Electric Vehicle Challenges & Carbon Neutral Products for Australia

“Electric vehicles are being introduced worldwide while governments, cities or utilities still have to resolve challenges around building charging infrastructures, establishing new policies and managing electricity demand,” says Philippe Reboul organiser of the third EV Conference in Brisbane 26 October 2011.  Meanwhile, Meg McDonald, CEO of Low Carbon Australia, said the development of carbon neutral products by Keytek – two laser toner cartridges – is another example of Australian business understanding the market desire for carbon neutral alternatives.

EV Conference, Brisbane

For its 3rd edition, the Australia Electric Vehicle Conference will take place again in Brisbane on 26 October 2011 at the Sebel & Citigate Hotel.

This conference which, last year, attracted 250 attendees from all over Australia and overseas, is a unique opportunity for participants to listen to renowned professionals and network across this fast growing industry. 3 different full electric cars were on display and available for test drive.

The official conference video can be seen on the home page of www.evconference.com .

The program will be focussing not just on electric vehicles and their introduction on the Australian market but as importantly on their potential impact onto the electricity grid, the provision of charging infrastructure, the development of appropriate policies, the economics of EV and the role EV will play in making a transition to cleaner and greener transport.

A wide range of key industry leaders will be speaking about their latest experience using EV’s and their objectives from short to long term. CEOs such as Energex’ Terry Effeney or Chargepoint’s James Brown will be presenting along side senior representatives of state government EV programs from WA, VIC and QLD.

“Electric vehicles are being introduced worldwide while governments, cities or utilities still 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, Managing Director of EV Conference, the event organiser. “Our conference offers a unique forum where these points will be addressed with all the key professionals in one place”.

Other aspects surrounding electric vehicles will be discussed such as the Smart Grid, energy storage/batteries, new technologies and the production of renewable energy to recharge EV’s.

More information can be found at www.evconference.com.au

7 August 2011:

Low Carbon Australia has certified as carbon neutral under the Australian Government’s NCOS Carbon Neutral Program, two laser toner cartridges produced by Melbourne based company Keytek.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Mark Dreyfus welcomed the addition of printer cartridges to the list of carbon neutral products certified under the Government’s NCOS Carbon Neutral Program.

“The Carbon Neutral Program is a voluntary scheme which allows Australian businesses to measure, reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions associated with business operations or products.”

“Cutting carbon pollution across our economy is going to be a significant challenge. It will require a coordinated effort from all levels of government, businesses, like Keytek as well as individuals if we are to achieve a clean energy future,” Mr Dreyfus said.

Chris Watts, National Sales Manager for Australian owned Company, Keytek Pty Ltd, said the opportunity to develop an alternative product was worth the investment.

“Keytek has been selling a printer cartridges and other printer consumable items and for almost 20 years. In response to demands for recycled and remanufactured printer cartridges, Keytek developed two products, Greentec and Keytek Green, exclusively for the Australian market,” Mr Watts said.

“And the great news for our clients is Greentec and Keytek Green are up to 30% cheaper than the original product,” he said.

Meg McDonald, CEO of Low Carbon Australia, said the development of carbon neutral products by Keytek is another example of Australian business understanding the market desire for carbon neutral alternatives.

The Australian Government established Low Carbon Australia to work with business and the public sector to develop and deliver energy efficiency finance solutions, and to help business and consumers identify goods and services which are carbon neutral.

Source: www.cleanenergyfuture.com.au, www.lowcarbonaustralia.com.au & www.keytek.com.au

WWF Campaign: “Love Your Forests”,  But Not to Death!

News reports about rampant deforestation in Indonesia often refer to alleged corruption, poor law enforcement and the greed of logging and palm oil interests. But sometimes, the reviled companies are also victims, as Bruce Gale reports, and WWF benefitted from the creative work of Leo Burnett, with its cartoon tree character Harry Ficus to promote its “Love Your Forests” campaign.

Bruce Gale in The Straits Times (16 September 2011):

News reports about rampant deforestation in Indonesia often refer to alleged corruption, poor law enforcement and the greed of logging and palm oil interests. But sometimes, the reviled companies are also victims.

Take Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), a palm oil plantation company in the Sinar Mas group which has recently been working hard to shed its negative image among environmentalists. In June, when environmental watchdog Greenomics Indonesia issued a press statement denouncing a sustainability report issued by GAR, it seemed that the company had been caught red-handed.

The report asserted that none of GAR’s concessions involved forest land. Greenomics disagreed. To prove its point the organisation referred to a map of Central Kalimantan province issued by the minister of forestry on May 31. By this measure, it said, almost all of the company’s concessions in the province involved protected forests. It said GAR was thus in clear violation of Indonesian law and should withdraw its report in order to avoid being accused of misleading the public.

A GAR spokesman told The Straits Times recently that the report was ‘not based on complete information’.

A brief look at the history of palm oil regulation in the province is certainly enlightening. What Greenomics did not say was that the company had become the victim of a power struggle between the central and provincial governments over the conversion of forest land for other uses.

The story begins in 1993, when the provincial government issued a land use decree based on its interpretation of a 1982 decree by the ministry of agriculture.

In September 2000, a letter from the planning department in Jakarta’s ministry of forestry and plantations appeared to legitimise the process. The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by The Straits Times, seemed to accept forest land use maps issued by the provincial government the previous year. Crucially, it noted that land set aside for development, residential and other purposes as determined by the provincial authorities could be used without the need to obtain forestry relinquishment permits from the ministry that would enable the land to be used for other purposes.

In subsequent years, the provincial government encountered little opposition from the forestry ministry when using these maps in the process of awarding important plantation concessions to companies such as GAR.

At the time, Indonesia was still struggling to come to terms with decentralisation laws passed by Parliament in 1999. Repeated Cabinet reshuffles in Jakarta left forestry officials in Jakarta with no strong leadership. In later years, the forestry ministry also experienced a reorganisation after it lost its authority over plantations.

However, the situation changed dramatically in September 2006, when Forestry Minister Malam Sambat Kaban informed the provincial governor that his ministry did not recognise the province’s decisions, and he was revoking the 2000 letter. Mr Kaban also insisted that companies that had acquired concessions on what the ministry regarded as forest land between 2000 and 2006 must obtain permits from Jakarta.

The provincial government has put up a stout defence of its rights, and the status quo has so far remained unchanged. The latest maps referred to by Greenomics nevertheless show that the dispute is ongoing, and that the forestry ministry remains determined to assert its authority.

Unlike Greenomics, most environmentalists I spoke to in Jakarta last month expressed sympathy with GAR. Even Greenpeace, which published a major report in July last year denouncing the company’s environmental track record, conceded that the confusing legal situation in Central Kalimantan is primarily the result of bad governance.

Greenpeace spokesman Joko Arif believes that the saga is a good illustration of why the national moratorium on forest conversion announced in May this year does not go far enough. ‘There should be a review of all concessions given on forest and peat land,’ he said. ‘The aim should be to determine which have been obtained legally and which illegally, and what the circumstances are’.

Lauded by many environmental groups for its positive response to criticism of its environmental record, GAR now boasts one of the most comprehensive forest conservation policies in the industry. ‘If they implement it properly, it will be very good indeed,’ one environmental activist told me.

Source: www.eco-business.com

WWF Report:

Leo Burnett Sydney has launched a spot for WWF that introduces cartoon tree character Harry Ficus, a ‘responsibly made’ tree that can turn into tables, chairs and tissues.

The campaign, which kicks off WWF’s ‘Love your forests’ initiative, includes prints executions and a children’s book – printed on Forest Stewardship Council certified paper – called The Adventures of Harry Ficus.

Lawrence Hennessy, head of marketing for WWF Australia, said: “We know that people want to make the right environmental choices, but often don’t know how. As soon as Leo Burnett presented Harry Ficus we fell in love with him and what he stood for. The Adventures of Harry Ficus is a simple, engaging idea that will educate and encourage people to think about their everyday purchases’.

Love Your Forests is an unique campaign – we are asking business, NGOs and you to come together to ensure our forests survive. Beginning this year the United Nations (UN) in the UN International Year of Forests will be raising awareness of sustainable forest management.To support this WWF and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) along with leading businesses in the forest industry are working to provide a solution to reduce our forest footprint and to love our forests. Starting this year we will be actively promoting and supporting the FSC eco-label.

The FSC is an international network to promote responsible management of the world’s forests – it brings people together to find solutions to the problems created by bad forestry practices and to reward good forest management.

How can I love my forests? WWF believes that you can Love Your Forests in many ways…by recycling, buying recycled, reducing over use of paper and timber and importantly, buying forest friendly timber and paper products. It’s easy! When buying timber and paper products just look for the FSC eco-label. The FSC eco-label is your assurance that the timber and paper product that you bought did not come from illegally logged forests and that it supports well-managed forests.

WWF understands that there is a confusing range of eco-labels out there for you to choose from – we will try to help you find FSC in two ways:

The WWF logo will appear next to the FSC logo on some products that are FSC-certified. Look for us next to the FSC logo.

We will work with businesses to help them provide you with information about timber and paper product choices. See our Love Your Forests Partners

The WWF Love Your Forests campaign has been launched in 2011 to coincide with the UN International Year of Forests. In the past 10 years more than 1.3 million square kilometres of the world’s forests have been destroyed – an area roughly the size of Tasmania every six months. Most of these forests were biologically-rich tropical forests and home to such animals as orang-utans, tigers, and gorillas. Some of this logging is also illegal – it has been estimated that Australia imports more than $400 million worth of illegal timber and wood products each year.

Love Your Forests is a way for you to help stop this destruction. Australians are major consumers of forest products and we use around 6.6 million cubic metres of solid timber and 4 million tonnes of paper every year, or about 550 kg per person. Because we import major quantities of pulp and paper as well as sawn timber, our forest ‘footprint’ extends to over 31 countries. In a number of these countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific there are serious concerns about the legality and sustainability of forestry.

Love Your Forests is a way for all of us to help reduce the amount of forest resources we consume and switch to more environmentally sustainable forest products. See how you can make a difference…How can I help love my forest?

Source: www.theinspirationroom.com and www.wwf.org.au

FiTs Promote Solar in Japan, China, Germany & Spain

Feed in Tariffs (FiTs) make it attractive for investors, entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists to devote their time and effort seriously to renewables. While a desire to showcase renewables is good, often it is not enough to create confidence in the sector, says energy expert Dennis Posadas. Even without FiTs, the largest property developer in Singapore – the Housing Development Board (HDB) – has unveiled an innovative solar project that will soon power 45 residential blocks with the sun’s energy.

By Dennis Posadas, for the Straits Times (6 September 2011):

FORMER Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan’s insistence on passing Japan’s feed-in tariff (FiT) on renewable energy before his resignation on Aug 26 underscores the importance of sustaining renewable energy’s momentum. Japan’s Parliament finally passed the measure on Aug 23.

China’s decision to implement a FiT of 1 yuan per kilowatt hour (kwh) for solar systems is another welcome boost to the renewables sector. A similar FiT in the Philippines is encountering some resistance because of its impact on electricity prices.

In Spain and Germany, FiTs have led to significant growth in installed renewables, particularly for wind systems.

Most Singaporeans will probably agree with the rationale for shifting energy from fossil fuels to renewable sources like wind and solar in the light of concerns about climate change, health issues and crude oil price swings.

However, the hard work of determining how to pay for that shift needs to be discussed. For many countries around the world, the means to encourage a shift to renewables is the FiT.

FiTs are higher prices per kwh assigned to renewable sources, in recognition of their higher cost compared with fossil fuel sources.

In other words, to justify renewable investments, often there is legislation that mandates electricity utility companies to purchase increasing percentages of renewable energy in the total energy mix supplied to the grid.

So if coal costs only a few cents, to attract the solar and wind (and other renewable technology) investors, the price per kwh is set so that it is attractive to investors.

If a renewable source already matches the cost of fossil fuel power, then it is said to be at grid parity, which negates the need for FiTs.

Depending on the prevailing cost of electricity in a particular country, FiTs may tend to raise the average price of electricity as you are mixing currently expensive low carbon sources with cheap fossil fuel ones.

But this can be managed by various means, including a power price regulatory body or open electricity markets, by derating the FiT over time, and an offset by carbon credits, among others.

FiTs are efficient compared with other means to spur adoption of renewables. Instead of simply awarding tax exemptions or R&D grants, FiT payments are made to providers of renewable energy selling to the grid, and requires no government subsidy. Tax exemptions or R&D grants may be given to prospective investors, but there is no guarantee that their plant will actually operate and generate electricity.

FiTs make it attractive for investors, entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists to devote their time and effort seriously to renewables. While a desire to showcase renewables is good, often it is not enough to create confidence in the sector – remember the solar panels installed in the White House during the Carter administration that were eventually taken down during the Reagan years when oil became cheap?

In contrast, FiTs are long-term contracts (whose price can be revisited on a regular basis) to insulate renewable power plants from oil price swings.

However, once economies of scale and technology move forward from this initial market, we should see better, more efficient and cheaper renewables, which means that FiTs can eventually be scrapped. Coal and oil-powered energy systems have been around since the 19th century, and to expect that renewables will instantly catch up is unreasonable.

An excellent analogy is the PC and chip industry – while free competition and innovation may have driven us to US$100 (S$120) tablet PCs, it was the United States military that first had to jump-start a market for the fledgling semiconductor industry many decades ago.

FiTs are needed now. Waiting for renewables to become cheap without supporting the current renewables market is wishful thinking. For many decades the renewable sector and the people working in it have been courted, ignored and jilted, and this cycle repeated.

Experts and investors will not risk their time and money trying to create better renewable technologies if the market demand is constantly dependent on the price of oil.

The writer is an energy consultant who writes on clean energy issues.

Source: www.greenbusinesstimes.com

Jessica Cheam in Straits Times (16 September 2011):

The largest property developer here has unveiled an innovative solar project that will soon power 45 residential blocks in Punggol with the sun’s energy.

The Housing Development Board (HDB) yesterday inked a ‘solar-leasing’ agreement with local solar manufacturer Sunseap Enterprises, which will design, install and maintain the $11 million system.

The 2MWp (megawatt peak) solar photovoltaic set-up converts sunlight into electricity, which will then power common-area facilities such as corridor lights and lifts in the 45 blocks. A watt peak is a measure of power output used in relation to photovoltaic solar energy devices.

It will be the biggest solar installation here to date, and the first solar-leasing project.

The Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council will take out a 20-year lease on the system from Sunseap Leasing, a unit of Sunseap Enterprises.

The town council will thus be spared the cost of the panels and their installation, but instead of buying power from the national grid, it will do so from Sunseap Leasing. The electricity will be priced at the current tariffs, with a 1 per cent discount thrown in.

HDB chief executive Cheong Koon Hean yesterday described the solar-leasing model as a ‘win-win’ one.

If the arrangement takes off, it could pave the way for more solar projects across the island, marking a turning point in Singapore’s growing solar industry.

As this is a test-bed project, HDB will cover 30 per cent of the cost, or $3.28 million; Sunseap will foot the rest.

Sunseap Leasing director Frank Phuan said the company has obtained financing from overseas banks to cover the cost, and will make its money by selling electricity to the town council over the next 20 years.

Up till now, the HDB has bought and installed its own solar panels – for 40 blocks in 10 towns.

With the solar-leasing model, it taps private enterprise to grow the solar programme, said Dr Cheong. She added that the HDB could look into doing the same for another 70 blocks, although their locations have yet to be identified.

We are going to learn about solar power generation through this test bed – what works, what doesn’t work… The solar-leasing model enables us to ramp up more quickly the introduction of solar power into HDB towns,’ she said.

Punggol, as Singapore’s first eco-town, is the ideal location for the HDB to start, she added. The agreement comes under the HDB’s $31 million, five-year scheme to test-bed solar energy at 30 of its precincts.

Three companies had bid for the contract, and Sunseap won due to its price and technical abilities, said the HDB.

The 11-year-old Sunseap has 35 staff and a factory in Boon Lay where it manufactures its solar panels. Most of its output is exported to Germany, which has a thriving solar industry.

Dr Thomas Reindl, a director at the Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore, said solar leasing, though popular in countries such as the United States, is new in Asia.

The benefits of this system are that building owners can buy green power without having to pay upfront costs; and they also do not have to pay more than the prevailing electricity tariffs.

‘However, this concept works out for the leasing company only when electricity prices are not subsidised, such as in Singapore,’ he added. In countries where electricity costs are subsidised, it will not work because the leasing company will incur losses.

HDB’s Dr Cheong said she hoped the test-bed project will contribute to Singapore’s search for solar power generation technologies and develop the regional solar industry.

The installation of the solar panels will be completed by the middle of next year.

This article was originally published in The Straits Times.

Source:  www.eco-business.com

You too Can Contribute to Singapore’s Climate Change Strategy

The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) has launched a nationwide feedback exercise which will be used to draft the country’s first National Climate Change Strategy 2012, setting out how Singapore can reduce its carbon emissions and prepare against effects such as sea level rises. And the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) has finally found a new executive director – former journalist Jose Raymond, who was press secretary to Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Mr Vivian Balakrishnan.

By Jessica Cheam in Straits Times (8 September 2011):

Feedback portal launched to help draft nation’s climate change strategy

HAVE an idea you are burning to share about how to make Singapore greener? Here’s your chance.

The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) has launched a nationwide feedback exercise which will be used to draft the country’s first comprehensive climate change strategy.

Speaking at the launch of the new feedback portal yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the National Climate Change Strategy 2012, as it is called, will set out detailed plans on how Singapore can reduce its carbon emissions and how it can prepare against effects such as sea level rises.

Carbon emissions are widely considered to be the cause of climate change, which affects long-term weather patterns and can result in extreme weather events.

Acknowledging that the concept of climate change may be too abstract for the average person, DPM Teo said the consultation also aimed to raise awareness.

‘The purpose of this is to firstly create awareness… among people, and we want to seek ideas from people on how they can contribute to solving the climate change problem, and to motivate action,’ he told reporters.

The new feedback portal at www.nccs.gov.sg/consultation is the first of a series of initiatives led by the NCCS to gather ideas and feedback from citizens. The NCCS will conduct focus groups and community forums to reach out to the public in the next few months. The four areas it will focus on are households, transport, industries and clean technology opportunities.

The document, due to be released in the middle of next year, will build on the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, a five-year plan launched in 2009 to help Singapore become greener and more energy efficient.

Industry observers such as Associate Professor Simon Tay, chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, welcomed the public consultation. ‘There are times where the Government is looking for a variety of ideas, having set a macro target… It’s a good example of consultative government, (where) different sectors of society can contribute ideas,’ he said. \

Ms Olivia Choong, founder of the Singapore chapter of Green Drinks, an environmental movement, said she was looking forward to giving her views.

‘I think we need more incentives to drive greener transportation, such as taking buses or switching to electric vehicles,’ she said.

DPM Teo, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, yesterday also gave prizes to winners of the inaugural National Climate Change Competition at a ceremony held at the Environment Building.

Two teams, from the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, tied for the top prize, which is a trip to Durban, South Africa, at the end of the year to attend the United Nations climate change summit.

The NUS team won for their initiative to remove rubbish bins on the campus for a day to raise environmental awareness, and the NTU team won for their idea of a green mobile application that will help households monitor their energy usage.

The competition, which drew more than 140 entries, invited students and young people to contribute ideas on how they could address climate change.

Source: www.nccs.gov.sg

Jessica Cheam in Straits Times (11 September 2011):

The Singapore Environment Council (SEC) has finally found a new executive director – former journalist Jose Raymond, who was press secretary to Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan.

SEC chairman Isabella Loh confirmed that Mr Raymond, 39, will start work at the SEC this Thursday, capping an almost six-month search for a new chief.

Former executive director Howard Shaw, who was at the SEC for 15 years and helmed it for the past eight years, left in April to join the private sector.

In a letter circulated to SEC advisers and seen by The Sunday Times, Ms Loh said: ‘We welcome him (Mr Raymond) warmly on board embarking on this journey with us, bringing SEC to greater heights of the environment cause.’

Mr Raymond told The Sunday Times that he was looking forward to the new full-time appointment and ‘will continue to maintain its (the SEC’s) standing as Singapore’s most recognised green organisation’.

Mr Raymond joined the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) in 2007 after more than a decade in journalism at Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp. While at SSC, he led a team of sports performance managers in the sports development group before he was appointed the head of communications and IT for the first Asian Youth Games held in Singapore in 2009.

He recently served as Dr Balakrishnan’s press secretary while on a three-month secondment to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources from the SSC.

Mr Raymond, who is currently doing part-time studies for a degree in communications, conceded that he may not have much experience in the environmental sector. But he said he believed the role required someone with strong organisational skills with a good network who could lead it.

He said he comes into frequent contact with nature as an open sea diver, and has always ‘appreciated nature and am aware of how the ecosystem is at risk because of climate change’.

‘I’m quite excited about the role, especially as there is a growing national emphasis and awareness of environmental issues,’ he said.

Mr Raymond will manage SEC’s team of 15 full-time staff. The local environmental non-governmental organisation was set up in 1995 and is independently managed by its executive director and staff. It has a board of directors comprising members with a diverse range of relevant expertise drawn from the private sector, academia and government.

Its vice-chairmen are Professor Leo Tan from the National University of Singapore and Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mayor of North West District.

SEC is an approved charity that can offer tax exemption to donors.

Under Mr Shaw’s leadership, SEC grew from a small organisation to an established one driving many environmental initiatives in Singapore, including the Bring Your Own Bag Day, now a weekly affair in supermarkets. It also runs programmes such as the Green Label project, which certifies firms whose products meet global eco-friendly standards.

Mr Shaw, who is now senior vice-president of corporate social responsibility at investment holding firm Halcyon Group, said he was confident that Mr Raymond will fill the role at the council and take it to the next level.

When asked if Mr Raymond’s lack of experience in the environmental sector would be an issue, Mr Shaw said what was more important were strong leadership skills, which he believed Mr Raymond has, and that technical support on specific issues can be provided by the organisation.

‘I look forward to working with SEC from the private sector to drive further partnerships,’ said Mr Shaw.

Source: www.newpropertyforsale.sg/news

Capital Value Up & Operating Costs Down after Energy Retrofits
A new study shows that retrofitting commercial buildings can lead to an increase in their property value, with average expected savings in operating expenses of 10%, and an increase in capital value of about 2%. And companies that want to retrofit their buildings to make them greener but cannot afford to pay upfront will be given a helping hand, in a new initiative by Singapore’s building authority, offering 15 loans of up to S$5 million each to commercial property owners, condominium managements and energy services firms.

By Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times (15 September 2011):

COMPANIES that want to retrofit their buildings to make them greener but cannot afford to pay upfront will be given a helping hand, in a new initiative by Singapore’s building authority.

Fifteen loans of up to $5 million each will be made available for commercial property owners, condominium managements and energy services firms.

These will help them carry out work such as installing more energy-efficient air-conditioning or lighting systems or improving their recycling facilities.

Meanwhile, those who go ahead with the retrofitting will have to meet higher environmental standards and conduct compulsory energy audits once every three years under planned amendments to Singapore’s building laws.

The measures were unveiled yesterday by Minister of State for National Development Tan Chuan-Jin.

He said that while the upfront cost of meeting these standards might be high, it would be covered by the eventual energy savings.

Singapore is ‘probably one of the first few countries in the world which mandates energy efficiency standards for existing buildings’, he added.

The new financing scheme by the Building and Construction Authority will initially disburse the loans over two years. It will work with United Overseas Bank and Standard Chartered, which will set the interest rates at a minimum of 3.5 per cent.

The loans will last between 11/2 and seven years, and the authority will share the risk of any default with the banks. It will also consult the building industry about the proposed changes to legislation.

Mr Tai Lee Siang, president of the Singapore Green Building Council, an industry association, told The Straits Times that he welcomed the new initiative. ‘Nothing speaks more than real funds committed to assist the transformation of our existing assets.’

He said that although the bigger developers might not see this ‘as the biggest carrot’, the scheme would attract small and medium- sized businesses in particular, as it was not easy for them to secure such loans.

Mr Tai also welcomed the proposed changes to building codes. ‘I’m a fan of legislation if it’s for a good purpose,’ he said. Not many countries can do this… Singapore has the political will, industry support and maturity of market.’

Standard Chartered Bank’s head of medium enterprise, Mr Lam Kum Weng, said the bank was pleased to embark on this landmark financing scheme.

‘We are glad to be able to support the segment of customers and buildings to fund the cost of making buildings energy efficient,’ he said.

‘The reduction in electricity bill and cost savings will be substantial and we foresee this will be a major breakthrough for the industry.’

Mr Vincent Leow, vice-president of business development for local energy services firm G-Energy Global, said it was thinking of applying for the new financing scheme with a client which owns a building. ‘This will encourage many of our clients to do retrofits, as cost is a big factor,’ he said.

The Building and Construction Authority said the new initiative complements its existing $100 million Green Mark Incentive Scheme, which provides grants to building owners who carry out retrofits.

Brigadier-General (NS) Tan added that this scheme was being reviewed to see how building owners could be further encouraged to do so. He was speaking to a 700-strong crowd of industry experts at the opening of the International Green Building Conference.

The three-day event at Suntec City is part of the Singapore Green Building Week, now in its third year. It gathers policymakers, businesses and experts to discuss green building related topics.

Source: www.greenbusinesstimes.com

BCA-NUS study shows that greening existing buildings can increase property value, Singapore (16 September 2011):

Retrofitting commercial buildings can lead to an increase in their property value. With an average expected savings in operating expenses of 10% resulting from the retrofitting, commercial buildings could reap an increase in capital value of about 2%.

This is one of the key findings of a joint study, by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the Department of Real Estate (DRE) in National University of Singapore (NUS) in collaboration with the top six real estate consultancy firms – CB Richard Ellis, Chesterton Suntec, Colliers International, DTZ Tie Leung, Jones Lang LaSalle and Knight Frank, on how green buildings can impact their property value.

“There is now greater awareness in the industry that the upfront cost of retrofitting energy inefficient buildings can be recovered in about 4 to 7 years,” said Mr Quek See Tiat, Chairman, BCA, at the Breakfast Talk for CEOs on the last day of the 2011 International Green Building Conference today. “However, many do not realise that another potential economic benefit is the potential enhancement in the property value for green and energy efficient buildings.”

Initiated by BCA and the Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore in February 2011, the study aimed to evaluate whether Green Mark-rated commercial buildings have an impact on commercial property valuation. A sample of 23 commercial properties from office, retail, hotel and a mix of these uses were used in the study. Key factors considered included the tenure and age of the property, its location (district code), the Gross Floor Area and Net Lettable Area, the BCA Green Mark award rating and year awarded, energy consumption figures (before and after retrofit) and the capital expenditure for the retrofit project.

In addition to the key finding that property value can indeed increase by greening and retrofitting existing buildings to be more energy efficient, the study found that:

• Retrofitting to achieve the standard BCA Green Mark certification can result in a significant reduction in energy consumption. The average savings from the buildings sampled after retrofitting is about 17% of the total building’s energy consumption compared to before retrofitting. If measured by the area of the buildings where the owners are responsible for paying for the utilities, the average savings is even higher at nearly 30%.
• The effort to achieve Green Mark certification need not be costly. If the retrofit cost is expressed as a percentage of the current market value of property, it is 0.5% for retail and 1% for offices. There is also no significant disruption to both owners and users in their continuous occupation and operations.

As a next step, the Department of Real Estate in NUS is developing a valuation guideline for green commercial properties that will take into account the cost and benefit of newly developed and retrofitted green commercial properties. This will be done in collaboration with representatives from the six real estate consultancy firms and BCA. Additionally, BCA is working with the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV) to incorporate guidelines on green building valuation.

Eight leading developers and building owners also signed the Green Pledge to show their commitment to attain higher energy efficiency of their existing buildings through the BCA Green Mark certification by 2020. They are Allgreen Properties Ltd, Ascendas Land (Singapore) Pte Ltd, CapitaLand Limited, City Developments Ltd, Frasers Centrepoint Limited, Furama Hotels International, Keppel Land Limited and Lend Lease.

Source: www.bca.gov.sg

New York Times Thomas L. Friedman has some wise words of advice for Presidential candidates, all politicians and business people in the US and elsewhere. See here:

• Texas had the distinction of experiencing the warmest summer on record of any state in America, with an average of 86.8 degrees F. Dallas residents sweltered for 40 consecutive days of grueling 100-plus degree temperatures.
• Remember the first rule of global warming. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding.” The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the wets wetter; and the dries get drier. This is not a hoax.
• There is still much we don’t know about how climate change will unfold, but it is no hoax. We need to start taking steps, as our scientists urge, “to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.”
• There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a fixed, durable, long-term price signal that raises the price of dirty fuels and thereby creates sustained consumer demand for, and sustained private sector investment in, renewables. Without a carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system that makes renewable energies competitive with dirty fuels, while they achieve scale and move down the cost curve, green jobs will remain a hobby. Read More

Is It Weird Enough Yet?

By Thomas L. Friedman in New York Times  (13 September 2011):

Every time I listen to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota talk about how climate change is some fraud perpetrated by scientists trying to gin up money for research, I’m always reminded of one of my favorite movie lines that Jack Nicholson delivers to his needy neighbor who knocks on his door in the film “As Good As It Gets.” “Where do they teach you to talk like this?” asks Nicholson. “Sell crazy someplace else. We’re all stocked up here.”

Thanks Mr. Perry and Mrs. Bachmann, but we really are all stocked up on crazy right now. I mean, here is the Texas governor rejecting the science of climate change while his own state is on fire — after the worst droughts on record have propelled wildfires to devour an area the size of Connecticut. As a statement by the Texas Forest Service said last week: “No one on the face of this earth has ever fought fires in these extreme conditions.”

Remember the first rule of global warming. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding.” The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the wets wetter; and the dries get drier. This is not a hoax. This is high school physics, as Katharine Hayhoe, a climatologist in Texas, explained on Joe Romm’s invaluable Climateprogress.org blog: “As our atmosphere becomes warmer, it can hold more water vapor. Atmospheric circulation patterns shift, bringing more rain to some places and less to others. For example, when a storm comes, in many cases there is more water available in the atmosphere and rainfall is heavier. When a drought comes, often temperatures are already higher than they would have been 50 years ago, and so the effects of the drought are magnified by higher evaporation rates.”

CNN reported on Sept. 9 that “Texas had the distinction of experiencing the warmest summer on record of any state in America, with an average of 86.8 degrees. Dallas residents sweltered for 40 consecutive days of grueling 100-plus degree temperatures. … Temperature-related energy demands soared more than 22 percent above the norm this summer, the largest increase since record-keeping of energy demands began more than a century ago.”

There is still much we don’t know about how climate change will unfold, but it is no hoax. We need to start taking steps, as our scientists urge, “to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.” If you want a quick primer on the latest climate science, tune into “24 Hours of Reality.” It is a worldwide live, online update that can be found at climaterealityproject.org and will be going on from Sept. 14-15, over 24 hours, with contributors from 24 time zones.

Not only has the science of climate change come under attack lately, so has the economics of green jobs. Here the critics have a point — sort of. I wasn’t surprised to read that the solar panel company Solyndra, which got $535 million in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy to make solar panels in America, filed for bankruptcy protection two weeks ago and laid off 1,100 workers. This story is an embarrassment to the green jobs movement, but the death by bankruptcy was a collaboration of the worst Democratic and Republican impulses.

How so? There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a fixed, durable, long-term price signal that raises the price of dirty fuels and thereby creates sustained consumer demand for, and sustained private sector investment in, renewables. Without a carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system that makes renewable energies competitive with dirty fuels, while they achieve scale and move down the cost curve, green jobs will remain a hobby.

President Obama has chosen not to push for a price signal for political reasons. He has opted for using regulations and government funding. In the area of regulation, he deserves great credit for just pushing through new fuel economy standards that will ensure that by 2025 the average U.S. car will get the mileage (and have the emissions) of today’s Prius hybrid. But elsewhere, Obama has relied on green subsidies rather than a price signal. Some of this has really helped start-ups leverage private capital, but you also get Solyndras. The G.O.P. has blocked any price signal and fought every regulation. The result too often is taxpayer money subsidizing wonderful green innovation, but with no sustainable market within which these companies can scale.

Let’s fix that. We need revenue to balance the budget. We need sustainable clean-tech jobs. We need less dependence on Mideast oil. And we need to take steps to mitigate climate change — just in case Governor Perry is wrong. The easiest way to do all of this at once is with a gasoline tax or price on carbon. Would you rather cut Social Security and Medicare or pay a little more per gallon of gas and make the country stronger, safer and healthier? It still amazes me that our politicians have the courage to send our citizens to war but not to ask the public that question.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 14, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition with the headline: Is It Weird Enough Yet?

Source: www.nytimes.com

Counting the cost & paying the price

It might be hard sometimes coming
up with good news in this crazy world of ours. But we’ll keep at it. And there
are always good people to talk about – like our 100 Global Sustain Ability
Leaders. They  keep popping up all over
the place and in this issue we let you know where to meet some of them, including
Wayne Visser (also profiled), Thomas Thomas, Esther An, Jessica Cheam, Howard
Shaw, Simon Tay and Harveen Narulla. We had a positive reaction to our list
release last issue, even getting acknowledgement from the White House, when it learnt
that Energy Secretary and Nobel laureate Steven Chu had been honoured. We will
continue to draw attention to and feature our Sustain Ability Leaders in coming
issues. This issue also features positive stories about advances with tidal and
wave energy in Europe; some good news on the solar front from Australia and
China, and  deserved attention for leading
companies like GE, Ford, Toyota, BMW and Walmart for smart sustainable
investments. The insurance industry knows that climate change is for real, even
if politicians in some places don’t. There’s a new global energy management
standard and Singapore could go for urban farming, while Australia counts the
cost of its carbon price compensation “protectionist” plan. We learn that
geo-engineering is not all it is cracked up to be and maybe we need to have
another look at nitrogen. There’s a psychological as well as a physical price
to pay for all the extreme weather the world is getting and we cannot blame God
or Nature for the disastrous species loss. “The Oil Price” might be a piece of
fiction by Guy Lane but it is deadly serious. Will we ever learn? – Ken Hickson

Profile: Dr Wayne Visser

The challenge now is to admit past
failure and to make CSR 2.0 – weaving the strands of sustainability and
responsibility – into the new DNA of business. As the Founder and Director of
CSR International,  Dr Visser is the
keynote speaker at Singapore Compact’s CSR Summit 5 & 6 September, when he
will address the question: “Sustainability, the next Megatrend: How True and
how to Respond?” He is also one of the 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders,
along with four other luminaries, speaking at the summit. Read More

In the May 2010 issue of Harvard
Business Review the article titled ‘The Sustainability Imperative’ by David
Lubin from the Sustainability Network and Daniel Esty from Yale University, was
the first to argue that sustainability
is the next transformational business megatrend comparable to mass
production, manufacturing quality movement, IT revolution, and globalization.

The DNA Model of CSR 2.0

Value Creation, Good Governance,
Societal Contribution and Ecological Integrity

By Wayne Visser

I believe that CSR 2.0 – or
Transformative CSR (I also sometimes call it Systemic CSR, Radical CSR or
Holistic CSR, so use whichever you prefer) – represents a new holistic model of
CSR. The essence of the CSR 2.0 DNA model are the four DNA Responsibility
Bases, which are like the four nitrogenous bases of biological DNA (adenine,
cytosine, guanine, and thymine), sometimes abbreviated to the four-letters GCTA
(which was the inspiration for the 1997 science fiction film GATTACA). In the
case of CSR 2.0, the DNA Responsibility Bases are Value creation, Good
governance, Societal contribution and Environmental integrity.

Hence, if we look at Value
Creation, it is clear we are talking about more than financial profitability.
The goal is economic development, which means not only contributing to the
enrichment of shareholders and executives, but improving the economic context
in which a company operates, including investing in infrastructure, creating
jobs, providing skills development and so on. There can be any number of KPIs,
but I want to highlight two that I believe are essential: beneficial products
and inclusive business. Does the company’s products and services really improve
our quality of life, or do they cause harm or add to the low-quality junk of
what Charles Handy calls the ‘chindogu society’. And how are the economic
benefits shared? Does wealth trickle up or down; are employees, SMEs in the
supply chain and poor communities genuinely empowered?

Good Governance is another area
that is not new, but in my view has failed to be properly recognised or
integrated in CSR circles. The goal of institutional effectiveness is as
important as more lofty social and environmental ideals. After all, if the institution
fails, or is not transparent and fair, this undermines everything else that CSR
is trying to accomplish. Trends in reporting, but also other forms of
transparency like social media and brand- or product-linked public databases of
CSR performance, will be increasingly important indicators of success,
alongside embedding ethical conduct in the culture of companies. Tools like
Goodguide, KPMG’s Integrity Thermometer and Covalence’s EthicalQuote ranking
will become more prevalent.

Societal Contribution is an area
that CSR is traditionally more used to addressing, with its goal of stakeholder
orientation. This gives philanthropy its rightful place in CSR – as one tile in
a larger mosaic – while also providing a spotlight for the importance of fair
labour practices. It is simply unacceptable that there are more people in
slavery today than there were before it was officially abolished in the 1800s,
just as regular exposures of high-brand companies for the use of child-labour
are despicable. This area of stakeholder engagement, community participation
and supply chain integrity remains one of the most vexing and critical elements
of CSR.

Finally, Environmental Integrity
sets the bar way higher than minimising damage and rather aims at maintaining
and improving ecosystem sustainability. The KPIs give some sense of the
ambition required here – 100% renewable energy and zero waste. We cannot
continue the same practices that have, according to WWF’s Living Planet Index,
caused us to lose a third of the biodiversity on the planet since they began
monitoring 1970. Nor can we continue to gamble with prospect of dangerous – and
perhaps catastrophic and irreversible – climate change.

A final point to make is that CSR
2.0 – standing for corporate sustainability and responsibility – also proposes
a new interpretation for these terms. Like two intertwined strands of DNA,
sustainability and responsibility can be thought of as different, yet
complementary elements of CSR. Hence, sustainability can be conceived as the
destination – the challenges, vision, strategy and goals, i.e. what we are
aiming for – while responsibility is more about the journey – our solutions,
responses, management and actions, i.e. how we get there. The challenge now is
to admit that CSR 1.0 has failed, and to make CSR 2.0 – weaving the strands of
sustainability and responsibility – into the new DNA of business.

Table 5: DNA Model of CSR 2.0

DNA Code           Strategic Goals         Key Indicators

Value creation    Economic development

• Capital investment (financial, manufacturing,
  social, human & natural capital)
• Beneficial products (sustainable &
  responsible goods & services
• Inclusive business (wealth distribution, bottom
  of the pyramid markets)

Good governance   Institutional effectiveness

• Leadership (strategic commitment to
  sustainability & responsibility)
• Transparency (sustainability &
  responsibility reporting, government payments)
• Ethical practices (bribery & corruption
  prevention, values in business)

Societal contribution     Stakeholder orientation

• Philanthropy (charitable donations, provision of
  public goods & services)
• Fair labour practices (working conditions,
  employee rights, health & safety)
• Supply chain integrity (SME empowerment, labour
  & environmental standards)

Environmental integrity         Sustainable ecosystems

• Ecosystem protection (biodiversity conservation
  & ecosystem restoration)
• Renewable resources (tackling climate change,
  renewable energy & materials)
• Zero waste production (cradle-to-cradle
  processes, waste elimination)

Article reference

Visser, W. (2011) The DNA Model
of CSR 2.0: Value Creation, Good Governance, Societal Contribution and
Ecological Integrity, CSR International Inspiration Series, No. 9.

For the full article go to the
CSR International website where it is free to join and download up to five
articles a month. A longer 10 page article “The Ages and Stages of CSR: Towards
the Future with CSR 2.0” is also available.

Biographical

In addition, Wayne is Senior
Associate at the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability
Leadership, Visiting Professor of Sustainability at Magna Carta College,
Oxford, and Birmingham Graduate School and of CSR at La Trobe Graduate School
of Management, Australia. Before getting his PhD in Corporate Social
Responsibility (Nottingham University, UK), Wayne was Director of
Sustainability Services for KPMG and Strategy Analyst for Cap Gemini in South
Africa.

His other qualifications include
an MSc in Human Ecology (Edinburgh University, UK) and a Bachelor of Business
Science with Honours in Marketing (Cape Town University, South Africa). Wayne
lives in London, UK, and enjoys art, writing poetry, spending time outdoors and
travelling in his home continent of Africa.

In 2010, Wayne completed a 20
country ‘CSR Quest’ World Tour, to share best practices in corporate
sustainability and responsibility. A full biography and much of his writing and
art is on www.waynevisser.com

Source: www.csrinternational.org

China Ahead in Solar Race & Toxic Waste

The bankruptcies of three
American solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of
California, have left China’s industry with a dominant sales position — almost
three-fifths of the world’s production capacity — and rapidly declining costs. Meanwhile,
China’s environmental watchdog will suspend reviews of all new industrial
projects in Qujing, Southwest China’s Yunnan province, until the city cleans up
its toxic chromium slag and remedies polluted soils. Pictured are the 20,000 Suntech
solar panels on the Hongqiao Station of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway

By KEITH BRADSHER for New York
Times, 1 September 1, 2011

HONG KONG — The bankruptcies of
three American solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of
California on Wednesday, have left China’s industry with a dominant sales
position — almost three-fifths of the world’s production capacity — and rapidly
declining costs.

Solar panel inspection at a
factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. Chinese companies’ cost advantages
overwhelm any lags in technology, analysts say.

Some American, Japanese and
European solar companies still have a technological edge over Chinese rivals,
but seldom a cost advantage, according to industry analysts.

Loans at very low rates from
state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land from local and provincial
governments across China, huge economies of scale and other cost advantages
have transformed China from a minor player in the solar power industry just a
few years ago into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of
electricity.

“The top-tier Chinese firms are
kind of the benchmark now,” said Shayle Kann, a managing director of solar
power studies at GTM Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm based in
Boston. Pricing of solar equipment is determined by the Chinese industry, he
said, “and everyone else prices at a premium or discount to them.”

Besides Solyndra, the other two
American manufacturers that filed for bankruptcy in August were Evergreen
Solar, of Massachusetts, and SpectraWatt, a New York company. Another company,
BP Solar, halted manufacturing at its complex in Frederick, Md., last spring.

Those bankruptcies and closings
represent almost one-fifth of the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the
United States, according to GTM Research.

Solyndra and Evergreen in
particular suffered because they pursued unusual technologies whose
competitiveness depended on their using less polysilicon, the main material for
solar panels. That has become less important because polysilicon prices have
tumbled more than 80 percent in the last three years as output has caught up
with demand.

Analysts say that two American
companies remain strongly placed. One is First Solar, the largest American
manufacturer, which uses a different technology but has its biggest factory in
Malaysia. The other, SunPower, is much smaller but is an industry leader in the
efficiency with which its panels convert sunlight into electricity, so that
they sell at a premium to Chinese panels.

But with Beijing heavily
supporting its industry, the Chinese companies are forging ahead.

“There is no question that
renewable energy companies in the United States feel pressure from China,” said
David B. Sandalow, the assistant secretary for policy and international affairs
at the United States Energy Department. “Many of them say it is cheap capital,
not cheap labor, that gives Chinese companies the main competitive advantage.”

China’s three biggest solar power
companies — Suntech Power, Yingli Green Energy and Trina Solar — have all in
the last two weeks announced second-quarter sales increases of 33 to 63 percent
from a year earlier.

Yingli and Trina were also
profitable in the quarter. Suntech posted a loss, mostly because it broke a
longstanding agreement to buy solar wafers — critical components in the
manufacturing process — from a Singapore affiliate of MEMC Electronic Materials
of Missouri. Suntech aims to make more wafers itself.

Shares in large and small Chinese
solar power companies have mostly rallied in the last two weeks on the New York
and Hong Kong stock markets, as investors have welcomed their strong quarterly
results and the prospect of dwindling competition from Western rivals. Besides
the bankruptcies in the United States, solar power companies in Germany,
another big producer, have been laying off workers and retrenching.

The recent strength of Chinese
stocks “truly reflects the low cost base of the Chinese solar manufacturers,
and it is great to see their positioning, particularly relative to their
American and European counterparts,” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of
Nature Elements Capital, a Chinese clean energy investment company based in
Beijing.

He attributed the Chinese
industry’s low costs not to inexpensive labor in China — high-technology solar
panel manufacturing is not labor-intensive — but rather to free or subsidized
land from local governments, extensive tax breaks and other state assistance.

Solar panel prices have plunged
by 30 to 42 percent per kilowatt-hour in the last year as manufacturers have
sharply increased capacity, particularly in China. Meanwhile, demand has been
somewhat weak in the main markets in the United States and Europe.

Costs for electricity generated
by utility-scale solar installations now approach costs for natural gas in some
markets, like California’s, when subsidies of as much as 30 percent of the
price are included. However, costs remain well above the cost of electricity
from coal.

The United States and the
European Union have tried to build demand for solar power by subsidizing the
buyers of solar panels. But increasingly those subsidies are being used to buy
solar panels from China.

The Chinese government has
pursued a different policy course. Instead of subsidizing the purchase and use
of solar power, China has focused on building the competitiveness of the
country’s manufacturers. As a result, China exports 95 percent of the solar
panels it produces. The United Steelworkers union filed a legal complaint a
year ago with the United States government, asking the Obama administration to
investigate China’s clean energy subsidies and other policies and to bring
cases against them at the World Trade Organization. The organization’s rules
strictly prohibit export subsidies, to prevent countries from buying market
share in foreign markets for their producers.

The administration did challenge
one Chinese government practice: giving subsidy grants of $6.7 million and $22.5
million to Chinese wind turbine manufacturers that agreed not to buy imported
components.

China agreed in June to
discontinue the practice, but by then it had already built the world’s largest
wind turbine manufacturing industry over the last five years and now has highly
competitive Chinese producers for almost every component.

Nkenge L. Harmon, a spokeswoman
for the United States trade representative’s office, said on Thursday that the
agency’s investigation continued into whether other Chinese green energy
policies might violate W.T.O. rules.

Source www.nytimes.com

By Li Jing (China Daily)

2 September 2011

BEIJING – The country’s
environmental watchdog will suspend reviews of all new industrial projects in
Qujing, Southwest China’s Yunnan province, until the city cleans up its toxic
chromium slag and remedies polluted soils, a senior official said on Thursday.

The Ministry of Environmental
Protection is also preparing to launch a nationwide campaign to target illegal
dumping and stockpiling of hazardous waste before the end of this year,
according to Zhang Lijun, deputy minister of environmental protection.

Enterprises involved in the
production of chromium and polycrystalline silicon, and in the disposal of
sewage sludge and electronic waste will be placed under special scrutiny, he
added.

Under Chinese law, all industrial
projects must undergo environmental reviews before being approved for
construction. The regional ban for Qujing, which will put a brake on its
economic expansion, came as a punishment after a local chemical plant illegally
dumped more than 5,000 tons of highly toxic waste in June.

The dumping contaminated nearby
water sources, caused the deaths of livestock and threatened the safety of drinking
water for cities downstream.

“This is not an isolated
case. It reflects a widespread oversight on the treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste in the country,” said Zhang.

The large amounts of toxic
industrial waste are polluting soils and water sources, and posing threats to
public health, he said.

The latest national pollution
census, in 2007, showed the country produced 45.74 million tons of hazardous
waste that year. During the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015), the amount is
expected to increase at an annual rate of 5 to 7 percent, as the country’s
demand for industrial materials will continue to grow, Zhang said.

“However, every year, only
about 8 million tons receive proper treatment, less than 20 percent of the
total amount,” he said.

Zhang cited limited treatment
capacity, the high cost of proper disposal and slack supervision by
environmental authorities as causes of the failure to control the use of
dangerous chemicals.

The ministry set the end of 2012
as a deadline for all chromium plants to properly treat all of their stockpiled
slag. Toxic waste produced after 2006 has to be cleared up by the end of this
year. Those who fail to meet the deadlines will be ordered to halt production.

An independent investigation by
environmental organization Greenpeace shows that there are still more than
140,000 tons of chromium slag stockpiled at Yunnan Luliang Chemical Industry,
the polluting company in Qujing.

Tests showed that the groundwater
near the plant has an extremely high concentration of carcinogenic sexivalent
chromium. Nearby villagers have complained about a higher than normal rate of
cancer in their communities.

Some environmentalists welcomed
the ministry’s move.

Ma Tianjie, a toxics campaigner
from Greenpeace, said: “The timetable to properly dispose of stockpiled
toxic waste is very important. But it is also essential for the ministry to
disclose relevant information so the public can participate in the
supervision.”

Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn

No Incentive to Lie: Irene & Insurance Industry

Hurricane Irene’s residue is
likely to include a confusing debate over whether insurers or property owners
are responsible for storm-caused water damage. There’s no lack of clarity,
however, over whether the insurance industry believes in climate change and its
ties to lethal weather: It does. As Bloomberg Businessweek reports  that the industry has absorbed many lessons
from Sept. 11 about anticipating risk. One is that the recent spate of weather
extremes is likely to continue — and the insurance market must reflect that.

Market, Politicians Going
Separate Ways on Climate Change: View

By the Editors  Bloomberg September  1, 2011

Hurricane Irene’s residue is
likely to include a confusing debate over whether insurers or property owners
are responsible for storm-caused water damage. There’s no lack of clarity,
however, over whether the insurance industry believes in climate change and its
ties to lethal weather: It does.

As Bloomberg Businessweek reports
in its Sept. 5 issue, the industry has absorbed many lessons from Sept. 11
about anticipating risk. One is that the recent spate of weather extremes is
likely to continue — and the insurance market must reflect that.

Interestingly, this puts the
industry at odds with a number of Republican candidates who have made
questioning climate change a not-insignificant part of their campaign strategy.
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann dispute whether global warming is man-made.
Perry suggests that climate is affected by many variables, which scientists can
manipulate “so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Mitt
Romney is on the fence. Only Jon Huntsman Jr. has declared definitively that he
trusts scientists on global warming.

Politicians have been known to dissemble
about risk because voters generally don’t like to hear bad news. The insurance
industry makes its money telling it to you straight — how long you’ll probably
live, what price your home will fetch, whether to repair or trade in your car.

Risk Models

For this reason, it’s worth
noting that insurers already factor climate change into their models for
measuring, pricing and distributing risk. Insurers have no incentive to lie. If
they are more scared than they should be in pricing risk, shareholders will
punish them. If they aren’t scared enough, nature will do the job.

No one can say for certain that
any single weather event flows from the warmer air caused by carbon emissions,
which in turn lead to more rainfall, floods and snowfall over some parts of the
planet, and more drought in other parts. But last year was the hottest on
record. Arctic ice is at record low levels. Regardless of what politicians say,
insurers must factor all this into premiums.

Vulnerable Areas

Swiss Re, the second-largest
reinsurer, is developing scenarios using probabilistic modeling to help
government officials cope. The reinsurer studied the effects of climate change
in vulnerable areas such as Samoa, Mali, Caribbean islands and Miami.

No matter which model it chose –
no change, moderate changes or extreme changes — Swiss Re concludes it’s
cheaper to adapt now than to sit and wait.

It recommends building codes that
require more water- and wind-proofing, zoning laws that prevent planting trees
close to buildings and power lines, redesigned beaches that absorb storm surge,
and restoration of wetlands.

Hurricane Irene, and the
estimated $5 billion to $7 billion in damage claims insurers now face, has been
swept up in this debate. Irene maintained hurricane strength farther north than
storms usually do — and dropped extraordinary amounts of rain. At the same
time, parts of the U.S. are experiencing record-high temperatures and dust-bowl
conditions. Houston hit an all-time high of 109 degrees Fahrenheit (43 degrees
Celsius) the same day Irene was roaring up the Eastern Seaboard.

Rising Seas

A storm with Irene’s fury will
only cause more damage in the future. Rising sea levels will allow storm surge
to penetrate farther inland. Americans pushing relentlessly toward the East and
West Coasts are putting themselves and their property in harm’s way.

If elected officials want to help
constituents prepare for disaster, they could fight for legislation to curb
carbon emissions, and they could keep people from building along coastlines.
Politicians have enjoyed enormous success calling scientists into question. The
market may not prove to be such an easy target.

Source: www.bloomberg.com