A major carbon accounting flaw in EU legislation whereby biofuels used in transport and biomass used for power generation are counted as ‘zero emissions’ will have “immense” consequences for the environment. This is the key finding of a report published by the Scientific Committee of the European Environment Agency, a top EU advisory body.

The report warns that counting biofuels and biomass as ‘zero emissions’ is wrong because it ignores the emissions that come when the fuels are burned, assuming that this impact is automatically offset when new plants grow. In many cases these emissions will not be offset because increased demand for land for bioenergy will just displace emissions elsewhere.

The report goes on to say that “if bioenergy could or should provide 20% to 50% of the world’s energy needs in coming decade…doing so would require doubling or tripling the total amount of plant material currently harvested from the planet’s land.” Such an increase would have devastating environmental consequences.

The report follows the similar findings of a study published in June last year by three environmental organisations, BirdLife Europe, EEB, and T&E. The organisations have repeatedly called for an end to so-called ‘zero counting’ of bioenergy emissions, including those from biofuels production.

The EU is currently reviewing one of the accounting flaws linked to its mandatory renewable energy target for transport, which will mostly come from a switch to biofuels. Currently so-called EU ‘sustainability criteria’ fail to account for the central question of indirect impacts on land use and emissions (Indirect land use change or ILUC). ILUC occurs when biofuel crops replace food crops. The land needed to grow the missing food is displaced, often to the developing world. This in turn causes rainforests and other sensitive eco-systems to be destroyed to grow food, causing a massive release of emissions.

Many EU countries are scaling up on biomass for heat and power, and biofuels for transport to meet mandatory European renewable targets. The report shows that continuing with today’s flawed carbon accounting would lead to an increase rather than a decrease of emissions in the real world.

Biomass and biofuels receive generous subsidies and tax breaks across Europe, leaving the EU faced with the prospect of an ‘environmental’ measure causing disastrous consequences, and largely funded by the taxpayer.

Ariel Brunner, Head of EU policy of BirdLife Europe said: “The EU has been basing its entire bioenergy policy on fake carbon accounting; the result is a sub-prime bioenergy mortgage that will never be paid off unless the EU changes course immediately.”

Faustine Defossez of the European Environmental Bureau said: “This study should be taken as a wake up call to start bringing out some badly needed policy adjustments: it is now clear that the increase in harvesting of plant material for energy purposes, foreseen under the Renewable Directive, will have serious negative environmental, including climate impacts”

Nusa Urbancic of Transport & Environment said: “The European Commission has been sitting on its hands for almost three years figuring out what to do about the indirect effects of biofuels. Every serious scientific body that has studied the issue says action is needed, the EEA is the latest in a long line. The EU should waste no more time coming forward with a proposal to fix this massive accounting hole. It’s important not just for the environment but also for the biofuels industry in Europe, which has frozen most of its investments, until it knows what the future rules are going to be.”

Read full report here.

One of the two reactors at Romania’s nuclear power plant in Cernavoda will be shut down on September 16, for maximum two days, for repairs of an equipment malfunction.

“There are no safety issues, and the malfunction is not related to the drought,” sources declared for Mediafax.

The state-owned nuclear power plant currently runs on two of its five designed reactors, providing some 18% of Romania’s electricity consumption.

The plant uses water from the Danube to cool its reactors. High temperatures seen lately have caused water levels on the Danube to decrease. However, the plant’s operator, Nuclearelectrica, said the low water levels do not entail the need to shut down reactors at this time.

Marco Onida, Secretary General of the Alpine Convention, interviewed for 2Celsius Network by Raul Cazan

The Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention organized from 4th to 12th July 2011 the fifth edition of SuperAlp!, the sustainable crossing of the Alps.

For the fifth year SuperAlp! linked different territories, issues and cultures aiming at improving the knowledge of the Alpine Convention, that recognizes the Alps as a whole and unique territory.

A group of journalists belonging to world’s top publications (and 2Celsius Network was among them) crossed the Alpine arc for 10 days using sustainable means of transport and trying out the various links that make up the chain of alternative mobility to private cars. The group traveled from France to Italy across Switzerland and Austria by train, bicycle and on foot.

The 2011 edition let participants discover the conditions of alpine glaciers, one of the most evident indicators of the effects of climate change. It also intends to make this crossing an occasion to communicate the Alpine Convention and its Protocols as tools for the sustainable development of the Alpine region, easily transferable also to other mountain regions of the world.

What is SuperAlp and why did you organize it?

SuperAlp is a project of the Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention that has two main aims. The first aim is to bring the Alpine Convention to the territory. The Alpine Convention is a treaty, which entangles alpine territory, but the territory not always knows this. The second aim is through this long journey of journalists we talk about the Alps, we determine journalists to write about the Alps and we raise awareness on critical topics such as sustainability in the Alps. SuperAlp is made with public and sustainable means of transport and fueled with local food, as to show that it is possible to travel like that.

What was the theme this year, 2011?

This year we have chosen glaciers as a theme. We are particularly interested in climate change. It has extreme effects on the Alps; the average increase in temperature in the Alps is higher than the average increase in other areas of the Northern Hemisphere, we had 2 centigrade increase in the Alps (within the last two decades, n.n.), the effects are very visible and, most of all, very expensive. One of the most visible effects is the retreat of glaciers. We chose 5 glaciers in the Alps and we crossed them all in order to see with our eyes what the situation is and to talk to knowledgeable people, glaciologists, experts that have been living here for the last 50-60 years and that are able to explain what is the situation’s evolution, what is the speed of the retreat, what are the problems associated to this retreat and so on.

Journalists on Breithorn (4165m)

On what criteria did you choose the journalists?

We published an open call for interest on the internet to which some journalists replied and some were contacted directly. We have actually been quite selective this time because we wanted journalists whom were not only to hike on mountains with ice axe and crampons, but that are very motivated because in days like today we were walking seven hours and it is not the only day we were hiking that long.

Do you see any similarities between the Alpine Convention and the Carpathian Convention?

The principles are pretty much the same, which means cooperation to solve common problems and to better exploit the common opportunities. The reality, however, is quite different. The Carpathian area is much bigger than the Alps, it is much wilder than the Alps, nature is still to a certain extent unspoiled, it is not that much tourist friendly as the Alps, problems are different. The Carpathian Convention was signed in 2003 that is it is still much younger. It is difficult to compare the two, I would say, from the point of view of the philosophies they are pretty much the same although there are objective differences due to the physical differences of the countries which are associated to the Carpathian Convention. There are not always easy relations with Ukraine, which is member of the Carpathian Convention. I mean political relations are good, but cooperation on the territory requires long-standing trans-border cooperation, which is not part of every day life between Romania, Poland and Ukraine. So the idea is pretty much the same, yes.

It is pretty much the same even when considering the whole geographic area because they belong to the very same orogeny, Carpathians, Alps, Pyrenees…

Yes, exactly. They are the mountains of Europe, basically and they are pretty much neglected from the political perspective, neglected by the European policies, the interests of people in the mountains are not being always considered and this is why it is very important to have these conventions because they can also jointly do lobbying in Brussels to have better consideration of mountain dimension. We often do this with the Carpathian people.

Three years ago I had the great joy to join you in SuperAlp 2. The theme of that project was mountain communities and mountain agriculture. What happened after? Any follow up?

Well, changes in the Alps take ages like everywhere in society. So I would say that we are experiencing pretty much the same situation, we see the same problems with public transport not being enough developed. What we see as a weakness is a little less awareness related to the existence of the Alpine Convention because in the last three years we were working intensively, but in the Alps the situation is quite unchanged. To a certain extent it is actually worsened. And that is on two dimensions. Climate change and tourism. We are going towards a quite dangerous direction with mass tourism in the mountains and not realizing that this is not going to be sustainable.

Why not?

First of all, there is too much focus on winter tourism, on skiing. Ski resorts are investing to get more slopes and ski lifts, but there is less snow and less people mainly due to a greater competition. Today people also want to have quieter holidays even off-season, so there should be a diversification of tourism offers that take place only in some resorts, alpinism villages that we visited in Austria. This is an interesting development, but there are still places where mass winter tourism is considered to be a must and this is harming the environment. But I should say that this is also harming the economy because it makes no sense to have for two months people coming from all over Europe, locals to work there and then, for he rest of the year – mere unemployment.

So do you think that initiatives such as SuperAlp can be applicable to the Carpathians – a SuperCarpatica?

Well, that would be a dream. Distances in the Carpathians are much bigger, probably the development of public transport in mountain areas of the Carpathians is still at an early stage. And also, I would say, probably the political consideration of mountains in areas of the Carpathian countries is not yet the same as here. In the Alps we have a stronger environmental pressure, mass tourism, massive transport transit, loss of mountain agriculture. In the Carpathians, after the political changes in Europe and the accession of many Carpathian countries to the European Union, problems are rather… quite others. But it is very good to have this cooperation because we want to anticipate problems. So the Carpathians can find themselves in the very situation in which the Alps were 20 years ago; so we can anticipate and better deal with these problems. Soon, the Tatras can be in the very same situation in which the Alps are today. We should take care of that.

Can we go back to mountain communities? I know last year you had as theme in SuperAlp food and gastronomy. The funny thing is that in Romania most of the traditional food – or what we generally call slow food nowadays – is coming from the mountain areas. That means there is a lot of added value to food comes from the mountains. How did you tackle that?

This is very important, yes. Last year we had Slow Food as a partner of SuperAlp, we visited the headquarters of Slow Food and its university of gastronomic sciences in Polenzo (Piedmont, Italy), and across our journeys we stopped in places where we almost always had local products. It is quite clear that there is a strong demand for that. Particularly in times of globalization and health problems associated to urbanization or hysteria such the latest e-Coli, if one eats mountain food nothing happens to him or her. Now having this food in mountain areas is good, it creates new opportunities and money. But it requires also a lot of investment in order for the products to reach the cities, which is not always easy – also because of the low quantities in which food is produced. But I think this a very important development and that is why we concentrated SuperAlp on that and it should be a focus of the Carpathian countries as well.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity can be competitive with grid electricity in some European markets as early as 2013, and in all market segments across the continent by 2020, according to a new study by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA).

PV technology has shown impressive price reductions over the last 20 years, with the price of PV modules decreasing by over 20% every time the cumulative sold volume of PV modules has doubled. Importantly, there is a huge potential for further generation cost decline: around 50% until 2020. The new EPIA report compares the real cost of PV electricity generation to that of other energy sources over the coming decade, and finds that under the right conditions PV can be competitive across Europe by 2020.

“Already today, PV electricity is cheaper than many people think,” said EPIA President Ingmar Wilhelm. “In the coming years it is going to get even cheaper thanks to ever-improving technology and economies of scale. As also the price of electricity from conventional sources increases, solar PV will be become a fully competitive part of the energy mix.”

EPIA’s extensive analysis of 5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom), carried out with the support of the strategic consulting firm A.T. Kearney, shines new light on the evolution of Europe’s future energy mix and PV’s role in it. It shows that under the right regulatory and market conditions, PV electricity can reach full competitiveness with conventional power sources across Europe by the end of this decade.

By determining the full generation cost of PV electricity and comparing it to market trends over the coming decade, the study reaches the following conclusions:

Dynamic grid parity – the point at which, in a particular market segment in a specific country, the present value of the long-term electricity revenues from a PV installation equals the long-term cost of receiving traditionally produced and supplied power over the grid – could occur as early as 2013 in the commercial segment in Italy and then spread out in Europe to reach all types of installations considered in all the selected countries by 2020.
Generation value competitiveness – the point at which, in a specific country, adding PV to the generation portfolio becomes equally attractive from an investor’s point of view to investing in a traditional and normally fossil-fuel based technology – could be reached as early as 2014 in the ground-mounted segment in Italy and then spread out in Europe to all the selected countries by 2020.

Achieving PV competitiveness across Europe will, however, require political commitment to regulatory frameworks that support development of the technology and removal of market distortions. The smart deployment of support mechanisms, such as Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs), has helped PV gain a market foothold in many countries of the world, compensating for the difference in cost competitiveness between PV electricity and that of conventional sources. As that competitiveness gap narrows for the PV sector, due to technology development and parallel decrease of generation cost, PV will be able to rely progressively less on dedicated financial support, leading to the phasing out of such support schemes. This will happen even quicker if internalisation of external effects is implemented for all technologies and subsidies to other energy sources are also phased out, leading to a truly level playing field.

Renewable energy sources, including PV, will be essential to achieving Europe’s important goals of reducing greenhouse gases and guaranteeing the security of a safe and local energy supply. Encouraging PV development will also play a major role in the EU effort to create a smart, sustainable economy for the future – one in which high-tech innovation creates jobs and social cohesion. But an appropriate regulatory framework and favourable market conditions will be needed to ensure that PV can roll-out its full and increasingly promising potential in our future energy mix.

“Switching to solar photovoltaic electricity is not just a desirable option for achieving our energy and environmental goals,” said Mr. Wilhelm, “it is also a realistic and competitive one. By creating the right conditions now for the development of PV, we can ensure that it fulfils its promise as a clean, safe and infinitely renewable energy source and a major part of Europe’s energy mix.”

The full study “Solar Photovoltaics Competing in the Energy Sector – On The Road to Competitiveness” is being released on 5 September 2011 in Hamburg, at the 8th EU PV Industry Summit, part of the 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (26th EU PVSEC). It is also available for download on the EPIA website.

Members of the technology executive committee created under the United Nations climate change convention to facilitate the use of technology to support mitigation and adaptation to climate change concluded their first meeting on September 3rd, saying they had made important progress on issues discussed, reads a UN communique’.

Meeting in Bonn, members of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC), the policy arm of the convention’s Technology Mechanism, deliberated on how the TEC will provide technology needs, assess policy and technical issues related to technology development and transfer.

The three-day meeting also discussed sharing information on new and innovative technologies, facilitating action on technology and ways to engage stakeholders to

build the momentum on the Technology Mechanism.

“This is very good progress,” said Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “The goal of the Technology Mechanism can only be achieved through a wider and deeper collaboration among all countries with the active engagement of relevant stakeholders, including the research

community, academia and, importantly, the private sector,” she said.

The TEC also discussed ways of engaging a wide range of stakeholders at international, regional and national level, including public institutions, the business community, academia and NGOs in conducting its work.

The Committee identified options for the engagement of stakeholders, including through participation in the TEC meetings as observers or expert advisers, where applicable.

“This means that there are opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the work of the Committee and stakeholders will be informed [on] how to engage in time for the next steps on the road to a functional Technology Mechanism in 2012,” said Ms. Figueres.

The TEC members unanimously elected Gabriel Blanco of Argentina as

chair and Antonio Pflueger of Germany as his deputy and gave them the mandate to collaborate closely in chairing the meetings and carrying out the committee’s work to ensure coherence between the meetings.

The meeting also set up its housekeeping system, which details the procedures the TEC will adhere to in its work.

As the policy arm of the Technology Mechanism, the TEC has the key responsibility of laying the groundwork for making the mechanism fully operational.

The Technology Mechanism was established at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun in December last year as part of a set of institutions created to protect vulnerable societies from climate change and to use funds and technology to help developing countries plan and build their own sustainable futures.