Climate Change Evidence As Severe Floods Hit China, France & Brazil

All in one week, severe flooding is devastating part of Brazil, China and France. Ernst Rauch, Head of Munich Re’s Corporate Climate Centre says “we expect climate change to increase the incidence of flooding of this type in the long term”. United Nations says it’s true: “Millions of people are already experiencing the impact of climate change, as extreme weather conditions trigger more frequent floods, droughts, forest fires, and catastrophic storms”.

AFP reports (22June 2010):

More than 1,000 people are missing in north-eastern Brazil after days of heavy rain and flooding.

The floods have killed at least 32 people and left about 100,000 people homeless, and there are fears the death toll could skyrocket.

The north-eastern state of Alagoas has been the hardest hit.

“Up until the early afternoon we had 22 confirmed dead in Alagoas (state) and more than 1,000 people missing,” governor Teotonio Vilela Filho was quoted as saying by the official Agencia Brasil news agency.

“We are praying for the missing to be found alive. But we are very worried because bodies are starting to turn up on beaches and on riverbanks.”

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the government would make federal funds available to help the homeless.

The president has met with local governors to work on details of the relief efforts.

Source: www.abc.net.au

China (Reuters) – A flood-battered dyke in China suffered a fresh breach on Wednesday as heavy flooding that has killed nearly 200 people in the past week intensified and about 100,000 residents fled after an earlier break in its wall.

The Fu River in Jiangxi province first burst through the protective Changkai Dyke late on Monday, after days of torrential rain, threatening areas near the small city of Fuzhou.

The river punched through the embankment again early on Wednesday, the official Xinhua news agency said. Residents whose homes were threatened had already been evacuated at night.

Troops in orange vests were using boats to search for stranded residents and take them to safety.

“We did not want to leave, but they said there would be more heavy rain in the coming few days, so we decided to bring the children out,” said Xiong Feijie, 31, who had been living on the upper floor of her home in Changkai town for the last two days.

Soldiers, civil militia and police were concentrating their efforts in towns like Changkai on rescuing the elderly, children and pregnant women, and taking evacuees to a stadium in Fuzhou.

“We were lacking rescue equipment the past few days, so they have been sending us more boats today and we’ve stepped up rescue work,” said rescuer Cui Suilai.

In some areas, the flood waters were up to chest level, inundating the ground floors of homes, shops and restaurants.

Heavy rain across much of southern China over the last week has killed at least 199 people and left 123 missing, as rivers broke their banks and landslides severed road and rail links, the Ministry of Civil Affairs said.

More than 2.38 million people have been evacuated, although many are moved only short distances.

ECONOMIC LOSSES

The floods have caused economic losses of around 42.12 billion yuan ($6.2 billion), with more than 1.6 million hectares of farmland flooded and about 195,000 houses collapsing.

Source: www.reuters.com

Munich Re reports:

Torrential rain has caused severe flooding in Provence, southern France. In the town of Draguignan, entire streets were submerged, cars were swept away and houses collapsed.

Ernst Rauch, Head of Munich Re’s Corporate Climate Centre: “In principle, anyone can be affected by flash floods following extreme rainfall, even those who live well away from a major river. We expect climate change to increase the incidence of flooding of this type in the long term”.

Flash flood losses can occur almost anywhere and are generally insurable.

Interview with Dr. Wolfgang Kron, Munich Re’s Head of Research for Hydrological Hazards 

Dr. Kron, what makes flash floods so unpredictable and dangerous?

River flooding occurs when there is heavy rain over a large area, the rain converges in the main river and thus builds up a flood wave over a period of several days. Flash floods are entirely different. What counts here is not the amount of rain but its intensity, for example in the case of local storms. The total amount of rainfall in these cases is secondary. Within a short period of time, a stream can turn into a raging torrent or flat terrain become completely submerged. Flash floods are sudden and over quickly, usually after just a few hours.

How frequently do such events occur?

Since 1980, Munich Re has systematically documented events and processed this information so that it can be used for statistical analyses. Our research has revealed that storms resulting in floods occur much more frequently than “classic” cases of river flooding, and are likely to increase even more in the future. Typically, floods from local storms usually produce losses ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of euros, sometimes even in the millions. As there are literally hundreds of these events every year in Germany alone, we believe that, over a longer period of time, the large number of smaller losses from flash floods are pretty much on a par with the million-euro losses from river flooding.

For example, in June 2008, after extreme rainfall, a small stream in the Killertal in Baden-Württemberg, tore through the village of Jungingen, destroying houses and carrying off cars (in one of which two women drowned) and flooded parts of the nearby town of Hechingen, located at the foot of the Hohenzollern castle. Losses here totaled nearly €100m.

Would structural measures help combat flash flooding?

Only in certain circumstances. With river flooding, we know where the danger comes from and can build a dyke to protect ourselves. A flash flood can occur anywhere. I know an inn near Munich located at the top of a hill and it still suffered flood damage. Protection against incoming water is possible by building the ground floor a foot or so above ground level. In older buildings it is possible to seal basement windows. Generally speaking, you should try and ensure that all paved areas slope downwards away from the house so they can carry away water as easily as possible. However, even this will not guarantee you escape unscathed.

That raises the question of the most effective form of risk reduction?

This involves a whole range of measures. In terms of construction, do what you can afford. Also, do not store valuable objects or items vulnerable to water in the cellar, ask yourself whether you really need to have a carpet or parquet flooring in the basement. You must realise that you are never 100% safe from flooding. And then of course insurance. There is no way round that.

To what do you attribute the lack of risk awareness regarding flash floods?

If you live a long way from any water, the flood risk is not necessarily the first thing that springs to mind. Most people will rarely, if ever, face flood damage. But then it does hit some people and that spells disaster for them. We need to inform and convince people. So as not to reduce people’s willingness to take their own precautionary measures, it is important that suitable deductibles are agreed. This means that small claims with their relatively high administrative costs are eliminated. In this respect, I also suggest a no-claims bonus. For example, ten claims free years result in an annual deductible reduction of 20% from the eleventh year onwards.

Source: www.munichre.com

Australia Needs to Wake up to Electric Vehicle Opportunities

Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in supporting the introduction of electric vehicles, according to Nissan, which has come up with a list of 15 incentive suggestions for all levels of Government including cash subsidies, free parking, use of transit lanes and cheaper registration. An Electric Vehicle Roadmap for Queensland has been produced outlining the issues and opportunities to support the uptake of electric vehicles, while Australia’s annual conference on Electric Vehicles will be adding Smart Grid to its program at the Novotel Brisbane on 21 October 2010.

Turn over a New Leaf: Electric vehicles may struggle to gain traction without some encouragement

By Mark Hinchcliffe in The Courier Mail (19 June 2010):

Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in supporting the introduction of electric vehicles, according to one Japanese importer.

Nissan Australia chief executive Dan Thompson  says the Australian Government stood out on the world stage for its lack of EV support.,

“It is most important for the acceptance of EV to have government incentives and at the moment there is a big fact zero incentive,” he says

Nissan, which plans to introduce the Leaf EV in 2012, gave up on discussions with the Federal Government about a year ago, he says.

“And in that same time about 10-15 governments around the world have give incentives,” he says.

“It is a stand out in not giving support.

“To this day the Australian Government doesn’t have incentives.

“We are slow to the party.”

Discussions about industry wide incentives are now continuing between the government and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

“It won’t change our intention to release the Leaf, but it will affect our volumes,” he says

It’s not something we need in the long term but in the short term for acceptance of EV”

“We need it now not later to encourage uptake of new technology”

Thompson says Nissan is continuing discussions with state and local Governments, which have shown more commitment to being environmentally friendly.

“Victoria is the most pro-active state and Sydney the most pro-active city”, he says.

Nissan has come up with a list of 15 incentive suggestions for all levels of Government including cash subsidies, free parking, use of transit lanes and cheaper registration.

Source: www.carsguide.com.au

This week, Acting Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability Annastacia Palaszczuk released An Electric Vehicle Roadmap for Queensland, an issues paper for public discussion.

Queensland’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Roadmap supports the government’s commitment to promote the adoption of EVs globally.

EVs are considerably more efficient than traditional petrol cars and have great promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the passenger transport sector, especially in the long term.

Countries all over the world are welcoming EVs into the marketplace by developing dedicated policies to encourage their uptake and in Australia, the Queensland Government is also working alongside national industry stakeholders to create a supportive environment for EVs.

An Electric Vehicle Roadmap for Queensland outlines the issues and opportunities Queensland will examine to support the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) when they come onto the Australian market over the next few years.  It canvasses a range of policy areas including industry development, interactivity with the electricity grid, environmental and resource impacts, consumer uptake and behaviour change, standards and regulations and renewable energy.

EVs offer motorists an option for low emission transport and when recharged using 100 percent renewable energy, they have the potential to generate zero emissions.

Reducing transport-related emissions by encouraging consumers to become early adopters of EVs will help Queensland meet its ambitious Q2 target to cut Queenslanders’ carbon footprint by one third with reduced car and electricity use by 2020.

Please join us in promoting EVs in Queensland by reviewing the Queensland EV Roadmap.  Comments from the public are invited until 19 July 2010 to assist in framing the final shape of Queensland’s policy response for EVs.

Thank you.

Greg Withers

Assistant Director General, Office of Climate Change

Source: www.climatechange.qld.gov.au

Announcement:

After its first success last year, Australia’s annual conference on Electric Vehicles will be adding Smart Grid to its program and be held again at the Novotel Brisbane on 21 October 2010.

These two conference streams run in parallel in the same venue will offer participants a unique opportunity to listen to Australian and overseas presenters, and to network with an expected 250 cleantech professionals.

The EV program will be focussing not just on  the vehicles but most importantly on the impact of their market introduction onto the electricity infrastructure, their economics and the role EV will play in making a transition to cleaner and greener transport.

“Electric vehicles are being introduced worldwide while governments, cities or utilities have to resolve challenges around building charging infrastructures, establishing new policies, managing electricity demand etc. Fleet owners ask to better understand the true economics and many other industries are keen to be involved or at least prepared” says Philippe Reboul, CEO of RBL Consulting, the event organiser. “Our conference offers a unique forum where these points will be addressed with all the key professionals in one place”.

The Smart Grid stream will address practical barriers and solutions and look at effective initiatives, economics, infrastructures, community involvement, new technologies and overseas experience.

Grahame Foulger, Director of SmartGrid Partners, conference partner and co-organiser added: “Smart Grid covers a wide range of solutions helping utilities, communities and consumers to better manage their energy demand and consumption. It allows a smarter integration into the grid of electric vehicles, electricity storage, renewable energies, energy efficiency solutions and demand management programs to the benefits of our society and the environment. Australia is making world-class progress in this exciting field with initiatives such as Solar City and Smart Grid Smart City and our conference is part of our commitment to support this fast-growing industry.

Source: www.evconference.com.au

DesignBUILD Showcase for ecospecifier’s Global Green Tag

David Baggs presented the Ecospecifier Global GreenTag as a world first LCA rating system for green building products in Melbourne this week, before more than over 350 exhibitors, leading industry speakers and thousands of new, innovative and sustainable products assembled at Australia’s premier DesignBUILD event.

DesignBUILD announcement:

Over 350 exhibitors, leading industry speakers and thousands of new, innovative and sustainable products is what DesignBUILD is offering the building industry in Melbourne.

The trade and professional only expo will run at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre June 23 – 25 and is collocated with the CEDIA Expo and the Plumbing Design Show.

Exhibition Manager Steve Horsley said it’s often hard for trades and professionals to find the time to stay on top of industry trends, policies, case studies and new products and ideas but the industry has access to it all at DesignBUILD 2010.

The expo boasts an impressive array of information including the DesignBUILD – A Catalyst for Change seminars, the Next Productivity Wave seminar, the Full Frontal Tile and Stone seminar, the National Plumbing Forum, an Italian pavilion and finalist BDAV designs on display.

“Our aim was to bring education and information important to the growth and sustainability of the design, building and construction industries under one roof.

“DesignBUILD has now become Australia’s largest trade and professional expo, designed purely to benefit the industry andthe businesses within them by encouraging thought sharing and collaboration,” he said.

The DesignBUILD seminar series – A Catalyst for Change, runs over the course of the three day expo and each seminar carries 1 CPD point.

Strong emphasis has been placed on providing a big picture overview, and state of mind subjects, such as customer experience strategies, good design, green and sustainable building practises, developments and communities, that have the wherewithal to change market and workplace dynamics overnight.

The Next Productivity Wave seminar and workshop will explore current and future trends and practices in BIM methods and techniques, case studies, features and benefits and cover the launch of GreenTag.

With over 100 new products scheduled for release at DesignBUILD, trades and professionals who are keen to browse and compare new products in their own time can visit Innovation Alley, where seeing the latest in the industry is as easy as window shopping.

Between the Green Building Zone partnered by ecospecifier, The Outdoor Design Zone partnered by Outdoor Design Source, the Tools and Safety Zone partnered by Building Contractor Magazine and the selector.com.au

Best Product Award, trades and professionals will walk away from DesignBUILD at the forefront of the industry.

Those looking for design inspiration can view works by Building Designers Association of Victoria (BDAV) award finalists and speak to the finalists, some of whom will also be available onsite daily between 12 – 2pm daily.

The Phillip Johnson Landscape Architect feature will showcase urban landscape design in a full scale onsite setting, while the Blackwood’s Tools of the Trade and the BPN/Infolink Applications in Action feature interactive audience demonstrations and give trades and professionals the chance to see and use the newest products in the market.

This year will also see the introduction of Foundations, a dedicated seminar supporting and honouring students and apprentices – our work force of the future.

The Italian Trade Commission have also organised visitors from Rome who will bring with them the latest in stone and tile fashion never before seen in Australia.

DesignBUILD international will run with the support of Austrade to connect exhibitors with international building and construction companies, while all exhibitors and guests will be able to network in the RMAX Builders Bar.

View the full seminar series timetable online and make sure you register to receive your complimentary ticket -

Source: www.designbuildexpo.com.au

GREEN TAG™ assesses products against worst case business as usual products in the same functional category and with the same functional purpose, based on the following impacts/benefits:

• building design synergy
• greenhouse emission point
• human health& eco-toxicity
• life cycle impact
• biodiversity and
• resource consumption
• corporate social responsibility

GREEN TAG™ BRONZE is an equivalent standard to some ecolabels in the market and generally considers a product to be in the top 25% of the market based on assessment of the above issues.

GREEN TAG™ SILVER is a higher standard than most ecolabels  in the market and considers a product to be in the top 20% of the market based on assessment of the above issues.

GREEN TAG™ GOLD is a significantly higher standard than most ecolabels  in the market and considers a product to be in the top 15% of the market based on assessment of the above issues.

GREEN TAG™ PLATINUM is the highest standard in the market and considers a product to be in the top 10% of the market based on assessment of the above issues.

ecospecifier’s GreenTag™’s GreenRate Process is now an authorised third party certification scheme approved by the the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) for use by manufacturers wanting certification under Green Star™* Materials Calculator credits.

GreenTag™ is an efficient one-stop Certification solution for the whole industry-it will speed up product research and planning processes in the specification and purchase of green building products.

Because of the synergistic benefits GreenTag delivers to the market and manufacturers of green building products, ecospecifier expects that GreenTag™ will become the benchmark for green products vying for selection in buildings to be approved by the Green Star™ system, awarded by GBCA in Australia and New Zealand as GBCNZ now accredits all GBCA third party approved products.

GreenTag™ also provides manufactures the option to have products assessed against other green building schemes around Australia, including NABERS, BASIX, BCA and overseas schemes, including LEED (USA, Canada, India, China, Italy and approximately 87 other countries), BREEAM (UK, Middle East and Europe), Estidama Pearl (Abu Dhabi), Green Building Index(Malaysia) and Green Mark (Singapore). 

The Life Cycle Assessment inherent in the GreenTag™ is particularly important as it determines the environmental and health impacts of a product from the sourcing and refining of its raw materials, transport, manufacturing, disposal, including reuse, recycling, operations and maintenance, over the whole life of the product.

At the Design Build seminar, David Baggs of Ecospecifier:

This presentation describes how the ecospecifier Global GREENTAG™ life cycle assessment (LCA) based product certification and rating system brings LCA into a BIM context and launches product specific real time eco-profiling of buildings as an economic design/scenario review tool via LCADesign software.

The presentation explains how GREENTAG™ also provides third party certification for Green Building Council of Australia accredited Green Star™  Materials Calculator credit point rating via its ‘GreenRate’ certification process.

A passionate advocate for sustainable futures in the built environment, David heads up a world leading Green Building Solutions consulting team, ecospecifier Global’s green product research hub and GreenTag™ certification program to help progress sustainability in the global construction industry.

Ecospecifier Global GreenTag™ is a world first LCA rating system for green Building products that is also an accredited third party certification system for Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star™* Materials Calculator credits.

Source: www.ecospecifier.org

Anthropogenic Change: 97% Climate Scientists For, 3% Against

New research says that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it. This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences. It found that 97% of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.

By Justin Gillis in New York Times (22 June 2010):

Many debates about global warming seem to boil down to appeals to authority, with one side or the other citing some famous scientist, or group of them, to buttress a particular argument. The tone is often, “My expert is better than yours!”

Against this backdrop, some analysts have been trying for several years to get a firm handle on where climate researchers come down, as a group, on the central issues in the global-warming debate: Is the earth warming up, and if so, are humans largely responsible?

Now comes another entry in this developing literature. William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny.

The authors then classified those researchers as convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change, based on such factors as whether they have signed public statements endorsing or dissenting from the big United Nations reports raising alarm about the issue. Then the authors analyzed how often each scientist had been published in the climate-science literature, as well as how often each had been cited in other papers. (The latter is a standard measure of scientific credibility and influence.)

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.

The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view. The skeptics are also less influential, as judged by how often their scientific papers are cited in the work of other climate scientists.

“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence” of human-induced climate change “vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,” Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.

Climate-change skeptics will most likely find fault with this research, as they have with similar efforts in the past. For starters, Mr. Anderegg’s dissertation advisers are Christopher Field and Stephen H. Schneider, two of the most prominent advocates of the mainstream view of climate change; Dr. Schneider is a co-author of the new paper.

The climate dissenters have long complained that global-warming science is an echo chamber in which, they contend, it is hard to get published if one does not accept the conventional wisdom that humans are heating up the planet. So they argue that it is circular reasoning to claim a broad scientific consensus based on publication track records. The mainstream researchers reject that charge, contending that global warming skeptics do not get published for the simple reason that their work is weak.

In this long-running battle over scientific credibility and how to measure it, the Anderegg paper analyzes a particularly large database of climate researchers, and therefore goes farther than any previous effort in attaching hard numbers to the discussion.

Source: www.green.blogs.nytimes.com

By Doyle Rice in USA Today (22 June 2010):

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.”

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

In the study, the authors wrote: “This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.”

The study authors were William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider.

The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

Source: www.content.usatoday.com

Climate Change & Sustainability Get Stronger Business Focus

Business school faculty and students are applying their management skills to one of the world’s knottiest problems: climate change. Sustainability, the consumption of natural resources at a rate that doesn’t deplete the planet, now cuts across the curriculum. And the 2010 Climate Change and Business conference (Sydney 10-12 August) will focus on how business is moving forward on climate change response in a time of policy uncertainty.

By BETH GARDINER  in Wall Street Journal (17 June 2010):

Business school faculty and students are applying their management skills to one of the world’s knottiest problems: climate change.

IMD Business School worked with conservation group WWF on case studies about how companies reduced greenhouse-gas emissions.

Several years after global warming first became a big topic in B-school classrooms and cafeterias, schools are now digging into the issue in a far more detailed way. There are new faculty posts dedicated to environmental concerns, case studies highlighting companies that have succeeded in shrinking their carbon footprints and a slew of student consulting projects on cutting emissions. Norwich Business School in England recently launched what it says is the world’s first M.B.A. in strategic carbon management.

“This has gone from what 10 years ago, when I started, was kind of a novelty to something that is a core part of our business, because it’s a core part of business,” says Gail Whiteman, who holds a newly created chair in sustainability and climate change at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, in the Netherlands. “As opposed to a few years ago, the legitimacy within the business school has climbed significantly.”

Dr. Whiteman says her school’s corporate advisory board, composed of executives from large corporations, had recently told her sustainability and climate concerns should be one of the institution’s three key focuses.

“There was something like €300 billion worth of responsibility in that room which was saying ‘This is not decorative,’” she says. “They’re strongly committed to doing something on climate change and they need staff who know something about it.”

Like many business school faculty working on climate issues, Dr. Whiteman emphasizes that it goes beyond corporate social responsibility. Retooling for a low-carbon economy must be a central concern for businesses, they say, particularly since governments around the world are likely to eventually require it.

At IMD business school in Switzerland, professors worked with the conservation group WWF to write 13 case studies on companies that had taken innovative steps to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. A representative of the school joined WWF in distributing them at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, says Aileen Ionescu-Somers, director of IMD’s Center for Corporate Sustainability Management.

Topics included the Tetra Pak packaging firm’s decision to site a new Chinese plant near sources of renewable power and an internal finance mechanism at Johnson & Johnson intended to facilitate funding for long-term carbon-saving projects, Dr. Ionescu-Somers says.

She argues that business schools have a big role to play in showing future managers the importance of sustainability, noting that IMD’s research indicated the biggest obstacles to companies working in a more environmentally friendly way were not external issues but their own executives’ mindsets.

“Integrating this as part of how you think as a business leader will definitely allow more opportunities to be perceived, as opposed to only risks, in the area of sustainability,” she says. IMD is starting an executive-education program on sustainability this fall, also in collaboration with WWF.

At the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, students in a new, mandatory M.B.A. course on sustainability and responsible leadership work jointly with companies, non-profit groups or government agencies on a broad range of social and environmental problems, many of them with climate implications, says Richard Brubaker, a sustainability consultant and visiting professor who teaches the course.

“For China these issues are very real,” says Lydia Price, the school’s M.B.A. program director. “There’s just no way that China can continue its economic growth without confronting (sustainability) issues very seriously, and that means they will have a very strong impact on our students in their careers.”

Whether through regulation, government investment in clean technologies or consumer demand for environmentally sensitive practice, “if they’re working in China, they’re going to be affected by this in a big way, sooner rather than later,” she says.

Sustainability, the consumption of natural resources at a rate that doesn’t deplete the planet, now cuts across the curriculum, Dr. Price says. “We’re starting to get into the finance field, we’re talking about sustainable investment, we’re seeing it emerge in all the functional areas of business, sustainable marketing, sustainable supply chain.”

At the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School, policy modeling expert Chris Hope designed a model policymakers and businesses can use to estimate the social cost of carbon, using their own assumptions about temperature changes and their economic impact. It’s been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the authors of the influential Stern Report on the economics of climate change, commissioned by the U.K. government.

The model lets policymakers see what the long-term costs of different decisions on carbon cutting might be, by putting a price on the damage done by every additional ton of carbon in the atmosphere. That figure varies depending on the assumptions used, but Dr. Hope puts it at around $80. Whatever amount policymakers come up with is exactly where they should set a carbon tax, he argues.

“That’s a really useful number, both for governments who might be thinking of using these kinds of financial measures and for businesses who are thinking ‘What might we be asked to pay in the future?’” Dr. Hope says.

He’s also shared his model with Britain’s Committee on Climate Change, which advises the government on carbon limits, and international bodies including the Asian Development Bank, he says. And big corporations are increasingly seeking his help as they consider plans to shrink their carbon footprint.

“Business schools should have a practical focus; we’re interested in results in the real world,” says Dr. Hope. “And so we would certainly be a good place to move beyond the complex science and see what the implications of that science might be for businesses and for government.”

Ms. Gardiner is a writer in London. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Source: www.online.wsj.com

6^th Australia New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference 10-12 August, Sydney:

The 2010 conference will focus on how business is moving forward on climate change response in a time of policy uncertainty. Attendees will hear from key emitting sectors (stationary energy, buildings, transport, industry, forestry & agriculture) on how they can reduce emissions by 20 -25% by 2020. Policy makers will be asked to respond to the calls from these sectors for policy settings to give business the means to implement these changes.  

Underlining this theme is the importance of energy efficiency and the question of how to properly manage and leverage the public and private sector funding required to seed cleantech projects.    Expert speakers will also explore adaptation measures, emerging as a priority response to inevitable and possibly extreme climate change, given the absence of effective global action. 

The program will take a careful look at the international framework, how those policies are likely to evolve and how they could impact Australian and New Zealand businesses. We will examine the relative success of complementary measures globally and assess what could be replicated in our part of the world. There are also some very practical lessons to learn from, including New Zealand’s implementation of an ETS, energy efficiency best practice, the growing role of land use and summary findings from a full year of NGER reporting.

The 6^th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change & Business Conference brings together business leaders and policy makers from both Australia and New Zealand to facilitate taking action on climate change.   The 2010 conference will focus on how business is moving forward on climate change response in a time of policy uncertainty. Business leaders and investors will discuss the challenges, opportunities and potential ways forward while policy makers and market experts will provide updates on regional and international developments.  

Source:  www.climateandbusiness.com

Focus on Green Investment, Sustainability & Energy Efficiency

Climate change @ Work Conference in Brisbane on 4 August will explore how more sustainable approaches to energy and resource efficiency are changing jobs, human resource management, workplace relations and skill formation.

This conference presents the big picture/policy issues of climate change in the workplace, along with case studies and practical workshops. While companies are often more concerned about the technological side of climate change this conference focuses on the practical information you need to achieve a better climate in a green workplace!

The Workplace Research Centre is bringing Climate Change @ Work to Brisbane for the second year following the success of last year’s conference. The conference is run in partnership with the Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University and ABC Carbon and will take place on the 4 August at the Ship Inn Function Room, Griffith Graduate Centre, Southbank, Brisbane.

The Climate Change @ Work Conference will provide an insight into the latest green business solutions and carbon emissions mitigation practices in the workplace as well as providing and update on green policy, green jobs and green workforce development in Australia.

The conference gives you the opportunity to meet with inspiring environmental business leaders and to hear the latest workplace sustainability research. New to this year’s program will be ‘Workplace Sustainability initiatives in the Tourism Industry’. The day will also include a valuable insight into sustainable leadership in the workplace with presentations by Accenture Australia and Hewlett Packard.

The interactive seminar style format of last year’s conference will be repeated to encourage debate and participation amongst attendees.

Speakers include:

Empowering Sustainability in the Workplace

• Professor Ian Lowe, President, Australian Conservation Foundation

Environmental Leadership in the Workplace

• Dr. Sally Russell, Lecturer in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,Griffith University
• Accenture Australia
• HP Imaging and Printing Group, South Pacific

Workplace Sustainability Initiatives in the Tourism Industry

• Dr. David Weaver, Professor of Tourism Research, Centre for Tourism, Sport and Service Innovation Research, Griffith University

• Stewart Moore,CEO, EC3 Global

Skills for Sustainability in Australia

• Serena Yu, Senior Research Analyst, Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney

Green Ventures, a sustainability showcase

• Ken Hickson, Director,ABC Carbon

Source: www.wrc.org.au

Lucky Last – Solar Focus from Florida

Barbara Young in Florida, USA writes on solar power. Her work is devoted to helping people save energy using solar powered energy to eliminate CO2 emissions and energy dependency. She has a simple solution to help individuals learn how solar panels work and provide information to make the transition from a full-time energy dependent to successful energy efficiency.

Barbara Young  started 12voltsolarpanels.net in 2008 to help people who want to save energy using solar power or deal with the sometimes overwhelming prospect of starting a PV system.

What’s solar energy?

Solar energy is radiant energy that’s produced by the sun. Daily the sun radiates, or sends out, an enormous volume of energy. The sun radiates more energy in a second than people have used since the beginning of time!

The energy of the Sun originates from within the sun itself. Like other stars, the sun is really a big ball of gases––mostly hydrogen and helium atoms.

The hydrogen atoms in the sun’s core combine to create helium and generate energy in a process called nuclear fusion.

During nuclear fusion, the sun’s extremely high pressure and temperature cause hydrogen atoms to come apart and their nuclei (the central cores of the atoms) to fuse or combine. Four hydrogen nuclei fuse to become one helium atom. But the helium atom contains less mass than the four hydrogen atoms that fused. Some matter is lost during nuclear fusion. The lost matter is emitted into space as radiant energy.

It takes an incredible number of years for the energy in the sun’s core to make its way to the solar surface, after which just a little over eight minutes to travel the 93 million miles to earth. The solar energy travels to the earth at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, the velocity of sunshine.

Simply a small part of the power radiated by the sun into space strikes the earth, one part in two billion. Yet this volume of energy is enormous. Every day enough energy strikes the united states to supply the nation’s energy needs for one and a half years!

Where does all of this energy go?

About 15 percent of the sun’s energy which hits our planet is reflected back to space. Another 30 percent is used to evaporate water, which, lifted into the atmosphere, produces rainfall. Solar power is absorbed by plants, the land, and the oceans. The remaining could be used to supply our energy needs.

Who invented solar technology ?

Humans have harnessed solar energy for hundreds of years. As early as the 7th century B.C., people used simple magnifying glasses to concentrate the light of the sun into beams so hot they would cause wood to catch fire.

Over 100 years ago in France, a scientist used heat from a solar collector to produce steam to drive a steam engine. In the beginning of this century, scientists and engineers began researching ways to use solar power in earnest. One important development was a remarkably efficient solar boiler invented by Charles Greeley Abbott, an american astrophysicist, in 1936.

The solar water heater came into common use at this time in Florida, California, and the Southwest. The industry started in the early 1920s and was in full swing just before The second world war. This growth lasted before mid-1950s when low-cost gas had become the primary fuel for heating American homes.

People and world governments remained largely indifferent to the possibilities of solar technology until the oil shortages of the1970s. Today, people use solar energy to heat buildings and water and to generate electricity.

How we use solar energy today ?

Solar energy is used in a variety of ways, of course. There’s two standard kinds of solar energy:

 * Solar thermal energy collects the sun’s warmth through one of two means: in water or in an anti-freeze (glycol) mixture.

 * Solar photovoltaic energy converts the sun’s radiation to usable electricity.

Listed below are the five most practical and popular ways that solar energy is used:

 1. Small portable solar photovoltaic systems. We see these used everywhere, from calculators to solar garden products. Portable units can be utilised for everything from RV appliances while single panel systems can be used traffic signs and remote monitoring stations.

 2. Solar pool heating. Running water in direct circulation systems through a solar collector is an extremely practical method to heat water for your pool or hot spa.

 3. Thermal glycol energy to heat water. In this method (indirect circulation), glycol is heated by natural sunlight and the heat is then transferred to water in a warm water tank. This method of collecting the sun’s energy is more practical now than ever before. In areas as far north as Edmonton, Alberta, solar thermal to heat water is economically sound. It can pay for itself in three years or less.

 4. Integrating solar photovoltaic energy into your home or business power. In numerous parts of the world, solar photovoltaics is an economically feasible solution to supplement the power of your property. In Japan, photovoltaics are competitive with other types of power. In the US, new incentive programs make this form of solar power ever more viable in many states. A frequent and practical way of integrating solar energy into the power of your home or business is through the usage of building integrated solar photovoltaics.

 5. Large independent photovoltaic systems. If you have enough sun power at your site, you could possibly go off grid. It’s also possible to integrate or hybridize your solar energy system with wind power or other types of renewable power to stay ‘off the grid.’

How can Photovoltaic panels work ?

Silicon is mounted beneath non-reflective glass to produce photovoltaic panels. These panels collect photons from the sun, converting them into DC electrical energy. The power created then flows into an inverter. The inverter transforms the power into basic voltage and AC electrical energy.

Photovoltaic cells are prepared with particular materials called semiconductors like silicon, which is presently the most generally used. When light hits the Photovoltaic cell, a particular share of it is absorbed inside the semiconductor material. This means that the energy of the absorbed light is given to the semiconductor.

The power unfastens the electrons, permitting them to run freely. Pv cells also have more than one electric fields that act to compel electrons unfastened by light absorption to flow in a specific direction. This flow of electrons is a current, and by introducing metal links on the top and bottom of the -Photovoltaic cell, the current can be drawn to use it externally.

Do you know the positives and negatives of solar power ?

Solar Pro Arguments

- Heating our homes with oil or propane or using electricity from power plants running with coal and oil is a cause of global warming and climate disruption. Solar power, on the other hand, is clean and environmentally-friendly.

- Solar hot-water heaters require little maintenance, and their initial investment may be recovered in just a relatively short time.

- Solar hot-water heaters can work in almost any climate, even just in very cold ones. You just have to choose the best system for your climate: drainback, thermosyphon, batch-ICS, etc.

- Maintenance costs of solar powered systems are minimal and also the warranties large.

- Financial incentives (USA, Canada, European states…) can reduce the cost of the initial investment in solar technologies. The U.S. government, as an example, offers tax credits for solar systems certified by by the SRCC (Solar Rating and Certification Corporation), which amount to 30 percent of the investment (2009-2016 period).

Solar Cons Arguments

- The initial investment in Solar Hot water heaters or in Solar PV Electric Systems is greater than that required by conventional electric and gas heaters systems.

- The payback period of solar PV-electric systems is high, as well as those of solar space heating or solar cooling (only the solar warm water heating payback is short or relatively short).

- Solar water heating do not support a direct combination with radiators (including baseboard ones).

- Some air conditioning (solar space heating and the solar cooling systems) are costly, and rather untested technologies: solar air-con isn’t, till now, a truly economical option.

- The efficiency of solar powered systems is rather determined by sunlight resources. It’s in colder climates, where heating or electricity needs are higher, that the efficiency is smaller.

Barbara Young in Floida, USA writes on solar power. Her work is devoted to helping people save energy using solar powered energy to eliminate CO2 emissions and energy dependency.

Source:  www.12voltsolarpanels.net

Queen’s Birthday Honours’ went out to thousands of undoubtedly well-deserved recipients all over the Commonwealth of nations but we saw little or no evidence of recognition of those committed to the environment or climate change action. Luckily for some there’s an accolade like the ABC CARBON 50 to claim. Last week, we presented Australia’s 50 most influential. Hope you made it or at least saw who’s there and who’s not. Next up we want to recognise those climate change and conservation communicators – journalists working tirelessly in the media or those directly aiming to make sure you get the message on clean energy, sustainability or all things good and green. Your nominations please! This week we have people’s views and news from far and wide. There’s Bill Gates in Profile and Peter Seligman at Lucky Last. Malcolm Turnbull turns up again, as does Victor Bivell.  Tim Soutphommasane makes his mark and Thomas Sterner shows up. Adrian Macey gets honoured at Bonn but nothing much else happens, while Kate Galbraith of New York Times gets us thinking about oil spill impacts. Scottish and Irish ideas and schemes abound, while French and Spanish investors plug into Arab solar energy. Wizard Power looks for more funds before the sun sets and Australia’s Sustainable Cities gets marked out of 20.See how Germany is upsetting the status quo for Qantas and for food consumers. Is there really climate chaos lurking or do our climate scientists just need to get their act together?  Let us know what you think. – Ken Hickson

Profile: Bill Gates

Global business leader & Microsoft founder Bill Gates calls for the development of a form of energy, environmentally designed so that it’s not emitting carbon and helps address the climate change problem. “We can develop the low-cost clean-energy technologies so critically needed by the world’s poor and so essential to ensuring a sustainable planet for all of humanity”. The American Energy Innovation Council, on which Gates plays a critical role, immediately asks the US government to increase its annual expenditure on energy research and development by US$11bn to US$16bn a year.

By Jeff Bater in Wall Street Journal (14 June 2010):

Microsoft chief Bill Gates on Sunday called for the U.S. to become less dependent on foreign oil. But he conceded that it wouldn’t be easy.

Last week, the American Energy Innovation Council, a group of business leaders to which Gates belongs, released a report that argued that overhauling U.S. investment in energy innovation was the most critical element to securing America’s future. It recommended that the U.S. government increase annual investments in clean energy research and development by $11 billion.

Asked on ABC News’s “This Week” how receptive lawmakers have been to the pitch, Gates said: “Well, there is obviously a tight budget. And it would be tough to say that this money should come from existing categories.

“The question is, ‘Can the energy sector finance its own revolution and create these great R&D jobs here in America?’”

” He didn’t elaborate.

Source: www.blogs.wsj.com

Bill Gates statement on the American Energy Innovation Council website:

The world faces many challenges, but none more important than taking immediate and decisive action to develop new, inexpensive clean-energy sources that avoid the negative effects of climate change. Low-cost clean energy is the single most important way to lift poor countries out of poverty and create more stable societies. The whole world would benefit from this, and the United States can and should lead the way.

Decreasing our dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas also will reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing the earth to warm. If we do not dramatically reduce CO₂ pollution associated with the use of high-carbon fuels, the earth will continue to get hotter, causing the sea to rise and creating unpredictable weather patterns with potentially catastrophic consequences.

While none of us will be immune from these adverse effects, they will be particularly devastating for the world’s poorest people. Increased droughts and floods, for example, could mean the difference between a harvest that sustains life and a crop failure that ends it.

I’m optimistic about our ability to meet this challenge, but the longer we delay, the more difficult it will be. Delay locks in expensive investments that have huge environmental consequences. Around the world, new coal-fired energy plants that will each emit 300 million tons of CO₂ over their 50-year lifetime are being built to meet the world’s growing energy demand. At the same time, developing large amounts of low-cost and reliable clean energy will require time: 10 to 20 years of research and discovery, and, at the very least, another 20 years to build our new energy infrastructure. If we are to meet 2050 targets of reducing CO₂ emissions by 80 percent, we must begin now.

With innovation and determination, we can develop the low- cost clean-energy technologies so critically needed by the world’s poor and so essential to ensuring a sustainable planet for all of humanity. Increased federal investment in energy R&D is an essential first step. The time for action is now.

Source: www.americanenergyinnovation.org

Danny Bradbury in BusinessGreen (14 June 2010):

A group of industry leaders, including Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and General Electric boss Jeff Immelt, stepped up calls for a Manhattan project for low carbon energy last week urging the US government to significantly increase investment in energy research and development.

The group of business leaders formally launched a new group, the American Energy Innovation Council, which immmediately called on the government to increase its annual expenditure on energy research and development by $11bn to $16bn (£10bn) a year.

“Innovations in energy technology can generate significant, quantifiable public benefits that are not reflected in the market price of energy,” said the council in a statement, adding that government funding is essential as the level of risk associated with energy R&D makes it difficult to raise the necessary financing from the private sector.

The Council is formed of a number of high-profile executives with Norman Augustine, former chair of Lockheed Martin and John Doerr, partner at cleantech venture capital company Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, joining Gates and Immelt in the group.

“The government investment unlocks a huge amount of private sector activity, ” said Gates. “But the government has to prime the pump here. Basic ideas start with government investment.”

He added that without greater investment in energy R&D the US would struggle to reduce its reliance on oil. “American dependence on oil has only gone up as we’ve gone through various crises, and not invested in R&D,” he said. “We’ll be depending on oil for decades, but only if we start now will we see things like cars run by breakthrough batteries that change things in a dramatic way.”

The Council, which met with President Obama last Thursday, has set out a series of recommendations designed to reinvigorate US energy policy.

First, it has called for the formation of a non-partisan Energy Strategy Board that could co-ordinate a national energy strategy for the US.

Second, the group recommended that the amount spent on energy R&D should almost triple with immediate effect. “If recommendation two is not adopted, our other recommendations will not matter much. Reliance on incrementalism will not do the job,” the Council said.

The third recommendation calls for the creation of centres of excellence in various areas of energy research, backed by adequate funding. Costing between $150m and $250m per year, the group said that the new R&D hubs should be located in close proximity to each other, share operational objectives and be accountable to each other for results.

The Council also wants the government to commit $1bn in annual funding to the ARPA-E initiative, a Department of Energy programme which received $400m in stimulus funding last year. Modelled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program, it was designed to stimulate new thinking in energy research.

Finally, the group said that $20bn should be committed over ten years to fund an energy challenge program, which would be tasked with creating innovative energy pilot projects such as carbon capture and sequestration facilities, and fourth generation nuclear power plants.

The executives behind the new council all have a degree of vested interest in the low carbon energy sector. Gates recently announced that he is working on the development of a new form of nuclear reactor, while both GE and Lockheed Martin have targeted the renewable energy sector for growth in recent years. Meanwhile, John Doerr’s venture capital firm has emerged as one of the world’s top investors in clean tech start-ups.

However, the group is also representative of the growing number of business leaders calling for the accelerated transition towards a low carbon economy, and the American Energy Innovation Council will now join other increasingly vocal green business groups in campaigning for increased investment in low carbon technology.

Source: www.businessgreen.com

Courage & Leadership to Avert Disaster

The Rudd Government has been forced to defend its position on climate change after former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull unleashed a vitriolic attack on its political cowardice over its rejected emissions trading scheme, the CPRS. But, according to Eco Investor Editor Victor Bivell it’s an environmental disaster that is unfolding in Australia and the clean energy sector is among the victims. Unlike the BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, this one was brought about by the Government’s decision to delay the CPRS.

David McLennan in Canberra Times (14 June 2010):

The Rudd Government has been forced to defend its position on climate change after former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull unleashed a vitriolic attack on its political cowardice over its emissions trading scheme.

The Government also had to quell further speculation about its leadership and whether Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would keep the top job given Labor’s parlous state in the polls, or whether his deputy Julia Gillard should lead the party to the next election.

Mr Turnbull, who crossed the floor to vote for the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme after being dumped by his party for supporting it, challenged Mr Rudd to call a double dissolution on the issue and accused him of squibbing the challenge by putting the scheme off until at least 2013.

”There is no reason no political, moral, economic or ethical reason for this extraordinary abandonment of responsibility by the Government,” he said at the weekend.

”What we need to become a truly low-emission economy is courage and leadership.

”Our efforts to deal with climate change have been betrayed by a lack of leadership, a political cowardice the like of which I have never seen in my lifetime before.”

He said Mr Rudd who once labelled climate change the great moral challenge of our time could take the issue to a double-dissolution election, but he did not have the guts to do so.

”And he wonders now why people now ask, What do you stand for, Kevin … What do you believe in? If you do not believe in action on climate change what is the substance, the political substance of your leadership? And the answer is, there is nothing there,” he said.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner dismissed the comments, which come ahead of the last sitting period before the winter break and, potentially, the election as Mr Turnbull trying to ”rebuild his shattered political brand”.

”We remain committed to dealing with climate change,” he said.

”International circumstances changed dramatically in the latter part of last year and we’ve had to respond to that. And had it not been for the Greens voting with the Liberals in the Senate we would have got our carbon pollution reduction scheme into law.”

This combined opposition meant that the scheme might not even pass at a joint sitting after a double dissolution, he said.

Source: www.canberratimes.com.au

Victor Bivell in The Australian (15 June 2010):

SINCE BP first announced the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on April 21, what President Barack Obama is calling the biggest environmental disaster in US history has seen BP’s share price fall from about 650 pence to a low of 366p on Thursday of last week, a fall of 43 per cent.

In a similar time, many Australian clean energy stocks have fallen by a similar amount. Since April 23, shares in carbon sink company Carbon Conscious have fallen by 51 per cent, geothermal energy developer Geodynamics by 42 per cent, hot water company Quantum Energy by 33 per cent, wind energy generator Infigen by 29 per cent, bioenergy developer AnaeCo by 29 per cent, and geothermal company Hot Rock by 28 per cent.

So what have these companies done to be compared to BP? Are they behind a great environmental disaster in Australia? Certainly not. But an environmental disaster is unfolding here and the clean energy sector is among the victims.

The trigger was Kevin Rudd’s April 27 announcement of the delay in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and the lack of interim measures to take its place. Why the delay may have prompted share price falls equivalent to BP’s — a company that faces potentially multi-billion-pound costs for the clean-up and compensation claims — seems surprising and certainly unfair.

But there are similarities.

The news images of BP’s broken underwater pipe with an unending plume of oil gushing into the ocean is now a classic that will be replayed for years to come. So too BP’s dramatic attempts to cap the pipe — the container, the robot saw, the giant tin snippers. BP’s repeated failure to cap the pipe saw the problem quickly elevated to Obama’s desk; and the President’s inability to quickly end the problem saw his popularity fall just as quickly.

The image of the underwater pipe spewing oil easily morphs into the image of Australia’s coal-fired power station chimneys and Australia’s car exhaust pipes spewing carbon and other pollution into the air. These pipes have been pluming for years and Rudd came into office with a promise and a plan to cap them. The people bought the promise, even if the plan was not perfect. Like BP, Rudd tried a few times to put a cap on these pipes, but when the going got tough his mistake was to walk away from the job as if he didn’t care and without a back-up plan.

If BP said the pipe was too hard to fix and it was delaying the job for three years, the US would be in uproar. If Obama said the spill was too hard and he was putting it on the back burner for three years, the US would riot. Obama is smart enough to know that.

Our Prime Minister was not.

BP shot itself and the ricochet has hurt the President. Rudd shot himself, and the ricochet, instead of hitting the pipe-polluters, has hit the clean energy sector. If Rudd had only waited while the BP disaster unfolded, we may now have been on our way to capping our own pipes and it would be the clean energy providers, instead of the pipe-polluters, making money.

Victor Bivell is editor of Eco Investor Magazine. See www.ecoinvestor.com.au

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au