For anyone with a ‘green heart’ there was plenty of good news on the front page of the China Daily this morning, an English-language newspaper read by a myriad of expatriates and, especially during the Olympics, tens of thousands of journalists from around the world.
 
“Tax on big cars raised to save fuel,” read the page one headline over a story about the Chinese government’s laudable decision to double the “consumption tax” on heavy cars with engines larger than 4 litres to 40 percent while slashing the tax on cars with engines smaller than 1 litre to 1 percent from 3 percent.
 
In Germany, where I live, the government has been talking about moves like that for about two years now with a tortured drawn-out debate. In China — poof! — it’s decided and done.
 
Another bit of good news at the bottom of page one caught my eye as well and made me wish more European countries had this kind of foresight: “Cut in public transport fare to stay” read the headline over a story about plans to permanently extend a steep cut in metro fares to 2 yuan (30 U.S. cents) from 3 yuan previously.

The fares on the city’s amazingly clean and efficient metro were “temporarily” lowered in October to cut pollution and promote mass transit — that simple act raised the percentage of commuters who use mass transit to 45 percent from 35 percent and took cars off the roads.  
 
In Germany and elsewhere, the public transportation fares go in only one direction — up. 

China obviously has a lot of greenhouse gas issues to resolve, but it’s nevertheless encouraging to see truly aggressive measures like those to punish the fat-cat cars and offer incentives to users of public transport.

Can other countries learn from China?

(Erik Kirschbaum, a Reuters correspondent based in Berlin, is on assignment in Beijing)
 
 

It was a bright sunny morning with hardly a cloud in the sky as our plane from Europe sped across Northwest China.  The skies were blue and the  visibility so great from 10,000 metres up that you could spot houses, huts, trails and even fences on the desert ground below.
 
But about 30 minutes before landing in Beijing, the earth gradually disappeared beneath a thickening blanket of greenish-yellowish-brownish haze. Clouds? Smog? Who can say for sure?
 
It reminded me of the unnatural colours of the smog that used to plague Los Angeles decades ago before catalytic converters became mandatory equipment on cars and California authorities took other tough steps to tackle the air pollution problem.

And these are supposed to be the “Green Games”? If Beijing is unlucky, they may be remembered as the ”Grey Games” instead.
 
“It used to be a lot worse here,” a flight attendant tells me helpfully after we land in Beijing, a city that only became visible through the haze about 5 minutes before we touched down. “Ten or 12 years ago the tissue would turn black if you coughed or sneezed into one. It’s much better now.”
 
That was encouraging. Sort of. Yet it is still a shock when you step outside the splendid airport terminal and take your first breath of Beijing air.

It’s a strange if faint smell of something burning that fills your nose and senses. You’re not sure you want to open your mouth let alone take a deep breath. It’s not so bad that you feel a need to strap on a gas mask. But it’s bad enough to make you wonder — can this possibly be healthy for people who live here? How is anyone going to run a marathon here?
 
And is this a glimpse of the world’s future? Will the whole planet look and smell like this after another 100 years of burning fossil fuels?
 
(( Erik Kirschbaum, a self-confessed fresh-air fanatic, is a Reuters correspondent based in Berlin on assignment in Beijing.))
 

 Are gasoline and energy prices too high? What’s high enough? 

It may be a distinct miniority opinion, but if you were to ask me, I’d say I think they’re not high enough — and I sincerely hope they keep rising. It may be the only way the world wakes up to the perils of climate change — hitting people in their pocketbooks where it hurts most.
 
The higher energy costs are truly a blessing in disguise for anyone concerned about climate change and worried about the inability of world leaders to take any tough measures to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With the growing scientific evidence that global warming has been happening, there’s no excuse for this generation’s inaction.

And with the WTO talks ending in abject failure, who could possibly be optimistic about the world ever agreeing on taking the costly, pain-inducing steps necessary to at least slow global warming in our time?
 
So it is the soaring energy prices are filling the void the cowardly political leaders have left. Rising prices for petrol, natural gas and electricity are causing pain and leading to conservation — and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide It’s a good thing.

 Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, pointed out in his excellent book “The Age of Turbulence” that as honourable as the fight against climate change was, he didn’t think there would be any significant reductions until economics figured into the equation. “I fear that a more likely response to global warming will be to quibble until the dangers it poses to national economies become more apparent,” Greenspan wrote. He was criticised by some for that but those “dangers” to economies are now now happening faster than anyone could have imagined. And it’s a good thing.
 
Those who don’t see the light need to feel the heat. The finance minister in Berlin, Thilo Sarazzin, has been criticised this week for his suggestion that people turn down their thermostats and put on sweaters in the winter if they feel cold in their apartments. He said room temperatures of 15 or 16 degrees — with a sweater on — would be the best answer to rising energy prices rather than introducing a new government energy subsidy for low-income households as some other political leaders were clamouring for. Sarazzin has been getting bashed in the German media for his suggestion — but he’s right.   
 
In Britain, the announcement this week that natural gas and electricity prices would be raised sharply in the months ahead got a lot of people upset. But what better way to promote conservation and spur the development of renewable energy — which becomes increasingly attractive with every increase in the price of fossil fuels. In the United States, by far the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, fuel tax revenues are down sharply this year — because people are using less fuel. That’s a good thing.
 
Unfortunately, I’m not sure if the prices are high enough yet to really make a difference. A recent German news broadcast found several motorists who said the higher fuel prices would not change their driving habits and they said they hoped the higher prices would nevertheless force other drivers off the road so the streets would be less congested. So I do hope they keep rising — to the point those smug motorists will think twice about their driving patterns.
 
My personal answer to rising prices? I’m driving a lot less (one 60 litre tank now lasts six weeks instead of three weeks about two years ago), I use wood rather than natural gas for heat as much as possible, have taken a number of energy-saving measures on my house, commute by bicycle and have converted my monthly electric bill into a monthly windfall profit with the help of solar panels. I’m unfortunately still far from zero emissions. But that’s the goal — and an increasingly rewarding one.
 
So no, if you ask me, energy prices are not high enough. And I hope they keep rising.

…What do you think? 
 

It took Barack Obama a mere nine minutes into his first speech in Europe to tackle the issue of climate change — and end eight years of frustration about U.S. foot-dragging on global warming by the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases.

The U.S. presidential candidate got right to the point in Berlin when he said climate change is a threat to the future of the world. He said it was vital for nations to work together with a spirit of unity similar to the one that brought down the Berlin Wall 19 years ago.

It was all music to the ears of the 200,000 spectators in Berlin after hearing the years of doubts about global warming and then resistance to any meaningful agreement on cutting emissions from George W. Bush and his administration — and the cheers for his lines about fighting climate change in a country where angst about that topic runs high were among the loudest on the warm summer evening.

“The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope,” Obama said. “But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers — dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.”

Obama, who has in the past gone out of his way to praise Germany’s pioneering laws that promote renewable energies, put global warming up there alongside stability in Afghanistan and nuclear proliferation as the “new peril” facing the world. His strong language won the hearts of the crowd in Berlin:

“As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.”

Obama also praised Germany for its leadership on reducing carbon dixoide emissions, down nearly 20 percent since 1990. (The United States’ CO2 emissions have gone up 14 percent since 1990).

“Let us resolve that all nations — including my own — will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere,” said Obama, who wants to cut U.S. CO2 back to 1990 levels by 2020. “This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.”

But if he’s elected in November, will Obama really be able to stand up against the powerful U.S. interests opposed to any deep emission cuts? Will he really be able to help the United States get off its “addiction” to oil? How will Americans react when the price of gas rises to $8 per gallon (like Europeans pay) when they already get so worked up over the $4 gallon?

You know the wind is changing for renewables — so to speak — when the head of Europe’s biggest power producer becomes an advocate — and then even decides to reduce his own personal reliance on fossil fuels by powering and heating his new house with photovoltaic and geothermal energies.

Wulf Bernotat, the chief executive of E.ON, admits he became rather belatedly an advocate for renewable energy, even if his company still gets the lion’s share of its 70 billion euros in annual turnover in 30 countries from burning fossil fuels. The reasons for the change of heart? It’s one answer to climate change, it’s the way the political winds were blowing, and there are profits to be made.

“We had a certain reservation about renewables until about a year ago and then we abandoned those reservations because we recognised that renewables are desired politically,” Bernotat said after a recent presentation to a group of journalists in Berlin. “That’s why it’s the right decision for us to get more actively involved.”

Bernotat also predicted that renewables will replace fossil fuels as the world’s most important energy source by 2050 and possibly even “completely displace fossil fuels by the end of this century.” It was an amazing forecast from a company so closely linked to coal-burning power plants — like a butcher saying everyone would become vegetarian by the end of the century.

Less known is Bernotat’s own personal commitment to renewables — he did not make a big deal about it but had mentioned once in passing in a German TV talk show that he planned to use geothermal power and photovoltaic on his new house. So when I asked him about it, his face lit up like a Christmas tree. He said using renewables made economic sense in the long run despite the heavy initial investment — he had to drill six holes 100 metres deep in his back yard to tap geothermal power for hot water and heating (I wish my wife would let me do that). He said he did it for his daughter, who would be able to reap the longer term return on the investment in renewables — although he too is reaping handsome returns now too. “It’s easier when you build a new house,” he said. “Then it’s easier to reduce CO2. But if you’ve got a house already and the gas-burning furnace is only five or 10 years old, it’s a more difficult matter. Do you really want to replace a furnace like that now?”

When I mentioned to him that a local E.ON subsidiary was buying my 6,000 kilowatts of photovoltaic power off my roof for nearly 3,000 euros each year — and thanked him half in jest for the prompt monthly payments — Bernotat just laughed and said: “Don’t thank me. It’s the other energy users (who pay higher monthly electric bills to subsidise photovoltaic providers like me) who are paying you for that. So thank them!”

I have a confession to make — I’m glad gas prices in the United States, as elsewhere, are rising. And I’m quietly hoping they’ll keep going higher because there may possibly be no more effective way to promote conservation and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
 
Higher pump prices might be the only way that we Americans will ever even begin adjusting our driving habits and reducing fuel consumption — when it hits you in the pocketbook. The price of gas in the United States may be cresting at over the $4 per gallon level but it is still far lower than it many other countries where fuel taxes are much higher.

In Germany, gasoline is now up to about 6 euros ($9) per gallon. German think tanks have forecast that it would take prices of 10 euros ($15) per gallon to radically change driving habits.
 
Certainly there are fewer mass transit options in the United States than in Europe and elsewhere. And higher fuel prices are especially problematic for people with low or no income. What’s nevertheless disheartening in the United States is that any suggestion of alleviating the price squeeze in the United States through the conservation of fuel by driving less or by driving smaller, more fuel-efficient cars or by using public transportation seems to get drowned out by a strange political debate about temporarily suspending the federal fuel tax for a few months during the summer holiday season.

That seems to be sending the wrong message to Americans, who already use about one quarter of the world’s gas. It’s a wasted opportunity, in the age of climate change, to help a global campaign for conservation.
 
I spent an illuminating week recently driving around in California. It was amazing that so many people are still driving enormous SUVs even though fuel prices are high and rising. It was also amazing that people drive their enormous SUVs and other gas-guzzling cars at such high speeds and with such jack-rabbit acceleration.

I was in my mother’s 10-year-old sub-compact and tried to keep to the 60 mph speed limits on the freeways. It sometimes felt like I was standing still. Speeding cars, trucks and busses were passing on the left, on the right and some wanted to run right over me (it seemed). Even at 60 mph I was evidently a traffic nuisance.
 
Some especially fast cars can go from zero to 60 in 10 seconds or less. Admittedly I’m a bit obsessed with saving fuel. It takes me about 40 seconds to get to 60 mph. Even getting to 30 mph takes about 20 seconds. To save fuel, I try to avoid braking and never step hard on the gas. I got nearly 50 miles per gallon with that car.

A relative who lent me her mid-sized car was amazed when I went twice as far (600 miles) on a tank as she does. She wanted to know the secret. It’s no secret. It’s just common sense. But with political leaders tripping over themselves with promises of a summer fuel tax holiday, few in America seems to be getting that message. 

What do you think about high gas prices? 
 
 

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, of all people, is under attack for the controversial use of a government plane — rather than relying on commercial aircraft — for flights from his holiday in Majorca to Berlin last summer and back.

German media have calculated that the four flights by a government jet to pick up Gabriel from his holiday on the Spanish island, bring him back to Berlin and then fly the lone passenger back to Majorca later that same day emitted a total of 44 tonnes of carbon dioxide and cost taxpayers 50,000 euros. 

There were commercial flights with seats available to and from Majorca almost every hour that day, according to German media reports.

Gabriel, who has spearheaded German efforts to get other industrial nations to agree on lower emissions, rejected the criticism of the flights, saying he was urgently needed for a cabinet meeting and other government business.

 ”The chancellery offered to use the Luftwaffe,” Gabriel told a German television network. “We nevertheless tried to find an alternative flight but it wasn’t possible.”

Gabriel said it was the chancellery that had persuaded him to come back to Berlin on Aug. 8, 2007 to ensure a quorum after another cabinet member was not able to attend the meeting, which was held during the holiday season and lasted just one hour.

“If it happened again I believe that they would do everything exactly the same way,” Gabriel added. “But I told the chancellery that I will not interrupt my holiday ever again if the result afterwards is that I get into trouble for it. They’ll have to find someone else to take the heat.”

A German environmental group has named Joachim Hunold, CEO of budget airline Air Berlin (www.air-berlin.de), as its “Dinosaur of the Year” in 2007 for his outspoken doubts about the impact of climate change.
   

“Herr Hunold has richly earned the trophy by displaying his
utter ignorance about measures needed to combat climate change,” said Olaf Tschimpke, president of the Naturschutzbund
Deutschland (NABU) (www.nabu.de). “Even though the negative
impact of climate change is well-known, Herr Hunold continues to go about audaciously belittling the issue in public.”

Hunold, who has made the no-frills airline a major carrier in Germany, has attacked environmental groups that call for taxes on jet fuel, NABU said. He will receive a tin trophy of a dinosaur. NABU has presented the award every year to personalities who distinguish themselves with “antiquated ideas about environmental protection” since 1993. The head of a large utility, Harry Roels of RWE, was last year’s dinosaur. Previous winners include the head of the German industry and trade association, Ludwig Georg Braun, and farmers’ association president Gerhard Sonnleitner.

So does Hunold deserve the dinosaur award, or should he perhaps be praised for flying people cheaply to their richly deserved holidays?

For those growing weary of hearing industry leaders and politicians complaining how expensive it is to cut greenhouse gases or how detrimental to jobs it is to take steps to protect the environment, you might want to take a look at a fast-growing German company called SkySails GmbH & Co. KG  and its partner in a new CO2-cutting endeavour, Beluga Shipping . They are aiming to prove that, on the contrary, you can make money and create jobs at the same time while cutting CO2 in the process.  

SkySails has designed and built a high-tech kite and computer-guided steerage system to help merchant ships and yachts cut fuel consumption and reduce CO2 emissions. On its maiden voyage across the Atlantic in early January, the SkySail on the 132-metre long Beluga Group ship is expected save as much as 20 percent of fuel and CO2 emissions — and up to 50 percent with larger versions expected within the next year or two.  

There are, of course, risks still ahead. The system has been tested on a smaller 55-metre long ship on the North Sea and Baltic Sea but it is still uncertain whether the technology will work as effectively with a much larger ship — and some naysayers have questioned whether the giant kite will be able to hold up to the wind, sun and salt-filled air under such enormous pressure pulling a 10,000-tonne ship across the Atlantic. That remains to be seen and SkySails inventor Stephan Wrage admitted that he was a bit nervous ahead of the long-delayed maiden voyage (due to delays in finishing the ship) but nevertheless confident the test results would be confirmed.

I had the chance to climb up and have a look at the first ship equipped with the SkySail, the MV “Beluga SkySails” . The 10,000 tonne vessel was christened in Hamburg harbour on Saturday, and you could feel the buzz of the crowd of some 500 people on board for the ceremony as well as the thousands of onlookers watching from the shore. It was more than just a christening, more than just the launch of a new technology. Here were two profit-hungry companies eager to make money while conserving fuel and slashing CO2.  

What seemed to be captivating the attention of the crowd was that here was a simple solution, using free wind power, to help resolve what has become a complex problem — climate change.

The Society of the German Language (GfdS) has picked “Klimakatastrophe” (climate disaster) as its “word of the year”, an annual honour awarded to the term the prestigious Wiesbaden-based group feels has captured the spirit or dominated the headlines and public discussion of the year.

The society picked “Fanmeile” (fan mile), after the public viewing arenas of the World Cup in Germany, in 2006, considering it to be the term that best captured the spirit of the soccer tournament held there.

“Bundeskanzlerin” (woman chancellor) was the word of the year in 2005 after Angela Merkel became the country’s first woman leader.

“‘Climate disaster’ points to the direction that climate change is headed,” said GdfS expert Gerhard Mueller. He said in a German radio interview that ‘climate change’ had been considered, but the society didn’t feel it was dramatic enough. The topic of climate change played a major role in the public discussion in Germany in 2007, he said.