THINK BIG?

I read this article in the Guardian Weekly on the bus home tonight.

In it is a truly amazing stat. No, not that China builds two coal fired power plants a week; but that Drax, the huge Yorkshire coal fired plant, produces more CO2 than 103 other nations combined.

Someone else in the authors office essentially asked the same question today: can each of our recycling and energy saving measures really "save the planet"? The answer is of course yes, but with the clean coal myth being espoused left right and centre, the big wins need to be chased harder than ever.

If confronted with "carbon capture and storage" tell him he's dreaming. Add your weight to ditching Marsden B for good, or to saving Happy Valley. Support projects like West Wind.

It's still worth pulling your mobile charger out of the wall though.

Image credit: the simple folk at New Zealand Mineral Industry Assn. From a cute little section titled "How are coal mines rehabilitated?"

LEAVING THEIR MARK

Eats, shits, and leaves them at the landfill. And that's a good thing according to Kimberley-Clark.

If it means that your company sells more disposable nappies then of course it's a good thing.

The strange press release claims research has "found that the impact of burying disposable nappies in landfill sites was matched by the energy consumed and greenhouse gases generated by washing reusables or transporting them to laundries."

Apparently the study was conducted by the UK Environment Agency, but all I can find about nappies on their site is a cute baby pic asking whether you've thought about washables.

K-C logic has it that stuffing nappy after disposable nappy in a hole in the ground is better for the planet than reusable nappies. Clearly they've not heard of clean energy, efficient water use, or the energy network implicit in making, distributing, selling, and trashing disposable goods.

When I find the report I'll let you know. Flick me a note if you come across it in the mean time.

Update: Thurs 12th - still no further indicator of what's in the study, but Stuff are towing the corporate line. They also refer to North Canterbury disposable nappy composters who accept this spoon fed research.

Update: Fri 13th - as it turns out, the study is two years old and has been widely discredited. Adjusting for flawed research assumptions washable nappies are 31% better than disposable in terms of climate change impact.

Update: Fri 27th - Nandor has had a crack at Michael Laws for throwing the proverbial at the fan. Laws of course accepted the Kimberley Clark "analysis" and according to Nandor, Laws thinks "it is "ridiculous" for parents to be environmentally aware". Mind you, Laws must be onto something. He got rid of kerbside recycling in Wanganui.

CHINESE BURN

...more fossil fuel than the US. Now their co2 emissions are the largest of any country on the planet.

At the start of June China announced their first climate policy. They did of course warn that "developed powers bear the most blame for the climate crisis" and it won't "sacrifice economic growth".

China's relentlessly strong economic growth is of course fuelled by coal, and to a lesser extent by hydro projects.

Burning more coal to generate more electricity has China in a ridiculous Russian doll situation. Greater energy demand requires more generating plants which require masses of concrete which itself requires a hugely energy intensive manufacturing process. China produces 44% of the worlds cement and its production contributes 9% of their co2 emissions.

It's not all bad. For "us" that is. Chinese emissions per capita are crazy-low, and they tend to do a lot of our dirty work.

In anticipating the emission topping antics, Reuters pointed out in March that "much of the growth in China's emissions is to produce goods consumed in the West, raising ethical questions over who bears responsibility for those emissions."

And lucky-for-us, as a centrally planned system, the Chinese are "willing" to self-inflict hardship in order to improve. For example energy police will soon patrol big buildings to ensure aircon is set to a bit nippy in winter and bloody stuffy in summer.

According to the quite brilliant SEED magazine, China is also embarking on a green revolution. "The litany of environmental challenges that China faces is shocking." The onslaught from dead rivers and dustbowl deserts has prompted a pro environment response of mind boggling proportions.

:: Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, but by 2020 they want to double renewable energy generation to 15%.
:: 35 million solar water heating units have been or will soon be installed.
:: In Beijing the authorities took "26,000 heavily polluting minibuses off the road in a week... They cut the pollution by 6 percent".
:: The 2008 Olympic village will feature a $4.7 million solar energy system to provide heat and hot water to 16,000 people.

If Chinese leaders continue this way, it seems the economic wonderkid may not become an environmental basket case.

We have the choice of grimacing at the fact that China rules the world, or of contributing and learning from their need to clean up. There may just be a bob or two in the latter.

LETS GET PRACTICAL

Last month the Times (UK) went all OTT on the whole carbon footprint thing by pushing a low carbon diet.

Our own MoT have come up with something similar in urging better driving practices, but The Times are relentless. They've even produced a carbon diet master plan (210kb pdf). There's some pretty useful facts and figures - for instance the average Brit spits out 10 tonnes of co2 p.a.

If you're likely to be enticed by "fancy making yourself slimmer and fitter?" you ought to check the journo's 40 something white middle class blog too.

If not then run an eye down our links on the right hand panel. Or if you're not into the whole brevity thing take a good browse through the posts here at ShoppingFix. You'll find a pile of handy practical resources - and even a laugh or two.

HYPERVENTILATION

Following up on Sundays "...carbon ...breath" post, the Wellington City Council last night agreed to "recommendations that will see the Council and the city embark on a path to carbon neutrality."

Over at WellUrban there's a little pre decision context for the Councils' aspiration - including a call "not to be too cynical". Yesterday however, the contents of my mailbox introduced a little cynicism. ShoppingFix was declined funding by the councils environmental grants sub-committee.

When the council states "...consumer choice, transport methods and innovation all have a place in how Wellington achieves carbon neutrality", one wonders why our sustainable shopping resource has no fit.

We were criticised for having no "clear standards and... monitoring process", and for proposing a process that would see "certain businesses being promoted over others".

The ShoppingFix concept of stakeholder accountability rather than traditional standards was lost on the committee. As was the logistical difficulty in engaging with every Wellington retailer simultaneously. While reading the committees decision I wondered just how the Council chose the paper supplier that ultimately enabled them to advise us of their decision. Will hypersensitivity toward nepotism prevent Council from engaging with the logistics of carbon neutrality?

There is of course a hint of sour grapes in my tone. The ShoppingFix application was not articulate enough. Given that we're angling heavily at Councils recognition of "consumer choice... and innovation" as key pillars for carbon neutrality we need to communicate our concept better.

Council staff have until September to "suggested projects and initiatives that could support" options for emissions reductions. The ShoppingFix concept will be suggested to staff as one such initiative.

"I CAN SMELL THE CARBON ON YOUR BREATH"

It's hardly the Oxford Union Debate, but Wellington City Council will on Thursday discuss whether they'll aspire to be carbon free.

Although it's merely an aspiration, if set it'll place our fair city on a path that brings carbon accountability into all WCC policy. Although council emissions increased more than 8% in the three years to 2006, they've some handy emission reduction initiatives.

Kai to Compost has shown that commercial food waste can be dealt with - reducing dangerous methane landfill emissions. The programme just needs to scale up. They're also making a significant planting contribution on Arbor Day.

Other cities have stuck their neck out
:: Newcastle (UK) aspires to carbon neutrality
:: Norman Foster is to design waste and carbon free Madsar in the middle east
:: In February the Chinese government unveiled grand plans for an island near Shanghai
:: Malmo in Sweden is also on a carbon neutral path

This weeks meeting is a step in the right direction for Wellington. Can we walk the talk?

CELEBRITY CLIMATE FEEDBACK LOOP

In what looms as a potentially catastrophic trend in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Jessica Simpson has revealed that she's lactose intolerant.

With millions of teenage morons ready to take the bait, methane emissions from dairy cows are set to trigger a wave of pro-flatulence faux-cool. "Smell that...? ...cappuccino."

Climate scientists have identified a number of potential positive climate feedbacks. Ocean floor gas release from ocean warming and arctic tundra gas release from melting ice are well known examples.

With Simpson and her horde of brainless worshippers, GHG emissions from milk production itself will be exacerbated by the human reaction to milk consumption. Simpson threatens to normalise lactose intolerance - fuelling a rise in dairy consumption.

I suspect this cow-methane-airhead loop has not been factored into climate models. That being the case, runaway climate change becomes a stronger possibility. Simpson is indeed all hot air...

ALL ABOARD...

2.51 million flights are scheduled to depart worldwide this month, and the New Zealand Herald reports that "binge flying [is] killing the planet".

As the IPCC assessments have shown, we're far from immune from the impacts of climate change in NZ. The impact is of course partly economic. Our biggest tourism market has the yips: 18% of Aussies are considering not flying. Ever.

The Listener covered the potential impact on our tourism market back in March. In pointing out the polluting problems of flying, the author notes that "jets consume eight times the fuel that trains do travelling the same distance". But what about solutions?

Rather than bridging the Tasman, our tourism sector needs real answers. Air New Zealand have ordered a quick fix or three - a bunch of fuel efficient planes. But that's simply applying duct-tape to the problem.

The Listener mentions carbon offsets. Air New Zealand have "looked at, and discounted" offering these to customers, although customers can always buy direct from any of the multitude of providers.

Brian Fallow discusses polluter pays emissions trading (ETS) in the Herald this morning. He notes that there is no fuel or sales taxes imposed on any international flights (anywhere) and rightly sees that the NZ aviation market is ripe for being placed under the NZ ETS being considered by government. Hardly the environment for a new airline you'd think.

It's clear that New Zealand must future proof it's biggest export earner. Our tourism earnings will be flavoured by climate change policy. International visitors to our shores are more carbon aware by the day - our aviation industry's position in a national economy where carbon is priced is crucial.

SATURDAY SENSITIVITY - PUKE-EKO

Greenpeace don't like the Genesis energy ads on the telly. Nor do I. Genesis are a key reason why the present government has had no success in even levelling GHG emissions. So bring on a spoof of the TV ads...



It's not overly clever, but highlights a classic piece of greenwashing. Check the Clean Energy Guide link over on the right hand panel. If you're currently with them, break up with Genesis the easy way.

Oh, we lost our semi in the fair trade football. Off to Havana for a tipple. Come along.

CARBON PLAY: TAX OR TRADE

I've echoed global and Kiwi business calls for a price on carbon before. Pricing carbon is a key means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As businesses strive for cost efficiency, there is direct incentive for them to address carbon efficiency and thereby lower emissions.

In New Zealand a big reason for pricing carbon is to provide investment certainty. The situation has been clouded ever since farmers marched on Parliament in 2003 to quash the "fart tax" proposal.

The two options for pricing carbon are invariably a cap and trade system or taxation. Last week a report sought by Business NZ and some of the largest GHG emitters in New Zealand was released. It strongly advocates cap and trade over tax.

Businesses able to pass the cost of carbon to their customers should buy emission permits. Those "at risk from international competitors with no similar obligations" would be "given" permits so long as their operations met international best practice.

Elsewhere, in March the Greens came out with their "framework policy for climate change". Its cornerstone is a carbon tax levied where carbon enters the Kiwi economy. So unlike GST, and unlike the Governments back peddled 2005 carbon tax, there's no explicit extra to pay at the till.

Both the Greens tax idea, and the latest big biz idea will heavily favour clean energy generators like Meridian.

Brian Fallow - biz writer at NZ Herald - has summarised current sentiment particularly well. He points out that our tiny emissions profile dictates that big countries like US and China should move first. He also notes that we shouldn't impose cost on biz before our major trading partners do.

This is the particularly self interested perspective of business - but not particularly surprising. Crucially, it has a sense of prolonging the inevitable. Even a sense of "head in the sand".

Some perspective can be found in an interview on National Radio's Our Changing World a few weeks back. VUW's Dr. Sean Weaver explains (audio, 8 or so mins in) that global carbon trading activity is presently akin to pre season training for when Kyoto kicks in next year. That's when Kyoto nations become liable.

Notably, Dr. Weaver points out that voluntary carbon markets (in Oz and US in particular) are equally active in allowing businesses to benefit from being more carbon efficient. Trading activity effectively provides businesses with "environmental responsibility certificates".

By imposing a carbon tax, the NZ Government may well deem carbon trading redundant for our businesses. But a key advantage of tax over trade is that there's less leakage. Potential for leakage demands that the tax is imposed where carbon enters the economy (like the Greens proposal) where carbon measurement is easier and more cost efficient.

With trading, each individual company that wishes to engage must measure their own emissions in order to obtain a quantity to trade. There's not only room for error, there's room for creative carbon accounting that can skew outcomes.

Pricing carbon (with either tax or trade) gives our businesses direction. It will give a potential market incentive to mitigation technologies like those being advanced at Landcare Research. It will also give our export markets the increasingly called for assurance that Kiwi producers are addressing emissions.

I for one support a carbon tax. The NZ Government will come up with its solution "soon". Which way will they go?

Backgrounders:
Carbon trading 101: Dr Sean Weaver on National Radio (audio).
Gristmill: kickin it with cap-and-trade
Alternet: the problems with cap-and-trade
Gristmill: tax-and-trade - why not both
Carbon Tax Center: blogging the benefits of carbon tax
Pigou Club: more on the benefits of carbon tax

OPEN SESAME

Of late there's been significant carbon disclosure announcements from Britain. Last year the Tesco CEO announced significant investment into "a revolution in green consumption".

The British staple that is Walkers cheese and onion crisps now has carbon footprint labeling (hat tip Celsias). US footwear maker Timberland have a footprint disclosure in each shoe box.

Giving customers the information they need is crucial - carbon disclosure is exactly the type of info the expanding conscious consumer market is after. It's a significant step along the road toward genuinely open business. Consumers can only make truly accurate decisions about the quality of goods and services when all relevant info is available.

In December the EU trade commissioner called for free trade on green goods that will enable carbon emissions reductions. Clean power generation equipment came in for specific mention. It is in this global trade context that the Kiwi push to highlight the true carbon cost of our production system is important.

New Zealand goods stack up when competitors disclose their full carbon contribution. For our exporters carbon accounting is crucial. The fact that "growing" a pack of Walkers crisps accounts for 44% of its footprint and transporting it contributes 9% is indicative of the primary production intensities required to produce in Western Europe.

Will knowledge of this lead the average consumer choosing "disclosed goods" over non disclosed? Probably, because the average consumer is becoming more aware. But only when we get to choose between "disclosed goods" are we getting somewhere.

The market has guarded profit formulae (and secrets in general) for so long that non-disclose for all sorts of wider community impacts is the norm. Or alternatively, the fact that businesses have no need to disclose means they can lay costs on the community in order to create more private profit. It's simply profiting from free use of the commons.

Suggestion that the neo-liberal economic model needs reigning in is not uncommon, countered of course by calls of "nanny state" over-intervention. There is a genuine and quite serious push toward a more open way of doing business. This extends down to the individual and is especially common for online trading - TradeMe or eBay ratings.

The concept of open humanity has been aired at the Half Bakery. I caught up with the chap who suggested the idea last year. His motives were much the same as what drives the conscious consumer - people do care. Ultimately this is why more consumer goods will be carbon labelled.

Just as open source software has enabled development beyond what a single entity could manage, carbon disclosure will open business practices on an unprecedented scale.

With open business there is opportunity for finding solutions faster. Sharing the load and sharing the benefits. If it's only carbon disclosure that is initially opened so be it - joint discovery of lower carbon profiles may well lead to open-ness throughout business.

STOLEN THUNDER

Costa Rica is drafting plans to become carbon neutral. Not that the boss said New Zealand would do it first, but it does steal her thunder a little. Other nations are neutral - but they're not the most productive contenders.

Comparing NZ and Costa Rican potential for carbon neutrality initially seems like comparing apples with underpants.

But we do have similar populations, a similar proportion of GDP from services, and we each have about a quarter of our land area protected as parks.

Significantly, New Zealand consumes about three times more oil than Costa Rica and although we're both rich in hydro power we still use fossil fuel for a quarter of our electricity generation. For Cost Rica it's 1.5%.

CO2 emissions per unit of GDP is lower in Costa Rica and per capita emissions in NZ are six times higher.

So are Helen's CO2 neutral aspirations indeed pure rhetoric? Costa Rica certainly have a more likely carbon neutrality ambition without offsetting. We're a spread-out country with fossil fuel dependency.

For me the most telling stat is oil consumption per unit of GDP. Costa Rica uses 44,000 bn barrels per day to generate GDP of $49bn. That's a ratio of 0.9 - ours is 1.4. We're more than 50% more oil thirsty than Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is famous for constitutionally abolishing its army in 1986 - probably why they're the third happiest country on the Planet. Happy punters are more likely to accept policy measures necessary to achieve carbon neutrality. Or maybe it's as simple as having a little more at stake...

MILE HIGH CLUB
Flying is singled out as one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. So it may alarm some to read that there's a new domestic airline rumoured to be setting up using Origin Pacific infrastructure in Nelson.

Others will insist (and I would agree) that increased competition for the near monopolistic Air New Zealand is a good thing. The venture is reportedly being driven by Nelson iwi Ngati Koata - who have recently launched a range of "traditional" cloaks mass produced "using imported... feathers", and a biofuel project.

The small iwi's commercial vigour is certainly encouraging. But this move appears risky given the failure of Origin, Qantas deeming that "services have not delivered the result we expected", and carbon pricing uncertainties for this carbon intensive industry.

Speaking of pie(s) in the sky, the obesity epidemic does indeed have an impact on airlines. Also reported in Independent mag was the fact that Air New Zealand found "average weight per passenger [increased] from 89kg to 93kg" in the five years to 2004 (article not online but part screenshot here).

93kg just happens to be roughly my weight if I had my full 20kg of allowable baggage. I'm your classic skinny 6ft white fulla but I seldom fly fully laden. Is the average "flier" a little more porky than the average Kiwi? Without a parachute it's a tad dangerous to get out and walk, but these are intriguing stats.

I'd suggest that as time has marched on the planes themselves have become slightly more fuel efficient - thereby emitting less co2/n2o. But as the average seat dweller has become a little more plump and passenger numbers have continued to increase, these efficiency gains have been well and truly negated.

On balance, more competition out of Nelson will drive more efficiencies. Lets hope that doesn't cause more industrial action - just less overall fuel consumption. It'd be great to hear from someone who knows the per passenger fuel/emissions efficiency of say a standard 737 compared to the Jetstream 41s that Origin used to run.

HERE WE GO AGAIN...
Al Gore and the bloke who put together Live8 have come up with a series of "Live Earth" concerts to be held on the 7th of July.

Because we're daft and inclined to forget dates, there will be 7 concerts on 7 continents on 7.7.07. It's pitched as Save Our Selves. "SOS is designed to trigger a global movement to combat our climate crisis".

Now awareness raising is one thing, but associating a real and manageable global phenomenon with a series concerts seems a tad abstract. Lets look back at a few recent "save the world through music" examples:

Live8 occurred as a series of concerts tied in with Make Poverty History campaign. Which was funny because you'll remember that the white bands on everyone's wrist symbolising MPH support was a key criticism of the Live8 concerts; white bands performing for African poverty.

Live8 was not much more than a plea to governments to shell out aid money. But then again what else could be done? Awareness of the results of poverty, sure there was that, but awareness of why poverty exists? Probably too ambitious an aim for a concert series.

The two Wellington SurfAid concerts have been fundraisers for the work of SurfAid in Indonesia. The first concert occurred after the boxing day tsunami of 2004. The Indonesian community in Wellington were actively involved and funds went directly to SurfAid field operations. There is no means of benefiting an earthquake zone other than being there, being aware, or dishing out cash.

I'm stoked that a massive event like Live Earth is being planned to raise awareness of climate change. My beef is that there are so many easy, direct, and cheap ways we can make a difference. Maybe Live Earth is like Gore's film - aimed at getting lethargic "middle America (etc)" off their arses. If that's the case then awareness of the issue is a noble step: miss with the movie, hit with the music.

Another beef is the lineup. In a word: naff. Live8 was criticised for presenting a bunch of has beens. Live Earth doesn't look much better... Bloc Party (great 1st album appalling 2nd) are playing - they'll be performing soft rock ballads with the likes of John Mayer and Snow Patrol. Shudder. My other beef is this "SOS/climate in crisis" language. Talk about dis-empowering.

But hey, I'm about good news - and on balance Live Earth is.

The good thing with climate change is that you can do something today. Page 4 of this weeks Capital Times has a starting point from yours truly. Although they butchered a paragraph in the edit room the message is simple: start telling your fave shops that you care about how they do biz. Pick up a copy - go to page 4...

MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN
With all this biofuel talk the last few days, and my penchant for banging on about beer, I couldn't miss this chance: a US microbrewery is partnering a biofuel company to make biofuel from algae.

Helen wants to see 3.4% of all vehicle fuel pumped in New Zealand to be biofuel. And those with their ear to the ground will of course know that Aquaflow (of Marlborough, and mentioned here last month) have already road tested biofuel from algae.

But this is even better! The US brewery are "providing CO2 - a byproduct of fermentation and boiler operations - that helps the algae grow. After several weeks, the microorganisms are harvested and their oil is extracted and refined into biodiesel."

Making biodiesel from algae may help quieten criticism levelled the poor overall efficiency from plant based ethanol. Brasil it seems is one of only a few places where net energy gains from "standard" biofuels gan be gained.

Not only is it good to see a technology being advanced that's also being developed in NZ, it's great to see beer by-product being used. Cleaner production is a good thing.

This is yet another example of carbon offsetting. Offsetting directly, rather than paying someone else to deal with the issue, is just the path progressive businesses need to be looking at. Our dairy industry has a steady supply of milking shed shit that goes unused. Wine and beer makers usually trash their production waste. Wine and milk are often located in centres of production - so there are concentrated amounts of by-product for use. Martinborough and Canterbury for wine and dairy biofuel respectively makes sense to me.

Regardless, imagine driving your biofuel powered car to the bottle store along a road made from recycled glass to pick up a crate (along with the rest of your shopping of course). You'd be inclined to think you were making a difference!

SELL SELL SELL!
The 4th assessment report (pdf) from the IPCC commenced it's roll out on Friday. You know the one. The one that gave the paper reason to use "global warning - violent storms, floods - tropical diseases spreading - water running out" as a headline.

And you know the Dom. The outfit that in 2005 placed a front page pic with high tide half way up the hill behind Oriental Parade. 'Cos that's what climate change is all about. Selling frikken newspapers.

So what's the story? None. No new science, no new remedies, no news. But boy has it got some coverage. There've been two quite testy comment salvo's over at Kiwi blog - the second of which denigrated to mudslinging despite raising some key points from a NZHerald article by Fran O'Sullivan.

O'Sullivan's article titled "cooling the hot air debate" is full of ill considered here say. But it also contains gold:

"The Government will regulate to ensure industry reduces pollution for broader environmental reasons such as cleaner air, water and soil, and the rest of us will be responsible for using energy efficiently for conservation purposes.

It shouldn't take the threat of climate change to get these aims on the policy agenda. They stand in their own right."

Bingo! My biggest bug bear about the climate change "debate" is the loss of reality. What's happening in the real world?

Sceptics hold that mad scientists are fiddling the books and politicians label sceptics as delusional fringe dwellers. All the while nobody seems to be looking out the window. Take a step outside people!

Christchurch swims in smog, kayakers keep their eyes and mouths closed on the Mangles River, chunks of the North Islands' east coast wash away when it drizzles, the south Wairarapa crayfishery is gasping for air... You get the picture.

Although this 4th report is only the policy makers preliminary for a comprehensive edition due in November, the reaction to it is intriguing. Its media coverage hasn't done much more than allow the "sides" to dig into their corners and turn up the volume.

Although it is fascinating to watch, the actions of policy makers in the next little while is the test. It'll reach its crescendo in the election race next year. Who'll have the most sense. Who'll have the balls to put a price on carbon. Who'll have had a good look out the window?

THE GREAT GLOBAL GREEN GOODS HUNT
Yesterday the Greens put out a statement that mirrors at least two of my previous posts.

Many of our export consumer markets are a hell of a lot more aware of the potential environmental impact of consumer goods than we are here. The food miles debate is evidence of that.

Nevertheless, Kiwi consumers are increasingly seeking goods that reflect a greater awareness of the impact of climate change. We're looking fix our shopping.

"If Government takes a lead now to help businesses re-evaluate their production and distribution methods, New Zealand can retain a competitive advantage" the statement says.

BEATING AROUND THE BUSH
He's been doing it since parking his arse at the Whitehouse in 2001. He did it again on Wednesday. George Bush's more subdued "state of the nation" address talked of his "new strategy in Iraq" and referred to Iran as having a "regime" rather than a government.

Although Bush still relies on technology fixes for the environment - clean coal being specifically mentioned - there is light. An explicit aim to "reduce gasoline usage in the US by 20% in the next 10 years", advancing of boifuel initiatives, and increasing fuel efficiency. Here's a nice summary page.

So nice in fact that Reuters have asked "Is Bush Going Green?" (video link). Or is it simply that - as Waikato University researchers recently put it - green is the new black?

Businesses want certainty and have asked for it time and time again. That's on the back of consumers taking a stronger stance. Has Bush been genuinely convinced of the need to act for the environment, has he heeded the call of big business, or does he simply want to leave office with the (more liberal) US public having a kinder impression of him?

VIRGIN
Richard Branson - the Knight of "sex sells" - is on deck at the moment. Reports from his meeting today with Climate Change Minister David Parker will be interesting. Stay tuned.

It turns out that Parker was in touch following Branson's announcement last year that he'd throw 1.6bn quid at renewable fuels. And why not stick your hand out when there's product development to be paid for.

Parker is trumpeting the likes of Marlborough's Aquaflow, Genesis Research's BioJoule, and Auckland's LanzaTech.

Lets hope that at least one of these companies is sexy enough for Branson - one of the few genuine characters of global business. I'll have an update for you tomorrow.

Update: No explicit reports of the meeting, but Aquaflow director Nick Gerritsen loves the exposure. Also, this morning Aquaflow announced a $5m capital raising - prospectus available online.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
"A price on carbon!" screams big business. Emissions targets for the aviation industry say many in Europe.

Now a British commentator calls for a carbon charge on food production. It's primarily a suggestion to seek control over how the big food corporates conduct business. It's a cry for local production and against the damage caused by industrial food monocultures.

The largest of emitters are involved in emission reduction initiatives. Some large food industry players participate in voluntary programs - maybe highlighting those businesses is a better way forward...