|
|
|
|
|
4/29/07
5/09/07
This Is A Test.
The Clean and Green Fuels Fund is currently undergoing a transition to our newly designed website, you may experience some issues with portions of our website and we appologize for any inconvenience you may experience.
5/20/07
May 20, 2007
Focusing on global warming
by Alison Grant, Newhouse News Service
Even slight global warming -- or the mere threat of warming -- poses legal risks to companies, as governments and courts ratchet up rules about heat-trapping greenhouse gases, environmental lawyer David Nash says.
Will companies end up defendants in lawsuits charging them with adding to climate change? Will institutional shareholders push to make their factories less polluting? Is the United States headed to a Kyoto-style "cap-and-trade" system where companies buy and sell carbon emissions like stocks?
The intersection of climate change and law came to the fore last month in a surprise ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices said, in a 5-4 decision, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, a main contributor to greenhouse gases.
The ruling ran counter to the Bush administration's claim that the EPA had no leeway to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Now, it's a matter of when, not if, the EPA sets standards to control auto pollution.
All this has gotten the attention of lawyers like Nash who are building niche practices based on the warming threat and the legal services they say are needed to guard against it.
"From our point of view as a law firm, it doesn't matter really what you believe in the (global warming) debate," Nash said. "We tell clients what the law is. And we help clients learn about what the law looks like it's going to be."
Nash's 12-lawyer Cleveland boutique firm is among a handful of firms nationwide advertising themselves as practitioners in climate change law. More are expected to follow because of expanding state and local regulations, investor lawsuits and the Supreme Court decision.
Nash sees his client base as manufacturers and utilities that are significant energy consumers or producers, make or sell products for use overseas or have stakeholders demanding that they reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"More U.S. companies realize that climate change is an enormous business issue that they need to manage immediately," said Mindy Lubber, president at the non-profit Ceres, which published a 2006 report that analyzed how several industries are addressing the risks. The Ceres network of investors and environmental organizations works with companies and institutional investors to improve environmental standards.
The Supreme Court's ruling increases the risks and opportunities from greenhouse gases, Nash said.
Opportunities?
Yes, a company already can parlay its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into financial gain -- a scenario playing out at the four-year-old Chicago Climate Exchange. There, companies such as Motorola, Ford and DuPont buy and sell greenhouse gas units like so many wheat or gold commodities.
The exchange represents about 12 percent of the country's large industrial emitters of non-vehicle greenhouse gases, Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Sandor said.
The exchange taps a competitive demand among U.S. industries to create a cap-and-trade program, he said, in anticipation of expected policy changes. Companies traded 10.3 million tons of carbon last year, and 7.5 million in the first quarter of 2007.
Carbon trading will mushroom if the United States moves full-tilt to a cap-and-trade system. Under the system now in place in nations that adopted the Kyoto Protocol, a cap is set on allowable carbon pollution; power plants and companies that exceed targets must offset the excess by buying "e;credits"e; from companies that beat their limits.
The Supreme Court's decision is a blend of sweeping proclamation and narrow legal reasoning that opens the door for states to mandate limits on greenhouse gases, said Tracy Hester, who teaches "Climate Change Litigation" at the University of Houston Law Center.
Jonathan Adler expects the ruling to create a surge in climate change law like the dramatic rise in environmental work spawned by the 1980 Superfund bill. Once legal questions got hammered out, Superfund matters were folded into existing transactional and real estate practices, he said.
A lot of the new demand will be driven by the regulatory climate, not the Earth climate, the Case Western University law professor said. "When you know how to solve the problem, you don't need as many lawyers to work on it."
Lower Saucon switches to biodiesel fuel
Council says township trucks and tractors must use alternative.
By Daryl Nerl Of The Morning Call
Lower Saucon Township is becoming the first municipality in the Lehigh Valley to use an alternative fuel for its fleet, as its council voted Wednesday to award a contract to buy biodiesel fuel to run its trucks, tractors, lawn mowers and fire equipment -- about two dozen vehicles.
The conversion will require a small amount of preparation, little if any expense and won't lower the performance of any of the township equipment, Township Manager Jack Cahalan said.
''We're kind of excited about it,'' Cahalan said Thursday. ''Fortunately it's not going to be an expensive proposition.''
Biodiesel fuel is produced domestically from soybean oil or from the advanced recycling of fats or vegetable oils. The fuel that Lower Saucon will use will be a blend of 5 percent biodiesel and 95 percent low-sulfur petroleum diesel. Ultimately, the goal is to increase the mixture to 20 percent biodiesel, Cahalan said.
The cost of the biodiesel fuel will be between 1.5 cents and 6.2 cents per gallon higher than regular diesel fuel, a cost that the township intends to recoup from a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection program that provides incentives for using renewable energy.
The township uses about 15,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year, meaning that the annual cost difference will be no more than about $930 and perhaps as little as $230. The township had set a goal late in 2006 of converting a portion of its energy consumption to alternative fuels by the end of this year, Cahalan said.
The fleet does not require modifications, though an oil filter change is recommended before switching fuels, Cahalan said. The most significant preparatory work is a recommended cleaning of the township's fuel storage tank, he said. No change is needed in any fuel distribution equipment.
The new fuel has no known negative effect on engine performance, which was an important consideration before deciding to convert fire equipment to biodiesel, Cahalan said. In fact, some experts believe that engines that run on a biodiesel blend perform better.
Among the major benefits of fuel conversion is a reduction in emissions such as carbon dioxide and particulate matter -- the black smoke that sometimes can be seen coming from tractor-trailers, trucks and buses, said Brinda Shetty, the coordinator of Greater Philadelphia Clean Cities, a regional coalition that promotes the use of renewable energy. The group helped Lower Saucon find biodiesel fuel suppliers for contract bids.
Use of biodiesel also reduces the need to import petroleum. Farm & Home Oil Co., Telford, has 100 percent biodiesel sent from the Midwest by rail to a storage facility in Macungie, where it is blended with petroleum diesel and transferred to tanker trucks, said Rich Longacre, the company's chief executive officer.
The company began to sell biodiesel blends for vehicles and home heating in September and already has sold more than 1 million gallons, Longacre said. The company has converted its own fleet of 50 trucks to a biodiesel blend without problems, he said.
''We really believe it's a part of helping the energy picture,'' Longacre said. ''We don't know if it's ever going to replace heating oil and diesel fuel in total. Personally, I don't mind seeing American farmers getting more money for their crops.''
daryl.nerl@mcall.com
610-861-3630
UK News
Environment Agency calls for integrated approach
Timber Trades Journal, 11 June 2007
Initiatives established to protect the UK’s natural resources require an integrated approach if they are to adapt and deal with climate change, the Environment Agency has said.
The Woodland Strategy and the Biomass Action Plan were two schemes looked at by the agency and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) during an investigation into the effect climate change will have on the UK’s natural resource policies and how to make them more efficient.
The results of the study have shown that both the Woodland Strategy and the Biomass Action Plan are dependent on markets and raw material prices, leading the Environment Agency to say that “an integrated land management approach” is the best way forward.
“A UK level revision of common agricultural policy needs to take these different strategies for rural land use and create an integrated land management approach that doesn’t view policies as separate and isolated,” said Dr Clive Walmsley, climate change adviser to CCW.
“For example, biomass production is a positive renewable sorce, but if we look at the strategy from a single focus we won’t see that it could have the wider negative effects on habitat or biodiversity.”
Other schemes investigated as part of the study include the Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Wesl Tir Gofal schemes, Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies and Catchment Flood Management Plans.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2007
Contact: Kurt Knaus, 717-571-5687
GROUPS EMBRACE DIFFERENCES TO FIND COMMON GROUND IN U.S. FARM BILL
New grassroots effort comprises interests from environment, conservation, nutrition, social services, agriculture, rural development, alternative energy fields
PHILADELPHIA -- What do nutrition services have to do with clean air? How are food banks, land conservation and the Chesapeake Bay connected? What does rural development have to do with alternative energy?
They’re among a variety of issues included in a wide-ranging farm bill currently being debated by Congress — and they’re the impetus behind the first meeting of a broad range of state and federal groups working to ensure that their top priorities are included in the massive legislation. The last farm bill was passed in 2002.
“Conservation, nutrition, access to healthy foods and renewable energy are the most important parts of the farm bill in hundreds of congressional districts,” said Tim Male, a senior scientist for Environmental Defense and moderator of the meeting. “But none of us are going to succeed in securing more resources for our priorities unless we work together.”
“When you’re dealing with legislation the size of a phone book, there’s plenty of room for common ground,” said Sheila Christopher, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Regional Food Banks. “Banding together groups this diverse enhances our ability to score some significant victories for our shared causes.”
The group is meeting from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, 100 N. 20th St., Fifth Floor, Philadelphia. Media coverage is invited and welcome, with participants available for interviews detailing the joint initiative.
“It’s only fitting that these groups should gather for the first time right here in Philadelphia, just as our Founding Fathers did, to try to chart a new course of action,” said Jon Meade, executive director of the Highlands Coalition, comprising more than 100 conservation and community-based organizations working in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.
“Philadelphia residents might not appreciate how a seemingly rural-sounding farm bill affects their urban landscape,” said Steveanna Wynn, executive director of The SHARE Food Program of Pennsylvania. “But the fact is, the farm bill impacts almost every facet of American life — from the food we eat to the fuel we use to the scenery around us.”
Invited and attending the meeting are: Brandywine Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chester County 2020, Clean Air Council, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Environmental Defense, The Food Trust, Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger, GreenSpace Alliance, Highlands Coalition, Natural Lands Trust, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Penn Environment, Pennsylvania Association of Regional Food Banks, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Wilderness Society, The SHARE Food Program Inc. and TreeVitalize, among others.
“The farm bill presents a tremendous and unprecedented opportunity for significant land preservation dollars for Pennsylvania, as well as providing for many other important needs of concern to members of our coalition,” GreenSpace Alliance Executive Director Judy Jengo said.
Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation can wield considerable influence in farm bill negotiations.
Aside from broadening grassroots efforts and identifying specific measures that the groups at this gathering can support in the farm bill, they also are seeking to draw other advocates into the fold. Particularly when dealing with comprehensive legislation like the farm bill, consensus among a variety of groups can help to shape the debate and hasten the development of good public policy.
“The farm bill affects all of us, from family farmers and the rural regions where our food and fiber is produced to urban and suburban communities with families who all need healthy and nutritious food,” said Martha Noble of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Sharing our views reveals where we have common ground and inter-related goals. Now we need to work in tandem to reach congressional leaders on shaping the next farm bill.”
Editorial
July 23, 2007
NewYork Times
How the Energy Dice Were Loaded
The names of some of the corporate big shots and industry lobbyists who helped shape the deliberations and conclusions of the super-secret Cheney energy task force in 2001 are now beginning to surface, thanks to a former White House aide who provided a list to The Washington Post.
It’s interesting to discover that Kenneth Lay, Enron’s chairman, was favored with two audiences. But the rest is sadly familiar. The task force, which developed a national energy policy, had all the time in the world for the big energy producers — some 40 meetings with the oil, gas and coal companies and their trade associations — but barely a moment for environmentalists. It’s hardly surprising that its report favored producers of fossil fuels at the expense of conservation and alternative fuels.
What this list really does is remind us how and why this administration has squandered six years that should have been devoted to finding innovative answers to the big questions of oil dependency and global warming.
Some energy experts say the Cheney report appears better balanced in retrospect than its critics claimed. But while it clinically assessed a range of energy strategies, including conservation, its actual recommendations were heavily weighted toward finding new sources of supply and removing regulatory impediments to oil and gas exploration and burning coal.
The report had immediate influence on Capitol Hill, where both the House and Senate produced alarmingly unbalanced energy bills, with billions in tax breaks and other subsidies for traditional energy producers and only peanuts, relatively speaking, for efficiency and alternative fuels.
Fortunately, the energy debate itself has moved beyond the vice president’s framing of it in 2001. The energy bill passed by the Senate last month is much less solicitous of big producers and much more favorable to newer, cleaner fuels. Some of the very companies that appeared before the task force in 2001 are now ahead of the White House, demanding more aggressive steps on climate change and oil dependency. Think how much more quickly we could have reached this point had the task force truly opened itself to new ideas six years ago.
Associated Press
02.22.08
Philly.com
Soybean Crushers Face Biofuel Dilemma
BISMARCK, N.D. - One oilseed crushing plant in eastern North Dakota is switching from soybeans to canola. A few miles away, farmers are banking on a bright future with beans, with plans for a crushing plant of their own.
The situation in the Red River Valley illustrates the paradoxical state of the nation's biodiesel industry, and the decisions facing crushers over whether to refine oil for food or fuel.
On one hand, only a quarter of the current production capacity is being used and the number of new plants coming on line has slowed dramatically. On the other, biodiesel sales volume continues to rise, and government mandates call for even more biodiesel use in coming years.
Northwood Mills LLC in Northwood is not giving up on refining vegetable oil, but it is drastically changing its focus. Instead of crushing soybeans for the biodiesel market, it's switching to canola for the food market.
Part of the reason is a decline in the Canadian hog industry that has been a primary market for the plant's soybean meal, a byproduct used for animal feed. General manager Clarence Leschied said the company also has soured on soybeans.
"The demand (for vegetable oil) from the biodiesel sector has just about disappeared, whereas canola going into the food market still has good demand," he said. "We've just seen the margins on soybeans deteriorating."
Leschied said other plants also might switch from the energy sector to the food sector. "U.S. biodiesel capacity is only running at about 25 percent," he said.
Amber Thurlo Pearson, a spokeswoman for the National Biodiesel Board, confirmed the percentage. She said biodiesel producers are going through "a rough patch" because of rising vegetable oil prices. But she believes many of the nation's 171 plants were built large , accounting for much of the unused production capacity , in anticipation of growth sure to come.
More passenger vehicles are being made with engines that can burn biodiesel, an alternative to petroleum-based fuels, Pearson said. A new federal law also sets a biofuels standard of 36 billion gallons per year by 2022, a sevenfold increase.
Farmers in southeastern North Dakota are counting on continued growth as they develop a plant to crush soybeans and refine the oil. The Ag Plus Cooperative plant would be big enough to crush up to 40 percent of the soybeans grown in the state.
Co-op director Dale Beck said plant officials will decide later whether it will be more profitable to sell soybean oil to the energy or food industries. "We're looking at primarily biodiesel," he said.
"Soybeans are in tight supply. Demand is very high for oil," Beck said.
The March futures price for soybean oil is nearly double what it was a year ago, Pearson said. Predictions of an increase in biodiesel demand also have helped drive up the price of oil, she said.
Leschied said demand from the food industry also is playing a role. "The food side is prepared to bid whatever it can to keep (soybean oil) from going into the energy sector," he said.
Tom Lilja, executive director of the North Dakota Corn Growers Association, said the declining value of the U.S. dollar is leading to more exports of such crops as corn and soybeans, both of which can be used to make fuel. That, in turn, leads to tighter supplies and higher prices.
"It's cheaper for countries like China to buy," Lilja said.
About 80 percent of the biodiesel manufactured in the United States is made from soybean oil. Pearson said industry officials are promoting the research and development of new feedstocks, such as algae, for biodiesel.
And new biodiesel plants continue to come on line, though the pace has slowed in the past year. Production capacity has grown from 85 million gallons in 2003 to the current 2.2 billion gallons.
"We will continue to see increased biodiesel production," Pearson said.
Northwood Mills, which broke ground two years ago and began operating last summer, thinks canola is the better oilseed for its situation.
"It looks a lot different in the world from when we started," Leschied said. "The dynamics have changed a whole bunch."
Business
July 8, 2008
NewYork Times
Europeans Reconsider Biofuel Goal
BRUSSELS — European officials proposed scaling back drastically on their goal of increasing Europe’s use of biofuels, a major about-face on a central environmental and energy issue.
At the same time, a new report by the British government cast fresh doubt on fuels made from crops as a way to the fight climate change.
Until recently, European governments had sought to lead the rest of the world in the use of biofuels, aiming to derive 10 percent of Europe’s transportation fuels from biofuels by 2020. But the allure has dimmed amid growing evidence that the kind of goals proposed by the European Union are contributing to deforestation, which speeds climate change, and helping force up food prices.
“I think when we will look back we will say this was the beginning of a turning point for Europe on biofuels,” said Juan Delgado, a research fellow specializing in energy and climate change at Breugel, a research organization in Brussels. “It will be very difficult now for Europe to stick by its targets.”
In the United States, one quarter of the corn crop goes to biofuels. An energy bill passed last year requires that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be produced annually by 2022, but criticism of the policy is growing, including calls to end tax breaks for corn-based ethanol.
A major reason is that over the last 18 months, studies have shown that the current generation of biofuels — reliant on food crops like canola, corn and soybeans — helps drive up food prices by using agricultural land, as well as aggravating deforestation, and may be worse for the climate than conventional oil once the cost of production and transport are taken into account.
Most of the world’s biofuel is extracted from corn in the United States, sugar in Brazil, and both grain and oil-seed crops in Europe.
Europe’s reversal on biofuels had gained significant momentum in recent days. Over the weekend, energy ministers gave one of their strongest signs that E.U. governments were prepared to back away from the 10 percent target. "We have to decide if the quota can be kept," the Jochen Homann, a state secretary in the ministry of economics, said Saturday in Paris. "It might be changed."
Britain, one of the biggest proponents of increased biofuel use, signaled a new course Monday. Ruth Kelly, the British transport minister, said the introduction of biofuels should be slowed down, citing a newly released report warning that current goals for biofuel production could cause a global rise in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in poverty in the poorest countries.
“Given uncertainty and potential concerns, the government will adopt a more cautious approach until the evidence is clearer on environmental and social effects of biofuels,” Ms. Kelly told the British Parliament.
The Environment Committee of the European Parliament voted Monday to approve the measure and send it to the full Parliament. Members of each major political bloc on the committee called for a much lower target — 4 percent — and said the measures should be reviewed in 2015 before any decision to ratchet up that target to between 8 percent and 10 percent.
Although the environment committee’s vote is not binding, it will add to pressure on the European Commission to issue a revised proposal, said Mr. Delgado, the Breugel expert.
Under the alternative proposals that the committee voted on, 20 percent of renewable transport fuels would have to come from feed stocks, like algae, that do not compete with food for cropland. Europe also could meet the target by expanding the use of vehicles powered by biogas, electricity or hydrogen by 2015. That figure would rise to as much as 50 percent by 2020. Nations also would have to abide by rules on environmental and social sustainability.
The changes threaten the European Commission’s attempt to influence the creation of global standards to tackle climate-changing emissions. The fading luster of biofuels also threatens its goal of generating 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020, up from 8.5 percent now.
There is disagreement about the role in rising food prices, and some analysts say that the backlash against biofuels now is going too far.
The European Commission has denied that biofuels are helping push up food prices by displacing other agriculture and has vowed to stick by its 10 percent goal.
Michael Mann, a spokesman, said Monday that higher food prices had been caused by increased demand for meat and dairy products, particularly in China and India, two years of bad harvests around the world, speculation and by restrictions on exports of food commodities by some nations.
New Energy Finance, a research group in London, said in May that prices had risen 8 percent for grains and 17 percent for oils as a result of biofuels policies. It found effects on the price of sugars had been negligible.
|
|
|
Europeans Reconsider Biofuel Goal
BRUSSELS — European officials proposed scaling back drastically on their goal of increasing Europe’s use of biofuels, a major about-face on a central environmental and energy issue.Read More
Soybean Crushers Face Biofuel Dilemma
BISMARCK, N.D.- The situation in the Red River Valley illustrates the paradoxical state of the nation's biodiesel industry, and the decisions facing crushers over whether to refine oil for food or fuel...Read More
How The Energy Dice Were Loaded
The names of some of the corporate big shots and industry lobbyists who helped shape the deliberations and conclusions of the super-secret Cheney energy task force in 2001 are now beginning to surface...Read More
Focusing on global warming: by Alison Grant, Newhouse News Service
Even slight global warming -- or the mere threat of warming -- poses legal risks to companies, as governments and courts ratchet up rules about heat-trapping greenhouse gases, environmental lawyer David Nash says...Read More
The Clean and Green Fuels Fund is currently undergoing a transition to our new website. We appologize for any problems you may experience during this period.
|
|
|
|
|
