One Metre of Sea Level Rise will Flood 12% of Vietnam

The impacts of climate change would severely affect the biodiversity of mangrove forests across Vietnam. Dr Hoang Nghia Son, director of the Institute of Tropical Biology said that biodiversity was a crucial base for the existence and development of countries around the world.

News from Bernama (24 May 2010):

HO CHI MINH CITY — The impacts of climate change would severely affect the biodiversity of mangrove forests across the country, Vietnam News Agency (VNA) reported experts as saying.

Addressing a forum on the impacts of climate change and biodiversity held on May 22, Dr Hoang Nghia Son, director of the Institute of Tropical Biology said that biodiversity was a crucial base for the existence and development of countries around the world but it had been severely affected by climate change.

“Sea levels are expected to rise 1m by the end of this century which will flood up to 12 percent of Vietnam ,” VNA quoted him as saying.

“Coastal wetlands will be heavily affected, especially in Ho Chi Minh City and the Mekong Delta provinces of Tra Vinh, Soc Trang, Bac Lieu and Ca Mau, home to many important wetland areas.

“Eight national parks and 11 nature reserves will be flooded, killing many species of flora and fauna,” Son warned.

Dr Le Anh Tuan of Can Tho University’s Natural Resources and Environment Department said rising temperatures and sea levels as well as irregular rainfall and a large number of storms and whirlwinds damaged the biodiversity of wetland areas.

“An increase in temperature will cause hundreds of trees to die and increase the threat of forest fires and slow the growth of flora. Fluctuating rainfall will change the biological cycles of flora and fauna and alternate natural flows as well.

“In addition, rising sea levels will mess with the ecosystem and threaten flora through salination, erosion and high tides. “Storms and whirlwinds will devastate coastal zones, destroying forests, degrading water quality and killing species of flora and fauna,” Tuan emphasised.

Tram Chim National Park, an endemic park of cajeput trees and birds in the Cuu Long Delta, has recently experienced the impacts of climate change. Nguyen Van Hung, Director of the park, said they were having to fight the spread of harmful species including apple snails and mimosa pigra, along with changes in temperature and rainfall.

“We have seen a decrease in crane numbers due to a lack of tubers called nang, which the crane feed upon, which were destroyed by floods last year. This year, we are faced with severe drought and the risk of forest fires this summer,” he said.

Dr Le Van Hue from Vietnam National University in Hanoi and Norwegian NGO Tropenbos International in Vietnam said evidence of climate change had become apparent.

“Climate change has discernibly affected plant and animal populations in recent decades,” she said. Experts believe that work to protect biodiversity must be undertaken by the whole society.

Tuan recommended that the National Assembly form new laws on climate change to encourage contributions from decision makers, local authorities, scientists and environmentalists at a grassroots level.

“Every province should have a committee for provincial climate change adaptation to co-ordinate the actions of NGOs, scientists and local authorities and to create a network for information exchange,” he said.

Dr Vu Ngoc Long, the Institute of Tropical Biology ‘s deputy director and director of the Ho Chi Minh City-based Centre of Biodiversity and Development (CBD) said the call and efforts by scientists through the co-ordination of CBD has drawn the attention of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

He believed the invitation to become a member of the organising board of the Asean exhibition on Biology to be held in August on the sidelines of the 21st Meeting of Asean Senior Officials on the Environment was a chance for co-operation.

The ministry’s National General Department of Environment will take charge of organising the exhibition.

Source: www.bernama.com

To Boost CleanTech, Tony Blair Joins Khosla Ventures

A Silicon Valley venture capital firm Khosla Ventures, specializing in environmentally-friendly technologies, announced this week that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has joined its ranks, to help its broad portfolio of clean technology companies maximize their effectiveness in achieving their environmental goals.

Britain’s Tony Blair teams with green investment group

Report in The Age (25 May 2010):

A Silicon Valley venture capital firm specializing in environmentally-friendly technologies announced this week that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has joined its ranks.

Khosla Ventures said Blair “will leverage his advocacy for environmental issues and his global relationships to help Khosla’s broad portfolio of clean technology companies maximize their effectiveness in achieving their environmental goals.”

Established in 2004 by Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla, the venture firm claims an extensive portfolio that includes solar, wind, and nuclear energy along with high-efficiency engines.

Khosla also backs startups in technology sectors such as mobile and Internet.

“Solving the climate crisis is more than just a political agenda item – it’s an urgent priority that requires innovation, creativity, and ambition,” Blair said in a release.

“I share a clear vision with Vinod, one of the earliest leaders in cleantech investment, that entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and beyond will have a tremendous impact on our environmental future.”

Blair will provide strategic advice regarding investments in environmentally friendly or helpful technologies, according to Khosla.

Blair has been a champion of the environment and leads a Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative aimed at getting countries worldwide to work together to combat climate change.

“I have always admired Mr. Blair’s early and consistent commitment to addressing climate change,” Khosla said.

“His goals align so well with our own mission to support disruptive startups in the cleantech space and to find technology solutions that can achieve unsubsidized market competitiveness for green technologies.”

Blair on Monday was taking part in a Khosla Ventures summit which was to feature a presentation by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.

Source: www.news.theage.com.au

Lucky Last – Power Shift is The New Deal

The Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme may have been deferred and international negotiations on climate change treaties may have stalled, but the global transition to a low-carbon economy is actually accelerating.

The shift is being driven as much by the need for energy security and the chance to win a share of the growing market for clean technology as by the desire to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

In this special report, a panel of experts convened by The Australian’s the deal magazine discusses how companies here compare with their international peers and what governments should be doing to provide the right signals and incentives to allow our leading businesses to compete effectively at home and abroad.

Giles Parkinson in The Australian business magazine the deal (20 May 2010):

The Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme may have been deferred and international negotiations on climate change treaties may have stalled, but the global transition to a low-carbon economy is actually accelerating.

The shift is being driven as much by the need for energy security and the chance to win a share of the growing market for clean technology as by the desire to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

In this special report, a panel of experts convened by The Australian‘s the deal magazine discusses how companies here compare with their international peers and what governments should be doing to provide the right signals and incentives to allow our leading businesses to compete effectively at home and abroad.

With the ETS on hold till 2012, where else should the government focus – on energy efficiency, building codes and fuel regulations? Or should there be a grander vision for a clean energy network? And how do you create a sustainable economy in a world with limited resources? Perhaps it’s time to change the measuring stick.

Economic growth, our primary reference point for success or failure, is measured in terms of production and consumption. But even leading bankers think GDP and GNP data are missing a key part of the equation. They want new metrics to help ensure environmental, social and economic losses do not outweigh simple economic gains. Carbon might not be the only external value or commodity we need to factor in.

Present:
Giles Parkinson, News Ltd
Lyndall Crisp, the deal
Oliver Yates, Macquarie
Martijn Wilder, Baker and McKenzie.
Jonathon Jutsen, Energetics.
Brendan Bateman, Clayton Utz
Paul Simshauser, AGL.
David Caspari, HP

GILES PARKINSON: Thank you very much for joining us today. It’s a fairly loose format. We’re going to get everyone to introduce themselves, and then we’ll set the thing rolling with a general question and then follow it up from there. Can we maybe start with David?

DAVID CASPARI: I run HP Enterprises Services business, which is responsible for delivering all of HP’s IT services in Australia and New Zealand, about 10,000 people, one half billion dollar business.

OLIVER YATES: I’m Oliver Yates, I’m from Macquarie. I look after the renewable energy and climate change business at Macquarie. One of my key passions is obviously trying to get forest conservation into a workable commercial form and we have a joint venture with a large NGO to actually achieve that objective and that seems to be moving along well, regardless of the carbon markets.

MARTIJN WILDER: Martijn Wilder, I’m a partner of Baker and McKenzie running their global climate change practice. I’ve been working in the area since about 1997.

JONATHON JUTSEN: Jonathon Jutsen, I’m the founder and the director of Energetics. Been in the field for about thirty years, must be some sort of dinosaur in the field. Still doggedly pursuing energy efficiency and carbon mitigation for commercial and larger businesses.

BRENDAN BATEMAN: Brenton Bateman, partner of Clayton Utz, head up the climate change sustainability group of the firm. The basis is environmental planning. Just listening to Giles, acting for Macquarie generation Land and Environment Court is always interesting when you’re getting a judgment from Pain.

PAUL SIMSHAUSER: Paul Simshauser. I’m the chief economist at AGL and Professor of Finance at Griffith University’s business school. A big part of my job is carbon, carbon policy and renewable policy and so on.

GILES PARKINSON: Terrific. We’re going to start off with a big question. People talk about the major drivers that we’re all inevitably heading towards an economic and energy transformation. What do people think will be the main drivers of that? Will it be climate change? Will it be energy security or will it be a commercial race to seize the green tech/clean tech market? Perhaps we can start with you Oliver?

OLIVER YATES: I think it’s going to be a combination of all of them. The question of sustainability is cutting in and sustainability includes the question of carbon. I think people are recognising that we have a limited global energy resource unless we can make it from renewable sources, so that’s where the oil kind of debate comes in or energy security debate comes in.

People that are recognising that within a world of limited resources, we need to find a new way to power our economy and there will be a carbon price sooner or later, and that if you want to be part of what could potentially be the biggest industry transformation since the steam engine, then you want to position your economies appropriately now so that you can get ahead of the curve. So that’s what I think is happening. I think people see this, China certainly sees it.

China’s industry is moving rapidly towards developing massive production capabilities of green technology equipment and renewable energy equipment and there will be a sudden change in those who are positioning their economy appropriately will actually benefit from this change.

BRENDAN BATEMAN: I think Giles, just butting in there, it’s different for different countries. There are different drivers for different countries and interesting to see that America is moving away from badging its legislation related to climate change, more of energy security. Whereas for Australia that driver is omnipresent. It’s very much we’ve got plentiful resources of cheap coal and other forms of resources that we can use to power our economy, whereas in America it’s not necessarily the case.

For Australia it’s a different directive that’s been pushing us in this direction. I think it has to be climate change. I think we are one of the countries most susceptible to the adverse impacts of climate change and very quickly, and it impacts on a lot of our industries such as tourism.

DAVID CASPARI: If I can just add on that, I think no doubt we’re blessed in Australia with an abundance of natural resource which is driving our economy now, but at the same time we have to take a step back and ask some questions about what the next generation of our economy is post this resource oriented environment.

So clearly climate change is going to be key but there’s a broader question about whether we can seize the opportunity to be a real innovator in this market and perhaps in a way that we might have missed in a couple of other real innovation opportunities over the last couple of decades. You look at solar power and various other things where we innovated but missed the opportunity.

GILES PARKINSON: Yes. I just want to redirect it back on to the international scene and what those drivers are. Do you think Martijn that it is a matter of climate change that is driving international movement now, or do you think it is this race to grab the green tech economy of the 21st century?

MARTIJN WILDER: I agree with Oliver. I though it’s a combination of all of those and I think Brenton is right, you know, different drivers. I think it was Senator Graham, one of the US Republican Senators who said earlier this year that he was worried that with a cap on trades, US business would suffer under the cost of that, but he’s now saying without a price on carbon, he’s worried the US will fall way behind China in terms of its race for the green economy.

I think the other factors you’ve also got to put into the mix are the science. I think the science is fundamental. I think when we look throughout history, science has always driven regulatory changes. It’s also driven a lot of risk policies of corporates. When you look for example at the material the CSIRO put out the week before last about how the science is getting worse and how climate change definitely is occurring, it’s occurring because of human activity. The science will continue to drive policy in a way which companies assess risk.

Also I think population growth will have a significant impact. There’s a limited amount of resources and if you combine what the CSIRO said last week about in areas like Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, decreasing rainfall, becoming drier, increasing population, you’ve got to basically find a way to manage that and I think that population and environmental degradation, together with all the other factors, will play a significant role.

For the full version of the debate/forum go to:

www.theaustralian.come.au/politics/climate

More than Business as Usual

The new chief to guide the UN Climate Change negotiations is a woman who knows her way around the world of politicians, diplomats and the climate. Maybe she can help Australia get real in the world of emissions and energy, because there’s much to be said this week about the need to gear up on energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and doing without at least one coal fired power station. The CPRS collapse could really mean business as usual, but some still hold out hope for a switch to a low carbon economy and green jobs. Grim news about what’s happening to global fish stocks and the Mediterranean gets the heat treatment. The US reaps what it sows in the bio fuel production business and the new UK Government commits to a 10% emissions reduction all on its own.Electric vehicles are getting another serious run for the money and we hear what’s in the wind for World Environment Day. And – at long lucky last – we invite nominations for this year’s ABC CARBON 50.

Profile: Christiana Figueres

Way too many roads and not enough bridges have been built, declares Christiana Figueres, from Costa Rica, the new head of the UN Climate Change secretariat.  She stresses the need for change, saying countries and negotiators need to be “very creative and very innovative in how we approach our work”. She will lead the next round of high-level global talks scheduled to start 29 November in Mexico.

UN appoints new climate chief

Radio from Radio Australia News (17 May 2010)::

The United Nations has appointed a Costa Rican diplomat as its new climate chief, to head stalled international talks on how to counter the effects of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Christiana Figueres has been part of her country’s negotiating team in the global climate talks process since 1995.

Costa Rica has been praised for its progressive environmental policies which aim to make the country carbon neutral by 2021.

She’ll take over in July from Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands, as head of the UN climate change secretariat.

A summit in Copenhagen attended by 120 world leaders late last year failed to achieve a binding deal.

Ms Figueres faces a major task in trying to revive the talks process.

Source: www.radioaustralianews.net.au

NEW YORK, New York, May 17, 2010 (ENS) – Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica has been selected to lead United Nations’ efforts to combat climate change.

Appointed today by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, she will become executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, when Yvo de Boer of The Netherlands steps down July 1, 2010 after four years as executive secretary.

“Ms. Figueres is an international leader on strategies to address global climate change and brings to this position a passion for the issue, deep knowledge of the stakeholders and valuable hands-on experience with the public sector, nonprofit sector and private sector,” said the secretary-general’s spokesman Martin Nesirky in announcing the appointment.

As her first task, Figueres will lead the next round of high-level global talks on climate change that will culminate in a two week summit starting November 29 in Cancun, Mexico.

The Figueres appointment comes five months after the Copenhagen Accord was reached at last December’s UN climate conference in the Danish capital.

That non-binding pact, endorsed by 111 governments, aims to jump-start immediate action on climate change and guide negotiations on long-term action, pledging to raise $100 billion annually by 2020.

It also includes an agreement to keep the global average temperature increase to below two degrees Celsius and efforts to reduce or limit emissions of the six greenhouse gases considered responsible for climate change.

At a March 22 news conference at UN Headquarters in New York introducing her as a candidate for the job, Figueres said she agreed with the secretary-general’s frequent description of climate change as the greatest challenge facing the human family, adding that the December Copenhagen Conference had made that point even more evident and “painful.”

Figueres said that, inspired by U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong’s words, she liked to think of the Copenhagen Accord as a “big step for the community of nations, but a very small step for the planet.”

It was a big step for the community of nations, she said, because, for the first time, the international community had agreed to strive for a maximum temperature increase of fewer than two degrees Celsius, and also because all large emitters, as well as many small ones, had actually made public mitigation pledges in a multilateral context.

Explaining why she considered the Copenhagen Accord “a small step for the planet,” she said “below two degrees has a huge range.” Was it 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 degrees? she asked.

“That may not mean much to those in industrialized countries, but to the most vulnerable countries, the small island states, the difference between 1.5 and 1.6 or 1.7 is the difference of survival, so that needs to be further specified as we move further into the negotiations,” Figueres said.

She pointed out that the current level of climate mitigation pledges on the table is not enough even to reach the two degree Celsius maximum. Most of the several available analyses of the pledges agreed that the maximum temperature would end up at a three degree Celsius maximum, she said.

Figueres noted that some analyses had suggested that the total of mitigation pledges could end up at 3.9 degrees Celsius, which she said was “clearly insufficient” to ward off the most catastrophic effects of climate change. 

She emphasized that this year’s Cancun climate summit has to be “quite different” from Copenhagen since it must be oriented toward results.

While the past few years have been spent on creating the architecture for a new chapter of the climate regime, it is time to shift the focus from architecture to very concrete deliverables, she said. Such a shift presents challenges because member states have to ensure that there is no gap in the climate regime as the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires at the end of 2012.

At Cancun, “We really need to be very creative and very innovative in how we approach our work while still remaining within the rules of procedures of the UN,” said Figueres.

It is widely agreed among participants that the Copenhagen process had been neither inclusive nor transparent, had not been effective and had eroded trust, she said. “The challenge we are facing is that the atmosphere within which we have been working over the past few years has been pervaded by a deep lack of trust at all levels of the system.”

There is a lack of trust in climate science; in the negotiations themselves, and whether such a complex issue can be negotiated in a multilateral process; in whether governments should take the lead, as opposed to the private sector or civil society; and between the North and South, she explained.

That erosion of trust pervades the inside of the Secretariat itself. “Way too many roads and not enough bridges have been built,” Figueres declared, stressing the need for change.

“I don’t want to pretend that this is something that we can do overnight,” she said.” Trust-building is a process over time. It will not happen miraculously. It will certainly not appear magically in Cancun. It is a very difficult path, but I am convinced that it is the path that we need to follow, that we need to embark on immediately,” she said. “It is the only path that will lead us to creativity, innovation and any sort of agreement in Cancun and beyond.”

Figueres, 53, was born in San Jose, Costa Rica into a family prominent in public service. Her father, Jose Figueres Ferrer, was president of Costa Rica three times: 1948-49, 1953�1958, and 1970-1974. As the leader of the 1948 Revolution he is considered the founder of modern democracy in Costa Rica. Her mother, Karen Olsen Beck, served as Costa Rican Ambassador to Israel in 1982 and was elected Member of Congress 1990-1994.

With degrees from Swarthmore College, the London School of Economics, and several advanced degrees in the United States, in 1994 Figueres became director of the Technical Secretariat of the Renewable Energy in the Americas program, today housed at the Organization of American States, promoting hemispheric policies to advance renewable energy technologies in Latin America.

Representing the government of Costa Rica, Figueres has been a negotiator of the UN Convention on Climate Change since 1995.

In 1995 she founded and became the executive director of the non-profit Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas, promoting the participation of Latin American countries in the Climate Change Convention.

In 1999 she conceived and established the first carbon finance program in the developing world, the the Latin American Carbon Program within the Andean Development Corporation. And in 2001, she negotiated the first emission reduction purchase agreement between an industrialized country and a regional development bank.

From 1998 through 2007, she envisioned and helped establish national climate change programs in Guatemala, Panama, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic.

In 1997 she provided international strategy for achieving developing country support and approval of the Kyoto Protocol and the Clean Development Mechanism.

From 2007 to 2009 she was vice president of the Bureau of the Climate Convention, representing Latin America and the Caribbean. Over the years, she has chaired numerous international climate negotiations.

Source: www.ens-newswire.com

Old King Coal or More Green Jobs

Origin Energy head says the collapse of the emissions trading scheme and the subsequent lack of a carbon price means that Australia’s next base-load power stations are likely to be coal-fired. Meanwhile, the ACTU and Australian Conservation Foundation say new modelling shows that  serious efforts to tackle climate change and cut emissions will create jobs even in areas dominated by the mining and electricity industries.

By Tom Arup, environment correspondent In Sydney Morning Herald (19 May 2010):

BIG CUTS to carbon emissions and heavy investment in green technologies will create 3.7 million jobs across Australia by 2030, economic modelling commissioned for unions and green groups shows.

The ACTU and Australian Conservation Foundation will today launch the modelling project, which has been six months in the works, in an effort to show serious efforts to tackle climate change will create jobs even in areas dominated by the mining and electricity industries.

The modelling breaks Australia into 65 regions and suggests that just one – far-western NSW – will lose jobs if Australia adopts a 25 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020, sets up an emissions trading scheme and makes significant investment in green technologies and energy efficiency.

Other areas across Australia, including those dominated by coal mining and energy industries like Gladstone and Rockhampton in Queensland and the Hunter Valley in NSW, will see job growth in the region.

The report finds that overall jobs will increase by 36 per cent across Australia in 20 years.

”The report shows regional areas, even those which produce coal and generate electricity, will have more jobs if we take strong action to cut pollution, but only if we act now,” ACTU president Sharan Burrow said.

Along with an emissions trading scheme and a 25 per cent emissions cut, the modelling assumes the Australian government will invest directly in targeted regional industry planning, electric cars, public transport and reducing household emissions, among others.

The programs assumed under the modelling would require an investment of on average 2.5 per cent of GDP over the next 20 years. The report finds that if investment is made households will be 10 per cent better off by 2030, and GDP growth would average 3.2 per cent to 2030.

The modelling was conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. It does not model jobs growth with no climate policies because it says that scenario is unlikely given the global push to decarbonise economies.

The institute’s Ian Manning told the Herald that the modelling also reinforces the position of the International Energy Agency that ”procrastination” on investment in a low-carbon economy will increase costs and hurt job growth.

Source: www.smh.com.au

By Andrew Fraser  in The Australian (19 May 2010):

THE head of one of Australia’s leading power companies has argued that the collapse of an emissions trading scheme and the subsequent lack of a carbon price means that Australia’s next baseload power stations are likely to be coal-fired.

Origin Energy chief Grant King told the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association meeting in Brisbane that having a renewable energy target of 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2020 “made no sense” without putting a price on carbon.

He said a carbon price of $20-$40 a tonne would be required to start making a gas-fired power station more economically viable than one fired by coal.

“Without a carbon price, coal remains the cheapest fuel for power generation. In the absence of any policy change, we will keep building coal-fired power stations,” he said.

Origin Energy currently operates three gas-fired power stations and is in the process of commissioning a gas-fired baseload power station on Queensland’s Darling Downs capable of producing 630 megawatts.

The company has substantial natural gas reserves and is also involved in gas exploration as well as wind and geothermal projects. It has a part in one of the four consortia planning to build a liquid natural gas plant in Gladstone to convert coal-seam gas for export.

Mr King said yesterday that while wind and solar power could augment Australia’s energy demands they were not reliable providers, and there was still a strong need for baseload power.

He said that increases in household consumption were driving growth of up to 6 per cent a year in demand for baseload power.

“That’s not surprising because we’ve seen increased penetration of air-conditioners and flat-screen TVs,” he said. “Nearly all Australian households have a television, but 10-15 years ago they had one, now they have five, and they’re flat-screen TVs which radiate energy like you wouldn’t believe.”

Mr King said that, until recently, there was bipartisan support for a renewable energy target and a form of carbon pricing.

“Given that bipartisan approach has broken down but there’s still a commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions by 5 per cent to 2020, something else will have to come in its place. I would suggest that both sides of politics need to figure out what that something else is,” he said.

Mr King’s comments were echoed at the conference by Catherine Tanna, Queensland Gas managing director, who said there was uncertainty “in the absence of a long-term global policy for carbon, a policy that allows companies to plan and invest and a policy that does not disadvantage industries that can materially reduce global emissions”.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is due to address the conference this morning, as is Santos chief David Knox, who has put back a decision on whether his company will commit to an LNG plant in Queensland because of uncertainty about the proposed resource super-profit tax.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Ocean Fish Could Disappear in 40 Years

THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.  A Green Economy report due later this year by UNEP and outside experts argues this disaster can be avoided if subsidies to fishing fleets are slashed and fish are given protected zones – ultimately resulting in a thriving industry.

From AFP correspondents in New York (18 May 2010):

THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.

“If the various estimates we have received… come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish,” Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment Program’s green economy initiative, said.

A Green Economy report due later this year by UNEP and outside experts argues this disaster can be avoided if subsidies to fishing fleets are slashed and fish are given protected zones – ultimately resulting in a thriving industry.

The report, which was opened to preview overnight, also assesses how surging global demand in other key areas including energy and fresh water can be met while preventing ecological destruction around the planet.

UNEP director Achim Steiner said the world was “drawing down to the very capital” on which it relies.

However, “our institutions, our governments are perfectly capable of changing course, as we have seen with the extraordinary uptake of interest. Around, I think it is almost 30 countries now have engaged with us directly, and there are many others revising the policies on the green economy,” he said.

Environmental experts are mindful of the failure this March to push through a worldwide ban on trade in bluefin tuna, one of the many species said to be headed for extinction.

Powerful lobbying from Japan and other tuna-consuming countries defeated the proposal at the CITES conference on endangered species in Doha.

But UNEP’s warning was that tuna only symbolises a much vaster catastrophe, threatening economic, as well as environmental upheaval.

One billion people, mostly from poorer countries, rely on fish as their main animal protein source, according to the UN.

The Green Economy report estimates there are 35 million people fishing around the world on 20 million boats. About 170 million jobs depend directly or indirectly on the sector, bringing the total web of people financially linked to 520 million.

According to the UN, 30 percent of fish stocks have already collapsed, meaning they yield less than 10 percent of their former potential, while virtually all fisheries risk running out of commercially viable catches by 2050.

Currently only a quarter of fish stocks – mostly the cheaper, less desirable species – are considered to be in healthy numbers.

The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover.

The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is “perverse,” Mr Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars.

As a result, fishing fleet capacity is “50 to 60 percent” higher than it should be, Mr Sukhdev said.

Creating marine preservation areas to allow female fish to grow to full size, thereby hugely increasing their fertility, is one vital solution, the report says.

Another is restructuring the fishing fleets to favour smaller boats that – once fish stocks recover – would be able to land bigger catches.

“What is scarce here is fish,” Mr Sukhdev said, “not the stock of fishing capacity.”

Source: www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Stern Words on The Future of Carbon Capture & Storage

Foremost climate change economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, has told the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute that heavy polluting countries such as Australia must accept that future economic growth will come from investment in low-carbon technologies, while the Institute’s CEO says it must accelerate the development of 20 industrial scale, integrated demonstration projects, and move beyond those to broader commercial deployment.

Tom Arup reports in The Age (17 May 2010):

THE world’s foremost climate change economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, has told the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute that heavy polluting countries such as Australia must accept that future economic growth will come from investment in low-carbon technologies.

In a speech to the first US meeting of the institute, in Pittsburgh at the weekend, Sir Nicholas said the ”acrimony” at Copenhagen had damaged those arguing for green investment in the ”intense” Australian debate on climate change. In his speech Sir Nicholas singled out Australia, which has shelved its proposed emissions trading scheme, and China as countries where the debate about a green economy is sharpest.

Sir Nicholas said the extent of China’s acceptance of a green economy growth would be crucial to building global momentum towards a meeting at the Mexican resort city Cancun, which will again attempt to devise a new global agreement.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Here are some extracts from the speech by Nick Otter, CEO of the Global CCS Institute at the Pittsburgh meeting:

I am pleased to be talking to you today, and pleased that despite the financial dilemmas dominating politics and the world today that CCS is still a focus for governments and corporations alike. CCS is after all ultimately about energy, and rather than falling far from grace – energy security does and will continue to remain at the forefront of the US and global political agenda. It will remain a priority for corporations, executives and boards as they seek to manage risk and shareholder value, and it will remain a focus for NGOs as they contemplate how to influence environmental policies on behalf of their constituents.

The challenge we face today, in this room, is how to ensure that CCS becomes a part of the diverse energy supply portfolio in the US and globally in the immediate future, and that it lives up to its potential and plays a significant role in helping reduce emissions in the long-term. This challenge defines the role of the Institute, a role we are taking steps to fulfil by collaborating with our member countries and organisations.

The major challenges to the development and deployment of CCS projects are not insurmountable, but they are real. The obstacles are not geological – we know it can be done. The barrier is not the absence of technical solutions – it is clear that the individual states of CCS are viable. The major hurdles reside around what happens above the ground: policy, regulation, finance, public awareness, capacity building and knowledge sharing. The challenge is to address these barriers to create the conditions for the integration of these technologies at commercial scale and across a variety of applications.

If CCS is to make a difference the IEA estimates that 100 industrial scale projects may be needed by 2020, and 3,400 by 2050. This equates to flow rates surpassing the global oil and gas industry, over US $2 trillion in investment, and an average of over 100 new projects per year between 2020 and 2050.

In my opinion, there are three key factors to delivering the global collaboration required:

• First – common goals. We need governments, industries and communities to agree to a desired role for CCS, the extent to which support for a commercially viable industry should be provided, and what needs to be done to create that vision.
• Second – sharing knowledge. Our ambitious goals and steep development trajectory demands and industry which disseminates information to foster progress.
• Third – leadership. The fact that we are all here today demonstrates willingness, but what is needed is the creation of the means and pathways for industry members to contribute to making the extraordinary happen.

Common goals

First, let’s look at whether any common pathways exist ahead of us. In terms of the Institute ‘us’ means our members. The Institute now has over 200 members including 40 governments and 160 corporations and like-minded organisations from around the world. The US Government was one of our founding members and is now a fully fledged legal member. Our members applications were accepted by the Institute due to their ability t demonstrate a legitimate interest in, and a commitment to the advancement of CCS.

The Institute itself as an interim goal to accelerate the development of 20 industrial scale, integrated, demonstration projects. And, we also have an important role to play in ensuring the right elements are in place for CCS to move beyond the demonstration phase to broader commercial deployment.

Sharing knowledge

One of the early pieces of work conducted by the Institute was an audit of CCS projects globally. This research is not a static fixture in time, but an evolving piece of work that will be regularly updated and built upon to advance the understanding of the status of projects, the costs involved, the level of policy initiatives, and the gaps and barriers to deployment at scale. This was an initial piece of work to help begin to fill the information vacuum around the challenges facing CCS projects.

This not simply about information collation, this is about the collation of experiences, and in my mind the best source of knowledge is experience. This project is but one of the pieces of work the Institute will deliver to disseminate the lessons from large scale demonstration projects. Our work will require the collaborative efforts of the industry and governments to contribute experiences that will help other projects move forward where otherwise they may not have. Ultimately it will be to the benefit of all.

Leadership

Most collaboration cannot occur unguided.  And, in most instances a helping hand is needed to avoid our societies from sitting still. Again, there is a role for the Institute here. Not a dominating role, but an important leadership role to help catalyse the industry and our membership base.

The Institute is seeking to do this by sketching out plans of action to tackle every single one of those elements that can propel our industry into being or act as hurdles stopping our progress. I mentioned these elements before as ones that I believe exist ‘above the ground’: policy, regulation, finance, public awareness, technical, capacity building and knowledge sharing.

For each of these elements the Institute is producing concrete plans to guide our actions for the next three to four years. These plans are collaborative ones, providing our members with the opportunity to define our pathway to success, and that of the industry.

Conclusion

Does CCS have any benefits? Well we must all think there are otherwise we would not be here today. The benefits to the US and other individual regions are of course far reaching. With increased acceleration of CCS we would hope to see job creation, reduced emissions, and greater energy security.

But let me leave you with one clear benefit. Studies show that if CCS fails to achieve commercial viability, global mitigation costs will be around 10 percent higher in 2050 than they otherwise would have.

The US Government and the local and international companies operating here who are making CCS happen today are contributing to delivering these benefits for its citizens.

There are many in this room who are investing in CCS, they are working to put in place the regulatory frameworks to allow CCS to be deployed, and they are working with financiers to create innovative and enterprising models to make these projects commercially viable. These are the front-runners; the ones who are taking the risks – financially and politically.

These members of our industry are also the ones that will reap the rewards.

Source: www.globalccsinstitute.com

Close Polluting Power Station  To Cut Emissions & Create Jobs  

The closure and replacement of Australia’s most polluting coal fired power station at Hazelwood by the end of 2012 could be achieved for $320 million a year. A report commissioned by Environment Victoria says this would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 12% and create hundreds of jobs.

Push for Hazelwood power station to close early

Adam Morton In The Age (17 May 2010):

A BLUEPRINT on closure and replacement of Australia’s most polluting power station by the end of 2012 has found it could be achieved for $320 million a year.

A report commissioned by Environment Victoria found the early closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 12 per cent and create hundreds of jobs.

The proposal comes as political leaders search for a way to fill the climate policy void created by the indefinite delay of the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme.

The federal backflip is forcing the state government to rethink its forthcoming climate policies – a climate change white paper and bill and statement on future energy supply.

Environment Victoria campaigns director Mark Wakeham said the consultants’ analysis showed that the cost and timeframe were feasible.

“Everyone knows that Hazelwood is going to close at some point,” he said. ”We think this is a real opportunity for whichever state or federal party that works with the company, International Power, to make it happen.”

Consultants Green Energy Markets found Hazelwood – responsible for 23 per cent of Victoria’s energy – could be replaced in one of two ways.

The first is a combination of large-scale gas-fired power and an expanded renewable energy program, mainly from pushing through some of the dozens of wind farms proposed.

The second would install less gas and introduce a residential and commercial energy efficiency program, wiping out the need for a quarter of Hazelwood’s electricity.

It is estimated replacing Hazelwood could reduce the state’s annual emissions by nearly 15 million tonnes, free 27 billion litres of water for other uses and create 2300 ongoing jobs under the second scenario.

There would also need to be financial support to help the local community cope with Hazelwood’s closure.

The report suggests several policy measures that could bring on the change, including competitive tender programs for funding and expanding the existing Victorian Energy Efficiency Target.

The $320 million annual cost is based on the equivalent of a carbon price of $20 – at the lower end of what International Power has estimated it would cost to replace coal with gas.

Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor welcomed the report, but warned against underestimating the time necessary to build new clean energy plants and the growth in electricity demand.

“No community would allow the closure of one of its power stations before its replacement began operating,” he said.

Victorian opposition energy spokesman Michael O’Brien said it would be ”very difficult” to resolve Hazelwood’s future without leadership from the federal government, but advancing the debate was important.

Federal opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said its “direct action” policy, which would ask companies to tender for access to a cash pool to cut emissions, would allow coal power stations such as Hazelwood or Yallourn to be replaced with gas or gas and renewables.

International Power has signalled it is open to a phased early shutdown of Hazelwood if a price could be agreed.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Super Hornet Takes Off With Flower Power

US ethanol production has cracked the 40-billion-litre mark, displacing about 364 million barrels of imported oil, according to a new report from the Renewable Fuels Association, while the US navy is currently trialling a biofuel blend – including the flowering plant, camelina – in its sophisticated FA-18 Super Hornet fighter jet.

Peter Hemphill in The Weekly Times (17 & 19 May 2010):

US ETHANOL production has cracked the 40-billion-litre mark, displacing about 364 million barrels of imported oil, according to a new report.

The Renewable Fuels Association’s annual industry report shows US ethanol now accounts for more than half the world’s production of the biofuel.

The Climate of Opportunity report showed the US increased its ethanol production during the past year by 5.2 billion litres, with another 19 refineries coming into production.

There are an estimated 189 refineries in the US with capacity to produce 45 billion litres of ethanol.

By comparison, Australia only produces 215 million litres of ethanol.

The American ethanol industry now underpins corn prices in the US and, with government backing, has reduced US reliance on imports of oil from the volatile Middle East region.

In reference to claims the US ethanol industry was diverting valuable corn away from food to fuel-production, the RFA said energy prices, not biofuels, drove food-price increases.

But the US biofuel industry is now looking at developing ethanol from other sources, such as cellulosic compounds. The RFA report identified 28 cellulose ethanol projects under development and construction in the US, most proposing to produce the biofuel from crop straw, wood, corn or sugar waste but also including municipal solid waste as a substrate.

THE US Navy has given new meaning to the term “flower power”.

The navy is currently trialling a biofuel blend in its sophisticated FA-18 Super Hornet fighter jet.

The blend is half standard jet propellant fuel and half biofuel made from camelina, a flowering plant in the Brassica family, which includes canola, mustard and cauliflower.

Camelina has been grown in Europe and Central Asia as an oilseed crop for more than 3000 years.

It is also known as gold-of-pleasure, false flax, wild flax, German sesame and Siberian oilseed.

US company Sustainable Oils won a contract last September to supply a camelina-based jet biofuel to the US Navy.

Sustainable Oils settled on camelina as a biofuel crop because it was not a food crop and worked well in rotation with wheat.

A number of farmers in Montana supply the oilseed to Sustainable Oils.

The US Navy is the largest diesel user in the world, but hopes to source half its energy needs as alternative fuels by 2020.

The US Navy plans to start using biodiesel in part of its naval fleet by 2016.

According to Biomass Magazine, the US Air Force is also trialling camelina in an A-10 Thunderbolt II jet and plans to source half its domestic aviation fuel as alternative fuels within six years.

Source: www.weeklytimesnow.com.au