCENuclear power is on the verge of a renaissance, having remained unchanged at 16 percent of the global mix for the last 20 years, when the Chernobyl disaster curbed its growth.It is now becoming more competitive amid surging prices for oil and gas and buoyed by the need to cut carbon emissions to fight climate change.Already, countries such as France and Finland are building new nuclear plants and, in the United States, companies have begun filing licence applications, reinforcing the view atomic energy is part of the solution to the world\'s energy problems.There is opposition to nuclear among some states, however, including Germany, an anti-nuclear stronghold. Critics say the toxic waste from nuclear power generation remains a problem for thousands of years and is not worth the risk.Hutton said the UK would not subsidise any new reactors, but the government would step in to help in case of a catastrophe.Britain\'s opposition Conservative Party lent its support to the decision and vowed to "set aside political scrapping", but London Mayor Ken Livingstone called the decision "the mistake of a generation"."I would anticipate that there will be yet further challenges, both political and indeed legal which the government will have to deal with," said lawyer Jim Percival of Brabners Chaffe Street, a nuclear specialist.GLOBAL COMPETITIONNuclear operators say they could have new plants running in Britain by 2017, but analysts point to tough global competition for components and experienced nuclear workers."The UK will need to work hard to remain an attractive option," said Tony Ward of Ernst & Young, adding that more than 30 reactors were under construction around the world, and over 90 were in the pipeline.Hutton said he expected several new plants to be running by the mid-2020s and France\'s EDF said it aimed to build four reactors in the UK alongside Areva and British Energy.Britain\'s Centrica and Germany\'s RWE and E.ON also said they were keen to get involved.The government green light was accompanied by publication of an Energy Bill to be fast-tracked through parliament with the Climate Change Bill and the Planning Bill.The trio of bills form the backbone of the government\'s new energy and climate policy for the next decades. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-16-us-campaign-spurs-bid-to-solve-climate-change.html After just two early contests in the 2008 US presidential campaign, some environmental groups are already declaring a winner: the issue of climate change. "Four candidates, two states, one winner," was how the League of Conservation Voters put it after Tuesday\'s New Hampshire primary victories for Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain and Iowa caucus wins for Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama."The true frontrunner in the 2008 presidential campaign so far is the issue of global warming: all four winning candidates to date support capping greenhouse gas emissions and solving the global warming crisis," the non-partisan environmental group said online at www.lcv.org.This is a change from the current administration, which has kept the United States alone among the major industrialized countries for its opposition to mandatory limits on emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that spurs climate change.Sen. McCain of Arizona is the sponsor of one of the first bills to curb climate-warming pollution. Sen. Clinton of New York is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which managed last month to approve a new carbon-capping bill -- the first time this has ever happened.Sen. Obama of Illinois has said his first priority to combat global warming if he is elected would be to enact a carbon cap that would cut US emissions by 80 percent.Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, supports a cap-and-trade approach to fight global warming but has not been specific about how that might work in his administration.An ordained Baptist minister, Huckabee has said that whatever the cause of climate change, humans are responsible for cleaning it up: "I believe that even our responsibility to God means that we have to be good stewards of this Earth."SMART POLITICSTony Kreindler of the group Environmental Defense, which favors mandatory caps on carbon emissions, hailed the New Hampshire primary results."It\'s remarkable that the standard-bearers for both parties support a mandatory cap on global warming pollution," Kreindler said of Clinton and McCain. "It shows that serious action on climate change is not just smart policy, it\'s smart politics."Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund was not quite ready to declare victory, although he noted that all four winning candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire "have a position that is certainly far better than the Bush administration, because they\'ve embraced the need to solve global warming and specifically embraced the need to cap and reduce emissions."Lashof took aim at the media for failing to bring the environmental issue to prominence in questioning the candidates. The League of Conservation Voters has also raised this point, making a running tally of how often the US Sunday morning political TV interviewers ask about climate change.In 2007, of 2,484 questions asked of presidential candidates, only three mentioned global warming, the league said.Primary-day weather in New Hampshire probably didn\'t hurt the climate change case: with temperatures around 60 degrees F (15.55C) on Tuesday, voters accustomed to slogging through snow and ice on the way to the polls kept talking about the surprising warmth. Campaign signs that normally get planted in snowbanks sagged in slush piles instead. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-15-lifting-the-lid:-banks-urged-to-address-climate-change.html WASHINGTON - A handful of the world\'s biggest banks are starting to look at the risk that climate change poses to their businesses, but investors say they need to do more. Necessary measures for the banks include raising targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at companies in their portfolios, according to Ceres, a coalition of investors and groups that promote corporate sustainability.Ceres, whose members collectively hold more than US$4 trillion in investments, also wants banks to make the issue a priority in corporate governance and to increase disclosure of the risks associated with climate change."We are certainly seeing more action at banks than five years ago," said Ceres President Mindy Lubber. "But the reality is, if we are going to have an impact on one of the greatest economic challenges of our times, we need the most powerful institutions impacting the economy doing as much as they can be doing."According to a report released on Thursday, a handful of banks have developed specific climate-related policies or strategies, while some have created working groups and executive positions to focus on the issue.Commissioned by Ceres, the report looked at 40 of the world\'s largest publicly traded banks and financial services companies, including Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Royal Bank of Scotland.Slightly more than half of the banks surveyed offer climate-specific funds and similar products, the report said.Ceres also found a number of banks, including Royal Bank of Canada and Wells Fargo, are formally calculating the risk they take when lending money to companies that could be affected by carbon dioxide regulations.However, the study said banks should explain how they are factoring carbon costs into their financing and investment decisions, especially for energy-intensive projects that pose financial risks as environmental regulation increases."Climate is one of the most underestimated risks out there," said Lubber. "The subprime (mortgage lending) problem really overall is a situation where everyone underestimated the risk of what might happen."So far, Bank of America has been the only bank to announce a specific target to reduce greenhouse gases emissions associated with the utility portion of its lending portfolio.RISK FACTORBruce Gillander, Florida\'s director of the Division of Treasury, said that as an investor, the state wants to know the extent of climate-change risk in the corporate bonds it buys."We look at their governance related to environment and climate change as a tool of analysis in what their future earnings might be," Gillander said, "because their earnings could very well be affected by events that are happening related to climate change."Of the banks surveyed, HSBC Holdings PLC, ABN AMRO Holding NV, Barclays PLC, HBOS PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Citigroup and Bank of America ranked the highest in their approaches to climate change.The report laid out a list of "best practices" in the financial sector and evaluated the companies in terms of board oversight, management execution, disclosure, accounting for greenhouse gases, and strategic planning.Bear Stearns Co was rock bottom. Legg Mason and Franklin Resources Inc ranked among the lowest.Bear Stearns was not immediately available for comment. Franklin Resources and Legg Mason separately said they were reviewing the study.Banks received points for a range of activities, including whether executive compensation was linked to the attainment of environmental goals.A third of the points were based on managing greenhouse gas emissions, including whether the companies had set targets to reduce them for facilities, energy use and business travel.The companies also got points for disclosure and how they accounted for greenhouse gas emission savings.The California Public Employees\' Retirement System, whose funds hold roughly US$245 billion in assets, termed the report significant."This may be a small step for CalPERS and other investors," Russell Read, the pension fund\'s chief investment officer, said in an e-mailed statement, "but it represents a quantum leap for banks toward developing a blueprint that incorporates meaningful environmental factors in prudent long-term investment programs." http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-14-uk-govt-scientist-sees-few-benefits-from-biofuels.html Rising production of biofuels has distorted government budgets, helped to drive up food prices and led to deforestation in south-east Asia, the chief scientist of Britain\'s farm ministry said on Friday."The way we are currently producing biofuels is not the way to go," former World Bank chief scientist Robert Watson said, citing the US ethanol programme and German support for biodiesel as among the least cost effective.Watson told the Oxford Farming Conference that biofuels production from sugar cane in Brazil may be one of the only sustainable current methods.He added that there needed to be aggressive research and development and in five to 10 years time it was possible that new, better technologies could be commercially viable.Crispin Tickell, director of the Policy Foresight Programme at Oxford University\'s James Martin Institute of Science and Civilization, said US ethanol policy had been "disastrous."Tickell, whose former posts have included Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and President of the Royal Geographical Society, said more attention needed to be paid to renewable energy sources such as solar and geothermal."Biofuels have a role to play but only as one of a number of technologies," he told the conference.CLIMATE CHANGE NEGATIVE FOR FARMINGWatson said climate change in the short-term was favourable for UK agriculture, lengthening the growing season but overall would be detrimental for the farming sector."A changing climate overall is likely to be negative for the agricultural sector and demands a significant amount of adaptation," he said. Some have cited genetically modified crops, such as new drought resistant crop varieties, as key to adapting."Clearly it has potential but we need to look at it on a case by case basis," Watson said, warning however that some developing countries may be concerned about becoming dependent on seed companies such as US-based Monsanto.Watson said farmers needed to be paid for environmental services such as capturing carbon or helping produce fresh water supplies."Agriculture is more than production," he said.Tickell agreed, adding that agricultural markets "should operate within a clearly defined framework of public interest.""We should accept that agriculture is not a business like any other and it is a mistake to regard it as such," he said.Tickell said there also needed to be greater focus on human diets involving more plants and less meat."We need to look at the healthy diet which on the whole we have tended to abandon," he said, noting the current concern about obesity in Britain. "Greater consumption of meat in India and China has already driven up feed costs," he added.Watson noted that about 850 million people globally were undernourished and an equal number were obese. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-13-moving-kite-along.html A huge cargo ship is set to cross the Atlantic Ocean this month with some help from a massive kite-like sail that could offset up to 15 percent of its fuel use on the journey. It\'s hardly a return to purely wind-powered shipping, but it\'s a start for the hugely polluting maritime shipping industry. "This is a serious attempt to reduce bunker [fuel] costs and polluting emissions," said a spokesperson for the Germany-based shipping company that is testing the roughly 1,700-square-foot sail. "The kite will be used whenever it is possible on the voyage, and we are convinced it will revolutionize cargo shipping. We would consider fitting them to all our ships." If testing goes well, much larger kites of over 50,000 square feet could soon offset a much larger share of fuel costs in the future. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-12-global-warming.html The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that man is the driving force behind global warming. It found with "very high confidence," a 90 percent chance, that the effect of human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and changes in land use, has been global warming. The warming, it said, is unequivocal. That conclusion reached early in the year changed the debate on global warming. The argument moved from whether man is having an impact to just how big that impact will be. Will Greenland melt into the ocean? Are southern Florida and lower Manhattan in danger of going under water? Could the Arctic Circle be ice free in the summer? Will the Great Barrier Reef bleach and die? Skeptics don\'t buy the apocalyptic scenarios, but other scientists say there is no way to know for certain. In its final report of the year, the IPCC said current technology or what\'s in development could reverse the warming trend, but time is running short. To have the least amount of impact on the earth, greenhouse gas emissions would have to peak by 2015, just eight years away. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-11-2007-the-year-green-went-mainstream.html 2007 will be remembered as the year "green" went mainstream. No longer just the province of "treehuggers" — consumers, corporate America, and politicians from both red and blue states embraced "green" initiatives and ideas. Whether the motivation was to save money, save the earth, or make green, as in money, the environment took center stage this year. To put it in fashion terms, green is the new black. The question now is will it be another fad or a way of life for all time? http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-10-un-s-ban-urges-2009-deadline-for-climate-deal.html NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the world on Wednesday to agree to work out a new climate treaty by 2009 but said it might be "too ambitious" to set goals for greenhouse gas cuts in Bali.China said it was disappointed by a lack of progress at the December 3-14 talks and said emissions targets were exactly what was needed to prove rich nations were committed to fight global warming. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-9-britain-to-shift-to-offshore-wind-farms-by-2020.html Britain unveiled plans Monday to generate enough electricity through offshore wind farms to power every home in the country by 2020, increasing production more than 60-fold and changing the look of its coastlines. Britain\'s wind-swept coasts and shallow waters are ideal for offshore turbines, but wind generated power currently accounts for less than 2 percent of its energy generation.Business secretary John Hutton said the government planned to reach the target through a fourfold increase in the amount of space off Britain\'s shores allocated for wind farms. http://www.return2earth.co.uk/new-8-nobel-winner-gore:-make-peace-with-the-planet-.html OSLO (Reuters) - Climate campaigner Al Gore collected the Nobel Peace Prize on Monday and said it was time to stop waging war on the earth and make peace with the planet.The former U.S. vice president shared the 2007 peace prize with the United Nations\' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose head, Rajendra Pachauri, urged leaders at a U.N. climate conference in Indonesia to heed the wisdom of science."Without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself," Gore said in the prepared text of his speech. "It is time to make peace with the planet."