TXU faces a Texas coal rush

Interesting article from Fortune Magazine bellow. Other articles about TXU can be found (baptists) here, (environmental groups) here, (TU Scientists) here and for another one of my posts with a video of activists on the streets check this out.

[UPDATE] Sheryl Crow and Laurie David are now planning to tour texas to help build opposition.
==================================================================

For whatever reason - the wreckage of Hurricane Katrina, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the plight of polar bears in the Arctic, the Democratic takeover of Congress - this is the moment when corporate America has at long last decided to get serious about global warming.

Joining hands with environmentalists, the CEOs of ten Fortune 500 companies, among them GE (Charts), Alcoa (Charts), DuPont, and utilities Duke Energy and PG&E (Charts), last month called on the government to regulate the greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels. Dozens of big companies, including Wal-Mart (Charts), have pledged to reduce their own emissions of carbon dioxide. In a twist on the theme, Dell (Charts) will arrange to have trees planted for customers who pay $2 to offset the CO2 generated when a computer is plugged into the power grid.

And then there is TXU (Charts).

A $10.4-billion-a-year energy company based in Dallas, TXU is staking its future on coal - the dirtiest of all fuels used to generate electricity. Last spring the company announced plans to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas at a cost of nearly $1 billion apiece. That has set off a firestorm of opposition - lawsuits, pickets, petitions, anti-TXU Web sites, lobbying at the state capitol, even a hunger strike.

One environmental group calculated that the new plants would generate 78 million tons of CO2 each year - more than the emissions of Sweden, Denmark, or Portugal. Texas already ranks first in the U.S. in carbon emissions.

"This is an $11 billion step in the wrong direction," fumes David Hawkins, a climate-change expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And when you're marching backward with $11 billion, you can do a lot of damage."

But TXU is just getting started. The company says it will soon unveil plans to build another eight to 15 coal-burning plants outside Texas, counting on economies of scale to hold costs down. TXU also operates strip mines, which supply 70 percent of the coal it burns.

To explore the logic behind TXU's plans, I went to see Mike McCall, the company executive in charge of selling the coal plants to Texans. A burly, easygoing 49-year-old, McCall is a coal man to his core. He went to the college at the Missouri School of Mines with the financial help of Peabody Coal, the nation's largest producer, worked in coal mines in Illinois, ran a private railroad that shipped coal, and climbed the ladder at TXU to become head of its wholesale electricity unit.

McCall's argument on behalf of coal is straightforward. Coal is abundant, and it is mined in the U.S. It's cheaper than natural gas and more reliable than wind or solar power.

TXU would like to generate more nuclear energy - it plans to apply for permits to build up to three nukes in 2008 - but getting a green light from industry-friendly Texas regulators for coal plants, even with all the brouhaha, is a lot easier than obtaining the federal government's approval to build a nuclear power plant. No new permits for nukes have been issued since the 1970s.

That leaves coal as the best fuel available to satisfy America's ever-expanding appetite for electricity - all our computers and big-screen TVs and air-conditioned homes and offices need juice.

Currently, coal supplies about 52 percent of the nation's electricity, and U.S. demand for electric power is projected to grow by about 1.5 percent a year. (Nationally, more than 150 new coal plants are planned.) With its hot summers, fast-growing population, and expanding industrial base, Texas has an even more urgent need for power; peak demand could exceed supply as soon as the summer of 2008.

"If you care about national security and you care about energy independence," McCall says, "you want to find a way to use coal that's acceptable to the public."

As for climate change, he allows that it's an "important and long-term issue" and says TXU's plants will be designed so that someday they can be retrofitted to capture and store carbon. Right now, there's no way to capture carbon from coal-burning plants. But, McCall says, "we have confidence that technology will come along."

That, say TXU's critics, is hokum.
A long list of opponents

TXU is fighting not just the usual activists from the Sierra Club and Public Citizen but environmental groups like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which are ordinarily business-friendly. (With GE, DuPont, and others, they formed the coalition of big companies to lobby for carbon caps.)

Opposing the plants, too, are the Democratic mayors of Dallas and Houston, Texas celebrities such as rocker Don Henley, and prominent businesspeople, including real estate scion Trammell S. Crow and Garrett Boone, the chairman of the Container Store.

Albert J. Huddleston, a pro-business Republican who helped finance the Swift Boat television ads against John Kerry in 2004, is funding a lawsuit against TXU because he's concerned about mercury contamination of lakes and fish.

So intense is the fervor that a 50-year-old activist, Karen Hadden, went on a ten-day hunger strike last fall to call attention to the issue. "It is certainly an uphill battle," Hadden says, "but we're trying to keep the pressure on every front."

Opponents have sued Texas regulators as well as TXU. They are asking the Texas legislature to impose a moratorium on new coal plants. They have taken their case to Wall Street, where Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, the lead underwriters for the plants, have come under fire. They are telling the TXU story in Washington as Congress moves closer to setting mandatory caps on greenhouse-gas emissions.

"TXU is becoming the poster child for why we need mandatory federal legislation," says Jim Marston, who runs Environmental Defense's Texas operations.

Key Tax Bill for Renewables Moves Closer in US

08 December 2006

Key Tax Bill for Renewables Moves Closer to Vote Tax extensions promise to be an early Christmas present for the U.S. renewable energy industries.

by Stephen Lacey, Staff Writer Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The 109th Congress is poised to pass the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, a $40 billion tax bill that will extend key tax credits for the U.S. renewable energy industries until December 31, 2008.

"We were on fourth down and we just made a key conversion. Now we have another four downs to drive into the end zone."

-- Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association

The comprehensive bill will extend the investment tax credit, research and development tax credit, and credits for renewable energy bonds. Although the bill only extends these credits for another year, renewable energy advocates are hailing it as a major step forward for the wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydropower industries -- and could set up Congressional action for longer term extensions next year.

"This bill is a patch, and emphasizes the importance for Congress to enact long-term, comprehensive clean energy legislation when they return in January," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

Extensions of these credits will help eliminate the boom and bust cycle seen in many of the industries. If developers are unsure about the economic feasibility of a project, it may cause the project to be stalled for long periods of time, which has a negative impact on job growth and technological advancements.

"The wind industry is thrilled that Congress has taken this step to extend the tax credits," said Jaime Steve, Legislative Director of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). "This is all about keeping the wind industry at work and job stability for American workers."

Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), said this tax bill ensures the continued growth of the geothermal industry.

"The uncertainty that these tax credits would not be extended was already causing projects to be postponed or downsized. Now this means that a good number of those projects will clearly go forward," said Gawell. "For the next year or 18 months we are going to see a very active market. But after that it will start tailing off. That's why we need longer term extensions."

AWEA, SEIA, GEA and all the other renewable energy interest groups will be pushing the 110th Congress for long-term extensions in January when lawmakers return to Washington.

"We were on fourth down and we just made a key conversion. Now we have another four downs to drive into the end zone," said Resch.

The bill may not be passed until later tonight or this weekend, said Resch. The House leadership will take up the measure today and could vote on it by this evening. Then it goes on to the Senate where cloture procedures may be used to accelerate the process so the bill can be voted on.

Because there is so much in the bill, there has been intense debate in the House and Senate over certain provisions. But the pressure on lawmakers to pass tax legislation before the end of the 109th Congressional term makes it likely that the bill will make it to the President's desk by Sunday. Meanwhile, industry representatives and advocates look on, eager for the Tax Relief and Health Care Act to move forward.

Climate change slowly heats America's CSR agenda

Climate change slowly heats America's CSR agenda SDI,
28 November 2006

While North America's neo-conservative federal governments in Ottawa and Washington cannot grasp that providing environmental security is a fundamental responsibility of federal government, the raison d'être of federal governments is arguably being subsequently undermined at the sub-national level, both in Canadian provinces and US states, not to mention individual cities.

The need for urgent action on climate change is beginning to be reflected in the corporate world, albeit not in a uniform pattern.

In presenting material from his work, "Winning the Oil Endgame," Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute argued that the US can end its oil use by the 2040's. Logically, saving energy is cheaper than buying it and, as the 1970's illustrated, has no downward effect on GDP, quite the opposite in fact. According to Lovins, oil causes 42 per cent of all emissions and companies like Dupont are aiming to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 65 per cent of 1990 levels by as early as 2010. The business case is demonstrated by BP who made a $1 billion profit by 2002 through cutting emissions by 10 per cent of 1990 levels while the Swedish power company, Vattenfall, saw profits rise 54 per cent by making electricity 78 per cent more cost efficient.

In presenting a break-out session on climate change, Sue Hall posed the question of whether climate change can make markets restructure, particularly in light of the Stern Review Report which highlighted the fact that there may well be inadequate private capital to meet the costs of climate related catastrophes. In the aftermath of Katrina, the US government need to appropriate $28 billion for flood risks. Gary Guzy of Marsh, the insurance firm, remarked that insurers are withdrawing from property insurance in coastal areas. Consequently, Florida's largest insurer is the State Fund.

Responsibility for mitigating climate change has been well received by companies such as Sun Micro and UTC. John Mandyck of Carrier Corporation, a UTC company, cited that energy produces 85 per cent of all emissions and, in the US, the average home has increased in size by 60 per cent over the past fifteen years. This is an important consideration as 30 per cent of energy usage in the US is due to air-conditioning. Therefore, they are aiming to launch new goals to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in energy usage.

Dave Douglas at Sun estimated that IT "can wipe out all the climate gains made through having platinum star green buildings" as powering all the IT systems produces a billion tonnes of CO2 worldwide. This has prompted Sun to develop Ecoservers which, if certain "market issues" were addressed, would provide a benefit to consumers in terms of offsetting the reduction of their footprint.

Moreover at Sun they have moved toward having 46 per cent of their workforce as a virtual workforce, resulting in needing less actual office space saving, as a result, 30,000 tonnes of emissions reductions through not having to commute. This represents an emissions reduction of between 5 and 8 per cent. Also, they are seeking ways to offset the carbon problem which has been consequently externalised to the individual virtual worker.

Truman Semans of the Pew Centre stated that in assessing corporate activity on climate change, many companies were not transparent on the returns their emissions reductions programmes have brought. However, in asking companies to list the most effective strategies, energy conservation always comes out on top. In terms of the highest impact on a company's NPV (net present value), these are usually perceived as regulatory. Integrating climate into a broader sweep of business strategy therefore seems to make a valuable business case, especially if extended to value-chain partnerships and biofuels.

Yet, as Sun's Douglas stated, they are "being affected by regulatory uncertainty," especially when it comes to assessing environmental and climate regulations in deciding where is best to build as new factory.

On a global scale, as Semans concluded, the US needs to move from voluntary action as other big emitters such as India and China will do nothing unless the US adopts a binding position.

While much of the Western world considers its options, including nuclear energy, Amory Lovins pointed out that low-no carbon micropower added four times the level of nuclear power in 2005. Therefore, Dr Lovins was content to conclude that by a public policy that seems determined to distort information rather than support positive action, US Federal Energy Policy is the biggest threat to energy security. If companies like Wal-Mart can set the target for their entire truck fleet to be a quarter more efficient by 2007, and twice as efficient by 2010, then "what are we waiting for?" he asked.

The answer may well be "about 800 days" unless Barbara Boxer's appointment on the US Senate's Environment Committee yields a turn in fortunes.

10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists call on Congress to tackle global warming

More Than Half of EPA Workforce Represented (via Watthead)

[From Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility:]

In an unprecedented action, representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming, according to a petition released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The petition also calls for an end to censorship of agency scientists and other specialists on topics of climate change and the effects of air pollution.

The petition stresses that time is running out to prevent cataclysmic environmental changes induced by human-caused pollution and urges Congress to undertake prompt actions:
“If we wait, we will be committing the next generation of Americans to approximately double the current global warming concentrations, with the associated adverse impacts on human health and the environment.”
The filing of this petition coincides with today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on a case (Massachusetts v. EPA, Case No. 05-1120) brought by states seeking to force the Bush administration to regulate greenhouse gases that fuel global warming under the Clean Air Act [see previous post].

The petition signatories represent more than half of the total agency workforce. Addressed to the members of the Senate and House committees overseeing EPA, the petition argues that:

The Bush administration strategy of “using primarily voluntary and incentive-based programs” to reduce greenhouse gases is not working nor “has [this approach] been effectively carried out;”

EPA has abdicated its enforcement responsibilities by “failing to investigate coal-electric plants for technical options to control carbon;” and

“EPA’s scientists and engineers [must be able] to speak frankly and directly with Congress and the public regarding climate change, without fear of reprisal.”

“Professionals working for the Environmental Protection Agency are protesting being ordered to sit on the sidelines while we face the greatest environmental challenge of our generation,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the petition began among agency staff. “Under a new Congress, perhaps the scientists at EPA can begin to directly communicate with their true employers – the American public.”

The letter is signed by presidents of 22 locals of five unions: the American Federation of Government Employees, the Engineers and Scientists of California, the National Association of Government Employees, the National Association of Independent Labor, and the National Treasury Employees Union. These unions represent more than 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers and other technical specialists.

Royal Institute of British Architechts move on Contraction and Convergence

The recent RIBA conference sounds like a fairly dramatic affair. My previous post on climate change news noted that consensus was reached in the US on using project 2030 as a basis for climate mitigation.

Now we have Aubrey Meyer of GCI making the case for action, and the outgoing chari of the RIBA calling for the organisation to become a campaigning body!


"Aubrey Meyer, formerly a professional musician, started the talks with
a virtuoso performance that was simultaneously moving, terrifying and
informative.

He played the violin theme to Schindler’s List to images of the
environmental holocaust he went on to argue that we face.

It was a rallying cry for architects, having adopted “Contraction and
Convergence” (C&C) at RIBA Council . . . "

The outgoing RIBA chair then stated...

“Jack Pringle the outgoing Chairman of RIBA saw climate change as the
dominant agenda for the 21st Century.

He called for targets and endorsed “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C)
saying that market forces won’t work, calling instead for Government
action and for intervention in architecture, engineering and products.

He committed RIBA to becoming a more campaigning organisation.”

A full report on the day can be found here. To support sign this petition.

Global Warming Debuts on Supreme Court Docket

Global Warming Debuts on Supreme Court Docket
September 12, 2006
By Roddy Scheer

For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to
take up a case on global warming. This latest version of the lawsuit
(Massachusetts v. EPA) was filed by a coalition of states, cities and
environmental groups in an effort to force the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to set mandatory limits for greenhouse gases
emitted from automobiles. The first iteration of the lawsuit originated
in U.S. District Court back in the summer of 2003, but subsequent
conflicting judgments mean that its trip to the Supreme Court later
this year or in early 2007 will represent the case's third and final
opportunity to mandate car emissions limits.
At issue is whether the EPA is shirking its responsibility under the
Clean Air Act to protect Americans from dangerous amounts of emissions
that could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.” The crux of the issue, then, is whether EPA officials--and
now Supreme Court justices--consider carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases to be serious threats to the health and well-being of
Americans. Massachusetts and its long list of co-petitioners (see
below) cite hundreds of studies linking greenhouse gas emissions to
droughts and flooding throughout the U.S., as well as myriad other
impacts.

EPA lawyers counter that the health impacts of climate change are
uncertain and that there’s no way to differentiate between the effects
of human activity and natural climatic cycles. Meanwhile, the Bush
administration has refused to mandate any greenhouse gas emission curbs
due to the impact it would have on the U.S. economy.

Given the right-leaning nature of the Supreme Court these days,
environmentalists aren’t optimistic.

Blair and Schwarzenegger enter climate change pact.

Tony Blair has made a pact with Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that commits Britain to work with the US state to reduce greenhouse gases and develop energy efficient technologies.

The agreement between the prime minister and the governor follows a climate change meeting between the two men and leading businessmen in Long Beach yesterday as part of Mr Blair's tour of the US. Much more...The statement endorsed by both Mr Blair and Mr Schwarzenegger binds the UK and California to "urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote low carbon technologies".

"California and the UK recognise the links between climate change, energy security, human health and robust economic growth," the statement said.

"Working together, California and the UK commit to build upon current efforts, share experiences, find new solutions and work to educate the public on the need for aggressive action to address climate change and promote energy diversity."

A spokesman for Mr Blair said that both parties would consider whether they could co-operate on an emissions trading scheme, such as that recently adopted by the EU. He added that officials would even look at whether California could be included in the EU's own programme, under which companies trade the right to emit carbon dioxide using a permit system.

Commenting on the need to tackle global climate change, Mr Blair told business leaders, including BP chief Lord Browne and Virgin boss Richard Branson, that "the answers to this will come in the end by the development of the right science and technology".

"This is something that can't be done just by governments doing it," the prime minister added.

"We need a joint framework, we need it to incorporate all the main countries in the world and we need not just your commitment but also your expertise," he said

Mr Schwarzenegger, whose strong environmental agenda as Californian governor contrasts with that of US president George Bush, who refuses to sign the international Kyoto protocol on global warming, criticised the lack of leadership shown by the White House in tackling climate change.

"We see that there is not great leadership from the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment, so this is why we as a state move forward with it, because we want to show leadership," said Mr Schwarzenegger.

California has a population of 37 million, with a GDP comparable to leading world economies such as Italy and China.
-----------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- Britain and California are preparing to sidestep the Bush administration and fight global warming together by creating a joint market for greenhouse gases.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plan to lay the groundwork for a new trans-Atlantic market in carbon dioxide emissions, The Associated Press has learned. Such a move could help California cut carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists blame for warming the planet. President Bush has rejected the idea of ordering such cuts.

Blair and Schwarzenegger were expected to announce their collaboration Monday afternoon in Los Angeles, according to documents provided by British government officials on condition of anonymity because the announcement was forthcoming.

The aim is to fix a price on carbon pollution, an unwanted byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gasoline. The idea is to set overall caps for carbon and reward businesses that find a profitable way to minimize their carbon emissions, thereby encouraging new, greener technologies.

Monday's meeting was being hosted by Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, and Lord John Browne, chairman of British Petroleum. British and American business leaders planned to use it to also discuss other ways of accelerating use of low-carbon technologies.

In California, government officials disputed that the agreement was an attempt to sidestep the White House. In a conference call with reporters, state Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams said the agency is in "constant contact" with federal regulators, but added that there was no discussion with Washington about Monday's agreement, which involves only voluntary actions.

"This is an agreement to share ideas and information. It is not a treaty," said Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's communications director. "Right now, all we are doing is talking about sharing ideas."

The world's only mandatory carbon trading program is in Europe. Created in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that took effect last year, it caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in more than two dozen countries.

Companies can trade rights to pollute directly with each other or through exchanges located around Europe as long as the cap is met. Canada, one of more than 160 nations that signed Kyoto, plans a similar program.

Although the United States is one of the few industrialized nations that haven't signed the treaty, some Eastern states are developing a regional cap-and-trade program. And some U.S. companies have voluntarily agreed to cap their carbon pollution as part of a new Chicago-based market.

A main target of the agreement between Britain and California is the carbon from cars, trucks and other modes of transportation. Transportation accounts for an estimated 41 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and 28 percent of Britain's.

Schwarzenegger has called on California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. California was the 12th largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations.

Blair has called on Britain to reduce carbon emissions to 60 percent of its 1990 levels by 2050. Britain also has been looking at imposing individual limits on carbon pollution. People who accumulate unused carbon allowances - for example, by driving less, or switching to less-polluting vehicles - could sell them to people who exceed their allowances - for example by driving more.

Bush has resisted Blair's efforts to make carbon reduction a top international priority. After taking office, Bush reversed a 2000 campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, then withdrew U.S. support from the Kyoto treaty requiring industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels.

The United States is responsible for a quarter of the world's global warming pollution. Bush administration officials argue that requiring cuts in greenhouse gases would cost the U.S. economy 5 million jobs. Instead, the administration has poured billions of dollars into research aimed at slowing the growth of most greenhouse gases while advocating a global cut on one of them, methane.

Craig Noble of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the pact had symbolic value but "the time for talk is over." He urged passage of a proposal, pending in the state legislature, that would make California the first state in the nation to cap greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources.

"The bottom line is, voluntary is not enough," Noble said
-------------------------------------------

Messrs. Blair and Schwarzenegger are scheduled to exchange views with the CEOs in a round-table discussion today in Long Beach, Calif., on how to work together to accelerate the deployment of clean-energy technologies. The CEOs include Lord John Browne of BP PLC, London, whose facilities in Long Beach are being used to host the event, as well as Charles Holliday of DuPont Co., Jim Rogers of Duke Energy Corp. and Richard Branson of Virgin Group Ltd. CEOs from Edison International, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Swiss Reinsurance Co. and Timberland Co. also are scheduled to attend.

The event was organized by Climate Group, a nonprofit organization based in London. Most of the companies being represented, including BP and DuPont, have announced climate-change initiatives that include a commitment to reduce carbon emissions believed to cause global warming.

"This meeting just shows that climate change has moved to the top of the corporate agenda and the political agenda," said Steve Howard, CEO of Climate Group.

But President Bush's top environmental adviser, James Connaughton, won't attend, because of a scheduling conflict, said White House spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer.

Critics say Mr. Connaughton's absence follows an "obstructionist stance" by the White House on efforts to rein in emissions that many scientists say lead to global warming. The Bush administration pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement signed by Britain and most other developed countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Administration officials and their supporters have argued that the Kyoto accord would have hurt the U.S. economically, in part because developing countries weren't part of the agreement, so would have enjoyed a cost advantage. Some policy analysts also question how dire global warming is, as well as the role of humans in causing it. President Bush has instead pushed a strategy of seeking voluntary cutbacks, more research on climate and a push for new energy sources, such as hydrogen.

For Mr. Blair, climate change has been a top priority. When Mr. Blair was chairman of the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, last year, for example, he put the issue at the top of the agenda.

But Mr. Blair also is finding that cutting emissions isn't always easy. While he said the United Kingdom is on track to meet its Kyoto targets, he indicated earlier this year "we have work to do" to meet Britain's own goal of a 20% cut in emissions by 2010.

In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is likely to face resistance from auto makers and other business interests to his goal to reduce the state's emissions 25% by 2020. The Republican governor has run into political hurdles. The Democrat-controlled legislature killed a measure in 2004 to put solar panels on a million homes, though the California Public Utilities Commission went on to approve the program on its own.

NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets

In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists confirm climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouses of ice and snow.

"If the trends we're seeing continue and climate warming continues as predicted, the polar ice sheets could change dramatically," said survey lead author Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "The Greenland ice sheet could be facing an irreversible decline by the end of the century."

Other recent studies have shown increasing losses of ice in parts of these sheets. This new survey is the first to inventory the losses of ice and the addition of new snow on both in a consistent and comprehensive way throughout an entire decade.

The survey shows there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documented for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves, an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland and thinning at the edges. All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models.

The survey combines new satellite mapping of the height of the ice sheets from two European Space Agency satellites. It also used previous NASA airborne mapping of the edges of the Greenland ice sheets to determine how fast the thickness is changing. Researchers used nine years of elevation mapping over much of Antarctica and 10.5 years of data over Greenland from the European Remote-sensing Satellites 1 and 2. The survey pinpointed where the ice sheets were thinning and where they were growing.

In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.

According to Zwally, this situation may have changed in just the past few years. Last month NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., reported a speed up of ice flow into the sea from several Greenland glaciers. That study included observations through 2005; Zwally's survey concluded with 2002 data.

"The melting of ice at the edges of the ice sheet is also increasing, which causes the ice to flow faster," Zwally said. "A race is going on in Greenland between these competing forces of snow build-up in the interior and ice loss on the edges. But we don't know how long they will be approximately in balance with each other or if that balance has already tipped in favor of the recently accelerating outflow from glaciers."

The situation was very different in Antarctica. The ice sheets had a major net loss of ice due to outflow from West Antarctica. These losses, which may have been going on for decades, outweighed the gains in snow and ice seen in the East Antarctic ice sheet and parts of West Antarctica. Also thinning were the ice shelves around West Antarctica, where temperatures have been increasing. The floating ice shelves are vulnerable to climate change. Some ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula have totally disintegrated in recent years, allowing the ice from the land to move into the ocean faster.

When the scientists added up the gains and losses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The Greenland ice sheet annually gained approximately 11 billion tons of water, while Antarctica lost about 31 billion tons per year. The 20 billion net tons added to the oceans is equivalent to the amount of fresh water annually used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters (0.12 inches) a year," Zwally said. "Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from. Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue and help solve the mystery."

The survey was published this week in the Journal of Glaciology (www.igsoc.org). For more information about the research and images on the Web, visit:

AL GORE MAKES DRAMATIC PRESENTATION TO LONDON BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Former US Vice President Al Gore has expressed his belief that tackling climate change presents the global community with an opportunity to unite around a shared moral purpose. Mr Gore was addressing an audience of business leaders and opinion formers brought together by The Climate Group on the climate change crisis facing the planet.

At the start of his presentation, Mr Gore explained that in Chinese, the word crisis is represented by 2 characters, one meaning danger, one meaning opportunity. His dramatic multi-media presentation addressed both these in the context of global warming.

Images and animation of the earth from space, of glacial retreat and shattering ice, of projected sea level rise and the shut down of the gulf stream were beamed onto the vast screen of London’s Imax cinema as the former Vice President explained the indisputable correlation between C02 and rising temperatures.

But Mr Gore did not dwell simply on the impacts. He was clear that, as well as the economic opportunities associated with moving to a low carbon economy, action on this issue would present a much greater opportunity still – the chance to find a shared moral purpose. According to Mr Gore, “this is a rare opportunity that few generations experience. As we rise to the challenge of climate change the moral clarity and vision we develop will enable us to identify other problems masquerading as political problems that are in fact moral imperatives. The opportunity is there for us to transform the way we go about our lives.”

Mr Gore’s presentation was given to a select audience of opinion formers, business leaders and company representatives gathered together by The Climate Group. However, his message, and his mesmerising presentation, will soon be accessible on a much broader scale with the forthcoming release of the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

This film, a surprise hit at the Sundance Film Festival, intercuts the multimedia lecture with searching interview footage with the former Vice President. For more information on the movie and release dates click here.

California Bill Calls for Cuts in Emissions

California may become the first state to impose limits on the emissions of all greenhouse gases, under legislation introduced yesterday in the State Assembly.

The bill requires that emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming be reduced by 145 million tons, or 25 percent less than the current forecast, by 2020. That would bring the emissions back to the 1990 level.

The gases in question are produced when fossil fuels are burned, whether in motor vehicles, power plants or other industrial facilities. Many scientists have linked the growing concentration of these gases in the atmosphere to an observed increase in surface temperatures.
The bill, which was introduced by the Assembly speaker, Fabian Núñez, Democrat of Los Angeles, also requires the California Air Resources Board to set up a mandatory emissions reporting and tracking system to ensure compliance with the limits, which many of the state's business leaders have opposed.

The legislation could have more than a statewide impact, because California has traditionally led the nation in pollution-control efforts. Standards and rules established by the air control board have often been emulated by other states.

"As California goes, so goes the rest of the world," said Fran Pavley, a Democratic Assembly member and a co-sponsor of the bill. "As California leads and innovates, we believe that Congress and other states will also implement economywide clean energy standards."
The sponsors of the bill said its emissions limits were in line with goals established last summer by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, in an executive order.

"The speaker said this bill was his top legislative priority this year," said Craig Noble, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that is supporting the bill. "The governor has said he wants to reduce emissions. That means we have a very good chance of getting a first law in the nation to set statewide limits on emissions."
That could mean a greater reliance on solar and wind-generated energy. Mr. Schwarzenegger also has been promoting the use of hydrogen as an automotive fuel.