You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 2nd, 2007.
February 24, 2007
Our eco-worrier finds that saving the world can create hothouse gases at home
It all started with a kettle. A full one, I should add. Too full, I said, for tea for two. “Think of the wasted energy when you boil all that water! Is this what happens when you make the morning tea?” Breakfast was ruined. My beloved told me that I was a green bully. Worse than that, he tried to blame the row on what he infuriatingly called “my controlling tendencies”.
To prove my point, I demonstrated how seven cups of tea could be made with the water he had boiled (perhaps this was overdoing it). He said if I cared so much why didn’t I run off with Swampy. Anyway, it escalated, as these things do, and before we knew it, we were in the grip of a fully fledged domestic. Except that this one was different. Like everything else, it had gone green.
Looking back, I recognise it as our first eco-argument. Instead of traditional rowing subjects that have rattled couples for generations — who does the washing-up and why the shared bank account is overdrawn — we had slipped into new territory. Our raised voices belted out words such as Fairtrade, food miles and flight restrictions. Accusations of carbon criminality were hurled, along with other less articulate insults. That was six months ago, when I had renewed my efforts to implement the changes that I write about in the Eco-Worrier column.
These days, our pea-green domestic disruptions come thick and fast. There was the time I nipped back to the flat we share in North London for my packed lunch. Lo and behold, my planet-trashing other half (otherwise known as Gervase) was in the bedroom with the electric blow heater on full blast and the window wide open. What better way to abuse electricity. If I hadn’t had to rush off to work, it could have turned nasty. Switching lights off is another well-trodden battlefield. Five minutes is the amount of time you need to be out of the bedroom to make it worth switching off the light, I say, quoting the Energy Saving Trust. “But I was about to go back upstairs,” he mumbles, slumped in front of 24.
I realise that your sympathies may be with Gervase. You’re probably already painting a picture of me as a holier-than-thou eco-vangelist. Indeed, I began to wonder myself, as I punched the TV standby button off for the umpteenth time, if I am the only one saving the planet at the expense of my relationship. Will I end up a lonely old biddy hanging out used teabags? A post on the Eco-Worrier blog, asking others to air their eco-arguments, reassures me.
Tracy Stokes, a 35-year-old fellow green blogger, who set up www.ecostreet.com, reels off her complaints. “Why does he take so long in the shower? Why won’t he press the eco-button to save water while he’s in there? And why does he have to drive over the speed limit on the motorway, creating more carbon dioxide emissions than necessary?” she writes.
The subject of heating is what sparks off Anna Robinson, 34. “I prefer a cold bedroom and to turn off the heating when we’re out,” she says. “He likes a tropical environment and maintains that my method is more wasteful because the heating has to work harder when it comes on.”
Meanwhile, a friend who recently installed a wormery (against the wishes of her boyfriend) confides: “It has come between us. He won’t go near the thing, talk about it or acknowledge the existence of 2,000 worms in our backyard.” Worse than that, she worries that he’s looking for a way to pay her back by doing something that she hates. I tell her to stay firm and repeat the mantra: “Love me, love my worms.” When I set up my own bin a year ago, I set the important ground rule that Gervase would have to, at least, feign enthusiasm for my pet wrigglies.
All this wrangling is quite normal, according to Penny Mansfield, the director of One Plus One Marriage and Partnership Research. “Like where to send your children to school, whether to go to church or your political alignment, environmental conduct has become a subject which reflects core values,” she says.
“It’s understandable that you want them to be shared by your partner. The rows become about who you are and how you see the world.” When you consider the sparks that fly when the terrible trio of politics, religion and private education are dissected around the kitchen table, it is little wonder that we’re getting rattled about going green, often referred to as a 21st-century religion. “This is sharpened when you have children,” Mansfield adds. “You have to decide on a family policy on the environment; it’s no longer possible to skirt the subjects that you know you don’t agree on.”
But don’t think that all eco-arguments are about principle, she warns. “Think about whether this is something you really care about or whether it’s just an excuse to let off steam. Most rows are based on the same old tensions about who does what in the home.” In other words, we are inclined to dress them in green clothing: to kid ourselves that a spat over who takes out the recycling is about lofty principles, not domestic drudgery.
The moral dimension to an eco-argument is one of its most maddening features. When Al Holland, 29, comments on the blog that he argues with his girlfriend about their holiday plans, he admits that he enjoys it when she asks if they can fly to Greece. “It’s an opportunity to restate all the evils of air travel,” he writes, smugly. Virtue is certainly on the side of the green. If all else fails, there is a secret weapon. Guilt. Arms can be folded, long faces pulled and the words “Think of our grandchildren” delivered emotionally.
I had been hoping that this breed of row would evolve as the prerogative of the fairer sex. Instead blog feedback indicates that men are just as likely to be wound up by noncommittal partners. The work of the eco-auditor Donnachadh McCarthy, who visits people’s homes to give advice on how to minimise their carbon footprint, backs this up. “One half of a couple is usually more enthusiastic and committed to change than another,” he says. “But I’ve seen as many men obsessed by the small steps that make a house environmentally friendly as women.” That said, the areas we leap to defend are likely to be gender-specific.
An Npower survey conducted last year, in association with a Leicester University psychologist, found that food-related activities such as reusing carrier bags, turning off appliances and buying eco-friendly products fell to women. Men were more concerned with the bigger picture; the battle to reduce energy or to set up DIY energy generation.
According to Anne Campbell, an evolutionary psychologist, the development of gender roles over thousands of years explains this. “On a biological and psychological level, there are differences between the sexes that can be traced back to our hunter-gatherer origins,” she says. “It is to be expected that environmental information is processed and manifest in different ways, even though men and women have been equally exposed to it. Women would be likely to keep it within their role in the home, while men might let it influence things outside of it, such as their choice of car.” Staunch confirmation of gender stereotypes this may be, but it also suggests that the division of green chores, as much as unequal commitment to the planet, is causing conflict. Especially if going green gives your other half an excuse to buy new wheels every month.
McCarthy believes it is also a problem when one half of a couple switches into change mode, wanting to shake up their life, while the other hopes that things will stay the same. “The solution is always to look for compromise,” he says. “If one person is aghast at the thought of collecting kitchen scraps for compost, I’ll suggest keeping them in a bucket outside the kitchen.”
Mansfield’s advice on resolving differences is to wait until you’ve cooled off before you address them. “Don’t speak to your partner during a flare-up,” she says. “If it’s something that is important to you, allow your thoughts to settle for a day and then talk about it. Explain why it matters to you.” Sounds sensible, but what if your attitudes cannot be harmonised?
In my case, I suspect that I’ve taken the challenging path of falling for someone who doesn’t always echo my world view. Will we reach stale-mate? “As long as your partner respects your values, he doesn’t have to share them,” says Mansfield. “Many people would die of boredom if their views were never questioned in a relationship. As long as it doesn’t involve constant opposition, difference is a good thing.”
Come to think of it, I’m perfectly happy that I’ve claimed being green as my patch. I wouldn’t take kindly to competition. One eco-worrier per household is probably enough.
Mr Eco-Worrier’s strategy
GERVASE DE WILDE, Anna’s partner, draws up a checklist for a quiet life
First, a warning: there is no way back. People do not become less green, and a passing interest in environmental issues in your partner will not fade. Even if they don’t write a column in a newspaper about their eco-worries, you might still find that their awareness turns to full-blown obsession. This can touch on every aspect of your life, from where you do your shopping and how you carry it home to whether it’s OK to take holidays any farther from London than West Wales. Once I got used to this brave new green world, it was time to work out ways of living in it.
Learn the terminology, the trick to seeming like you’re getting with the eco-programme. Become fluent in the language of Fairtrade and carbon footprints. Otherwise you’re destined to lose your foothold on the moral high ground and find yourself floundering in arguments about overfilling the kettle or buying ingredients for dinner that are covered in wasteful packaging.
Cultivate opinions on carbon offsetting and the value of composting worm bins, or face arguments that end in unfavourable comparisons with your greener half and their more sustainable way of life.
Make some eco-jobs your own. Learn to agree, gracefully, to turn off lights, music and computers, while keeping less green habits quiet (hide the Sainsbury’s bags as soon as you get back from the shops). Undertake the manly task of carrying a heavy box of recycling outside and the eco-credits accumulated may well come in handy when you’re making your case for a short break in Marrakesh.
And when it all gets too much, remember that even a solitary trip to the pub, where your drinking vessel, is washed up and used again (in what I now know is an impressive demonstration of sustainable practices), can have its eco-friendly side.
Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/body_and_soul/article1428696.ece
A manifesto.
Green Thing is a community that’s here to help as many people as possible in as many countries as possible to do the Green Thing. A community of Green Things across the world will not only make a sizeable CO2 saving, it will encourage governments and businesses to do the Green Thing too.
To help achieve all of that, Green Thing is a number of things.
Green Thing is an easy thing. Because lots of small things can add up to more than a few big things, Green Thing suggests one easy thing a month to tempt as many people as possible to do it. Green Thing is also free which makes it easier to be part of.
Green Thing is a creative thing. Because entertainment is very inspiring and lectures a bit less so, the monthly Green Things are suggested with brilliant content from brilliant writers, musicians, designers, directors and artists – pro and am, young and old.
Green Thing is a not-for-profit thing. Because people are cynical about commercial or political agendas, Green Thing is an independent, not-for-profit thing powered by grants from foundations and individual contributions.
Green Thing is a credible thing. Because people want to know that their action is making a difference, Green Thing is endorsed by some of the planet’s leading environmental thinkers and reports back every month on the collective difference the whole community is making.
Green Thing is a principled thing. There are certain things Green Thing will and won’t do.
It will react and respond to the community. Green Thing is everybody’s thing.
It won’t hide anything, ever. The science behind the suggestions, where the money comes from, mistakes that will inevitably be made.
It will reuse existing thinking and technology wherever possible. It’s quicker, more sustainable and cheaper too.
It won’t take money from businesses producing the most C02 (oil companies, for instance, or airlines). Given what Green Thing is trying to do, it would be a bit ridiculous.
If Green Thing is about one thing, it’s people power. If we all contribute to Green Thing, it will become as creative, as credible and as irresistible as it can be. If we all do the Green Thing, it will make the biggest impact it can make.
sign up and do the green thing
By Shelley Shan
Staff Reporter
Friday, Nov 02, 2007, Page 2 Starting next year, 38 developed nations (excluding Australia and the US) will be required to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards stated in the treaties they signed under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol.
Based on the protocol’s principles, each of these nations is obligated to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels between next year and 2012, also known as the first commitment period.
The principles further dictate that those who fail to meet their commitment during this time will be penalized 1.3 emission allowances for every tonne of GHG emissions they exceed the cap.
Nevertheless, signatories can avoid the penalty by following the clean development mechanism (CDC) that requires developed countries to invest in projects that help developing countries reduce GHG emissions.
Another option is to buy allowances from other nations or third parties who own allowances, a mechanism which is now recognized as carbon trading.
Theoretically, Taiwan is not obligated to abide by the protocol, as it is neither a UN member nor a Kyoto Protocol signatory. Some, however, have warned that this unique status does not exempt Taiwan from international sanctions. Exports from Taiwan, for example, may soon be required to fulfill the low GHG emissions requirement before they can be sold in any nation that has ratified the protocol.
This eventuality has made domestic activists aim for the potentially greater benefits that could be generated through an established national carbon trading market. And for years, they have been criticizing the government for acting “at a snail’s pace” on the matter.
Liu Ching-hsiang (劉清祥), chief executive of the Taiwan Emission Trading Association, said in a telephone interview with the Taipei Times that it has been a year since the nation’s first greenhouse gas reduction act was sent for review to the legislature. However, the act went literally nowhere after it had passed its first phase of the legislative process, he said.
Liu said the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the agency entrusted to head efforts to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, was not active enough in campaigning for voluntary emission reductions among private corporations, through which they are able to sell additional credits to other traders.
“By 2008, we could watch these supposedly tradable resources [carbons] go down the drain,” he said.
A similar sense of urgency is also conveyed by energy trading experts.
Elizabeth Bossley, chief executive of the Consilience Energy Advisory Group, said the nation should take advantage of what she termed an “imperfect” protocol.
“You have the capability to trade in Kyoto allowances, because the rules of schemes allow anyone to enter the market as a third party and trade these allowances,” she said.
Bossley said that Taiwan’s status as a non-signatory of the Kyoto Protocol also enables it to construct a trading scheme appropriate for its state of development and to link itself to the international market by using Kyoto allowances.
She also noted that it would be inappropriate for Taiwan to reduce emissions in absolute terms as it will only limit economic growth. She said that Taiwan can utilize its forte in innovation and technology to produce the same amount of goods while producing less carbon.
Bossley said she was aware that the nation has problems securing funding for CDC projects because of the China issue, but said that this has given Taiwan complete freedom to trade in ways it wants to trade. She also said she saw the nation’s potential to become a price-setting carbon trading hub as it develops its own GHG policy.
“If Taiwan builds a policy based on GHG emission reductions and chooses the least-cost instrument to achieve that objective, it gives itself the possibility of buying any of these ranges of internationally-traded instruments as its own compliance strategy,” Bossley said.
The vision of a national carbon market, however, was met with skepticism by the nation’s legislators. So far, 10 articles related to carbon trading schemes in the GHG emissions reduction act have been reserved for further discussions as lawmakers request more deliberation.
“You are asking profitable energy-intensive industries to voluntarily cut their GHG emissions,” said Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lwo Shih-hsiung (羅世雄). “It’s not going to be easy.”
Wu Chih-wei (吳志偉), a technical specialist at the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Energy Bureau, said manufacturers are mostly concerned about how the government plans to distribute the carbon credits and whether they would be meted out in a fair way.
“The distribution plan is a delicate matter,” he said. “It needs to be handled very, very carefully.”
Besides the distribution of credits, Wu said the nation must be ready to settle other disputes, such as how state corporations use the revenue created through carbon trading.
Wu also said the nation still lacks professionals familiar with the different carbon trading schemes in the international marketplace. Meanwhile, as many people are still relatively ignorant about the importance of climate change, Wu suggested it would take a while before a carbon trading market would emerge in Taiwan.
Yeh Fang-lu (葉芳露), a senior engineer with the EPA’s air quality protection and noise bureau, said carbons are categorized as derivatives in financial terms. The nation’s financial laws need to be amended to regulate trading, he said.
Yeh added that some companies have chosen to do third-party trading, but he said that the trading must also be certified as effective by creditable agencies.
Yeh said that the administration leans toward following a benchmark rule in giving out carbon credits. He said the administration will first examine a company’s emission records in the past and the credits companies receive would be a little under their self-reported values.
“The measure serves as a motivation for them [companies] to reduce emissions,” he said.
Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/11/02/2003385850
By Nesa Subrahmaniyan and Angela Macdonald-Smith
Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) — Crude oil headed for a fourth weekly gain because of concern consumption will outpace supply and as a weaker U.S. dollar spurred demand for commodities.
Oil may rise next week on speculation that OPEC won’t raise production as fast as usage grows this winter, 60 percent of analysts said in a Bloomberg survey. The dollar has fallen against 10 of the 16 most-traded currencies this week, helping to drive oil to a record $96.24 a barrel in New York yesterday.
“The uptrend is still intact and it will take a big sell- off for it to burst,” said Anthony Nunan, deputy general manager of risk management at Mitsubishi Corp. in Tokyo. “There will be some people trying to take profits before the year ends.”
Crude oil for December delivery gained as much as 66 cents, or 0.7 percent, to $94.15 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $93.98 at 12:09 p.m. Singapore time. Prices have climbed 2.3 percent this week, after rising 13 percent in the previous three weeks.
Yesterday, the contract fell $1.04, or 1.1 percent, to settle at $93.49. Oil is up 62 percent from a year earlier.
Prices rose on Oct. 31 by the most in nine months after the U.S. Energy Department reported an unexpected drop in crude-oil stockpiles and the Federal Reserve cut interest rates.
Inventories, Fed
U.S. crude inventories fell to the lowest in two years, declining 1.2 percent to 312.7 million barrels in the week ended Oct. 26.
Brent crude oil for December settlement gained as much as 98 cents, or 1.1 percent, to $90.70 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange. The contract was at $90.53 at 12:11 p.m. Singapore time. Brent reached $91.71 a barrel yesterday, the highest since trading began in 1988.
Twenty-one of 35 analysts surveyed, or 60 percent, said oil prices will rise through Nov. 9, the first bullish response since July 6. Ten, or 29 percent, said prices will decline and four forecast little change. Last week, 49 percent of respondents said oil would fall.
Oil producers, including the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, are powerless to stop prices from reaching $100 as few countries can produce more crude, Oman’s energy minister said yesterday.
Oman’s Mohammed bin Hamad al-Rumhy said he didn’t know of one oil-producing country that isn’t at maximum output.
“Maybe Saudi could produce more, but the lack of spare capacity is a major factor,” he said in a phone interview from Muscat.
Mexican Oil
Mexico, the third-largest supplier of oil to the U.S., will resume full production from wells in the Gulf of Mexico by the end of the day, after an Oct. 28 storm disrupted output, a spokesman for the state oil company said Nov. 1.
Petroleos Mexicanos has been ramping up production since Oct. 30, Carlos Ramirez, a spokesman for the Mexico City-based company, said.
Mexico pumps about 3.1 million barrels a day, and 82 percent of it comes from offshore reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. Pemex exported about 1.7 million barrels a day in the third quarter of 2007, with 81 percent going to the U.S.
Global conditions support further price gains for both crude oil and gold, Investec Bank (Australia) Ltd. said. Tensions between Turkey and Iraq over Kurdish militants, as well as over Iran’s nuclear program have helped drive prices higher, while the dollar fell to a record low of $1.4504 against the euro on Oct. 31.
“A terminally ill-looking U.S. dollar, geopolitical tensions and the onset of increased demand ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter are all supportive for oil,” Investec said today in a report.
Prices will probably fall once the $100 level is reached, National Australia’s Burg said.
“One hundred dollars isn’t really something I would see as sustainable,” said Gerard Burg, a minerals and energy economist at National Australia Bank Ltd. in Melbourne. “A lot of people would see that as a good place to sell.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Nesa Subrahmaniyan in Singapore at nesas@bloomberg.net ; Angela Macdonald-Smith in Wellington at amacdonaldsm@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 2, 2007 00:29 EDT
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aEh4_qkj_voo&refer=asia
November 01, 2007
CALGARY – Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (TSX:CNQ) plans to drill as much as 50 per cent fewer natural gas wells next year because of Alberta’s planned royalty increases, which were announced last week and go into effect in early 2009.
“The new royalty program will have a negative impact on our development plans in 2008 and onward, the extent of which we are still attempting to fully define. As a result we will continue to adjust our activity to ensure that we are optimizing our plan,” CNQ chairman Allan Markin said in a conference call Thursday.
“One of our greatest strengths is our flexibility and, in the light of the pending changes to the royalties, this flexibility and breadth of options has become even more important to maintain our focus on maximizing returns to our shareholders.”
The Calgary-based company also reported that third-quarter profit fell to $700 million from a year-earlier $1.1 billion, hurt by lower natural gas prices and a high Canadian dollar.
At the beginning of the year, the Canadian dollar was trading around 85.5 cents US and by the end of September, the loonie was about on par with the greenback. On a cash-flow basis, the company said that amounted to a difference of $600 million and cut about 50 cents a share from earnings.
Because of the Alberta royalty hikes, planned to begin in 2009, “in the current pricing and cost environment, the biggest reduction in the company’s Alberta activity will be experienced in the conventional natural gas business,” the firm said in a release.
“The number of natural gas wells to be drilled in Alberta by the company in 2008 and years beyond will be approximately 30 per cent to 50 per cent less than the number of such wells that would have otherwise been drilled in the absence of such royalty changes.”
Soft natural gas markets have also been hampering Canadian Natural’s production.
“North American natural gas production, as expected, declined in the quarter and will continue to decline for the remainder of the year, reflecting our reduced capital spending in 2007 due to the lower returns currently being generated in the natural gas part of the business,” Steve Laut, the company’s president and chief operating officer, said in a release.
Light oil drilling will be down 50 per cent from what it would have been if not for the royalty changes, Laut told investors in a conference call.
“Regardless of the uncertainty caused by this revised royalty program, we are certain on the strength of our asset base,” he said.
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced last week that royalty increases should bring in an extra $1.4 billion a year, short of the $2 billion recommended by a government panel.
Canadian Natural’s earnings for the quarter ended Sept. 30 amounted to $1.30 a share and compared with $2.08 per share a year ago, the firm reported. Analysts’ consensus forecast was for earnings of $1.02 per share, before one-time items, according to Thomson Financial.
Cash flow from operations rose to $1.58 billion from $1.3 billion.
“Warmer weather has dictated the soft market for natural gas, along with increasing liquefied natural gas imports to the United States,” vice-chairman John Langille said in a release.
“Given that crude oil and natural gas realized prices are tied to U.S. reference prices, the strengthening of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar has also had a negative impact on industry cash flows, lessening the impact of higher WTI (West Texas Intermediate crude oil) pricing.”
The average currency exchange rate in the third quarter was 95.65 cents US per Canadian dollar, compared with 89.19 cents US a year earlier.
Markin said that with the Horizon oilsands project 84 per cent complete, “we remain on track for targeted first oil in the third quarter of 2008 and maintain our focus on execution.”
Canadian Natural announced Wednesday that the cost of its Horizon project would go over the budgeted $6.8 billion cost by eight to 14 per cent – about $1 billion more than expected.
“We are disappointed that we’re over,” Laut said.
“We face many challenges, not unlike the challenges we’ve faced already and overcome. It will not get any easier from this point on. However, we’re very confident we will continue to be successful in overcoming these impairments as we move forward.”
An analyst from Desjardins said Canadian Natural Resources’ production figures came in lower than expected, but earnings were slightly higher than anticipated because of lower-than-expected taxes.
Canadian Natural shares were down 1.65 per cent to $77.26 on the Toronto Stock Exchange in early afternoon trading.
Source: http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5657218
Recent Comments