We would like to invite you to contribute a written online comment in our Comment:Visions discussion on ‘Emissions Trading’.

To pre-submit a comment, click here to register or e-mail me at robert@commentvisions.com.

Comment:Visions was born out of a partnership between the global channel euronews, and the Economist-owned newspaper, European Voice, in association with Shell. This project explores the views of thinkers, innovators, decision-makers, and scientists about possible solutions to global warming, overpopulation and dwindling resources.

In addition to the online community, Comment:Visions produces and broadcasts a series of programmes, and hosts face-to-face debates in Brussels, which usually take place in the European Parliament. All of this activity is also hosted on www.commentvisions.com.

Coming up on the website, we are discussing the following question: Is Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme effective?

Moreover, contributing is a positive way to share your message amongst an influential online community in the industry, policy, and research of energy and environment.

Let me know if you are interested in participating in this opinion-leader discussion and I’ll contact you with further information.

Yours Sincerely,

Robert Zlokower
Community Manager, Comment:Visions

+44 20 3355 8060 ext. 101

robert@commentvisions.com

The European Union’s fuel quality directive, which was agreed in 2009, requires oil companies operating in Europe to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions of their products by 6% between 2010 and 2020. The EU was supposed to adopt emission footprint values for all types of fossil fuels by 1 January 2011. But this technical decision has been postponed repeatedly.
The European Commission is considering whether to assign a higher emission footprint value to oil sands because of the energy-intensive techniques used in the extraction process.

Environment groups are opposed to production of oil from oil sands on the grounds that extraction takes place in untouched forest areas and can produce considerable amounts of toxic waste. They also argue that putting oil sands on an equal footing with conventional oil would send out a wrong signal about the EU’s commitment to de-carbonising its economy, and would encourage the exploitation of oil sands in other parts of the world, which are less democratic and regulated, instead of encouraging the world towards the use of cleaner energy sources.

The Canadian government and European energy companies investing in oil sands point out that CO2 emissions from oil-sands production have been reduced by nearly 40% since the 1990s. They argue that the carbon intensity of oil sands, taken along the entire production chain, is within the same range or lower than other crude oils and that technological innovation can deliver further reductions.

As worldwide oil-sands reserves are equivalent to more than twice the current reserves of conventional oil, the stakes are high. EU member states appear undecided. The European Commission is still pondering its final decision, and independent studies diverge on the actual carbon footprint of oil sands.

Is it justified for the EU to adopt specific measures on the oil sands? How should other high carbon crudes be treated? What is the actual carbon footprint of oil sands? How does this compare to other fossil fuels? Can technology help to mitigate it? What about other environmental impacts of oil sands development? How compatible is it with EU climate change policy? Would an EU decision to penalise oil sands affect the world’s use of fossil fuels?

—————————————————————————-

Timing

18.00-18.30 Welcome of participants and registration

18.30-18.35 Introduction of participants by Simon Taylor, news editor, European Voice

18.35-19.05 Panel discussion

- Satu Hassi MEP, co-ordinator for the greens in the environment committee, European Parliament

- Jeanette Patell, second secretary, economic and trade policy, Mission of Canada to the European Union

- Samantha Gross, director, integrated research, IHS CERA

- Nuša Urbančič, policy officer, fuels and electrification, Transport & Environment

- Pierre Noël, senior research associate, Cambridge University

19.05-19.55 Debate (audience participation strongly encouraged)

19.55-20.00 Conclusions by John Abbott, senior vice-president heavy oil, Shell

20.00 Networking reception

—————————————————————————-

Location

Museum of Natural Sciences
Rue Vautier 29
B-1000 Brussels

To pick up the story, I sold my large Germanic autobahn-basher and followed the big trend in automotive design – downsizing. I’ve bought a sport little number from a large Italian producer – not difficult to guess who that is – and already I am gaining efficiency. The old car, which had four doors and a big boot, weighed nearly 1,800kilos, and the new one, which also has four doors but a far smaller boot, weights 975kg. It’s no Lotus, but it’s certainly packing a far smaller footprint, and that has a corresponding effect on fuel economy however hard I drive it.

So, on to the bioethanol part. The small, black box that I bought for nearly 400 euros plugs into the car’s onboard computer port and after about one minute of blinking lights it is ready to go. The box stays plugged in, and so the makers claim, allows a better calculation of the fuel feed to the engine, making life in the E85 lane a possibility. In all other ways the engine is a regular petrol one. Running one of those on nothing but E85 does tend to starve the engine a little, but the smart little box hopefully removes that worry. Nearly 400 euros is a lot to spend, but at 85 euro cents a litre and with at least 50% saving in carbon emissions I think it should begin to pay for itself quite soon, while also giving me a little green feelgood factor into the bargain. As for the car, it runs just fine, fuel economy is a little down, but overall there’s really nothing to it. How bioethanol may impact the engine long-term is an open question – if there are any problems I’ll be blogging about it right away.

Finally a look ahead: Next month’s programme is all about biofuels, and I will have my chance to see how sugar beet is turned into bioethanol for myself very soon, as well as how production of advanced second-generation biofuels is racing ahead.

The European Commission published its new transport white paper, a strategic document that sets the tone of EU transport policy for the next decade. The main stated objective of the white paper is to make transport more sustainable, from an economic, social and environmental point of view.

Over the past decade, the environmental dimension of transport policy has grown in importance, as climate change mitigation has risen to the forefront of EU priorities.

Transport accounts for 27% of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, a share that is set to grow. If current trends are left unchecked, growth in transport emissions could even offset reductions achieved in other sectors. If the EU is to de-carbonise its economy by 2050, this issue will have to be addressed.

Commissioner Kallas recently stated that the Commission would probably aim at a reduction of GHG emissions from 50% to 70% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, by halving Europe’s transport sector’s reliance on oil. Linked objectives include a pledge to fully de-carbonise urban mobility, a shift of most long-distance inland freight to rail and inland waterways, and a shift of most medium-distance passenger transport to these same modes.

To achieve this, the Commission is betting heavily on technologies, with the hope that a shift to greener and smarter transport will help to establish a competitive low-carbon economy, deliver green jobs and change users’ habits.

Beyond research and development, the deployment of new technologies will depend on political will and financial resources. With investment in transport infrastructures at an all-time low, and in a context of shrinking public resources, how can this be achieved? Is the private sector ready to step in? Are national governments ready to commit? Will citizens follow?

Comment:Visions convened a high level panel of experts to debate the future of European tranport.

Background

The European Commission is in the process of finalising its new transport white paper, a strategic document that will set the tone of EU transport policy for a decade. The main stated objective of the white paper is to make transport more sustainable, from an economic, social and environmental point of view.

Over the past decade, the environmental dimension of transport policy has grown in importance, as climate change mitigation has risen to the forefront of EU priorities.

Transport accounts for 27% of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, a share that is set to grow. If current trends are left unchecked, growth in transport emissions could even offset reductions achieved in other sectors. If the EU is to de-carbonise its economy by 2050, this issue will have to be addressed.

Commissioner Kallas recently stated that the Commission would probably aim at a reduction of GHG emissions from 50% to 70% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, by halving Europe’s transport sector’s reliance on oil. Linked objectives should include a pledge to fully de-carbonise urban mobility, a shift of most long-distance inland freight to rail and inland waterways, and a shift of most medium-distance passenger transport to these same modes.

To achieve this, the Commission is betting heavily on technologies, with the hope that a shift to greener and smarter transport will help to establish a competitive low-carbon economy, deliver green jobs and change users’ habits.

Beyond research and development, the deployment of new technologies will depend on political will and financial resources. With investment in transport infrastructures at an all-time low, and in a context of shrinking public resources, how can this be achieved? Is the private sector ready to step in? Are national governments ready to commit? Will citizens follow?

Comment:Visions invites you to debate these issues with a panel of high-level decision makers and experts.

Provisional Timing

18.00-18.30 Welcome of participants and registration

18.30-18.35 Introduction of participants by Jennifer Rankin, energy and environment reporter, European Voice

18.35-19.05 Panel discussion

- Gesine Meissner, MEP, ALDE co-ordinator in the transport committee, European Parliament

- Keir Fitch, deputy head of cabinet of Siim Kallas, vice-president in charge of transport, European Commission – responsible for the white paper within the cabinet

- Martin Rocholl, policy director & programme director, transport, European Climate Foundation

- Richard Aumayer,  director, central division external affairs, governmental and political relations,  Robert Bosch GmbH

19.05-19.55 Debate (audience participation strongly encouraged)

19.55-20.00 Conclusions by Mark Gainsborough, executive vice-president strategy, portfolio & alternative energy, Shell

20.00 Networking reception

There is value in waste

Yesterday’s trash could be tomorrow’s energy solution, according to industry leaders and experts at a London conference last month. Thirty-six speakers analysed the waste market, uncertain funding and policymaking at the 7th Annual Waste Management Finance Forum from 19-20 January 2011.

The event, hosted by Euromoney Energy Events included:

• The current situation of the EU waste market
• The placement of waste in future energy strategies
• The relationship for waste with the energy sector
• The viability of new technologies

Dave Farebrother, Environmental Director for Land Securities, the UK’s largest commercial property company, spoke about his strategies to help retailers reduce their carbon emissions and energy costs. He said relevant and achievable targets for London offices and shopping centers managed to double their recycling rates. One way was to encourage them in competing with each other on recycling league tables and being able to win ten Pound trophies. This shows that policy makers and business leaders can influence the public’s behavior, he said.

Margaret Doherty, Programme Director of European Pathway to Zero Waste talked about waste as an asset. Giving examples of rubber material and ash being used for concrete blocks or the London Borough of Richmond on Thames council using waste cooking oil as bio-diesel, she emphasized: “There is a lot of value in waste.”

Stuart Hayward-Higham, Technical Director of the recycling and resource management company SITA UK, demanded a society where materials are reused, recycled or recovered for their energy content. He insisted: “I want the word waste to be removed.” EBay is a great example for the public to take part in a re-use scheme, he highlighted.

Allan Barton, Director of Recources and Waste Management at Arup, assessed the viability of new technologies in the waste sector. Incineration, a waste to energy technology is “the cheapest solution” to reduce waste, he said.

Dr. Tim Rotheray, Policy Manager of the Combined Heat and Power Association was discussing how waste Combined Heat and Power (CHP) will factor in to the Renewable Heat Incentive. He stated that Energy from Waste (EfW) is a way to the future, but demanded significant changes in understanding the role of EfW past 2020. “EfW offers values for both- decarbonisation and renewable energy if you link CHP with district heating”, Rotheray said.

Participants agreed – a significant change in policymaking and better investments must happen in the UK waste management sector to ensure a more sustainable future.

- Monika Thomasberger

Which low carbon technologies for buildings work best? Professor Tony Day runs through the systems at CEREB and how they perform

What are the emerging opportunities for energy generation in London? Professor Godfrey Boyle discusses the potential for wind power around the UK coastline.

The way we live our lives is changing, so how does that impact the way we use transport? Professor Stephen Potter explains how lifestyle patterns are having an impact on transport models.

How can we?
There are various technologies already in use to capture the CO2, however implementing CCS on a global scale presents significant challenges in its own right.

Speeding up installation, reducing cost, creating an effective transport infrastructure and overcoming community resistance to local storage facilities are all priorities that need to be addressed.

If adoption of Carbon Capture and Storage is urgent, then why isn’t it happening faster?