Hope for Australia’s 100% Renewable Energy Campaign

Pacific Hydro has unveiled some bullish forecasts for the rollout of solar in Australia – both PV and solar thermal – although it says it is conditional on the manner of deployment of monies from the proposed A$10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corp and on changes to regulatory rules for the electricity market. Read More

By Giles Parkinson in Renew Economy (13 February 2012):

Pacific Hydro has unveiled some bullish forecasts for the rollout of solar in Australia – both PV and solar thermal – although it says it is conditional on the manner of deployment of monies from the proposed A$10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corp and on changes to regulatory rules for the electricity market.

Pacific Hydro development manager Terry Teoh told a seminar hosted by the 100 per cent Renewables campaign over the weekend that based on projects of long term costs of energy, there could be between 5-6GW of solar PV deployed in Australia between 2013 and 2023 – a mixture of rooftop PV, commercial and industrial applications, and utility scale solar farms.

He also said that 6-8GW of solar thermal could also be deployed in Australia between 2016 and 2026. Its widespread deployment would start later than PV because it has further to travel down the cost curve.

Pacific Hydro is Australia’s largest independent renewable energy developer, with an extensive porffolio of wind interests in Australia and overseas, a growing portfolio of geothermal prospects, and a growing interest in solar – it is one of the three members of the Moree Solar Farm that was shortlisted in the Solar Flagships program, but which is currently struggling to arrange finance.

Teoh’s predictions are broadly consistent with other private sector forecasts for solar, although they do contrast sharply with government forecasts.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects a total of between 5-6GW of solar by 2020 (including the 1.3GW that has already been constructed, with mostly PV and some solar thermal. Suntech Australia said late last year that there could be 10GW of solar PV in Australia by 2020, by which point it would be growing at 2GW per year.

However, the federal Government’s draft energy White Paper suggested solar could play a minimal role, even by 2030, when it will provide 1.3 per cent at most of Australian energy mix, and including an extraordinary prediction that solar PV could cease to deployed once the renewable energy target comes to an end.

Teoh said later his predictions were based on several key conditions, mostly around policy. The first was that the CEFC was deployed in a manner which did not cannibalise the large scale renewable energy target, and didn’t replace private sector investment that would come forward anyway. This means that the CEFC should – at least in its initial years – focus on “enabling technologies” such as grid extensions and connections. “You can’t have one without the other,” he told RenewEconomy later.

The deployment would also depend on regulatory changes to Australia’s National Electricity Market, including connection rules. Teoh said he saw no impediment to having this much solar on the grid, as South Australia already had a wind penetration of greater than 20 per cent and could probably more to 25-30 per cent without much difficulty.

But what would be the impact of that amount of solar on Australia’s grid? The chances are that it could help dampen wholesale electricity prices, according to the latest study on the “merit order” effect from Germany.

Last week, we reported on the latest update of a Melbourne Energy Institute/BZE study on the merit order impact of solar PV in Australia, that found that 5GW of rooftop solar PV in the NEM could have depressed prices in the wholesale market by $1.2 billion in 2009 – or 12 per cent of the total market value – and $630 million in 2010 (the latter year is a smaller number because there was less price volatility due to milder weather conditions).

This conclusion was derived on modeling of how 5GW of solar PV might have impacted prices, but a new study released in Germany comes to surprisingly similar conclusions on solar PV that has already been deployed, and already had an impact on the market.

The study by Germany’s Institute for Future Energy Systems (IZES) analysed the impact of on the price of electricity by the deployment of solar PV in Germany – which at 25GW has installed more than any other country in the world – and it comes to similar conclusions than the Australian one.

The IZES survey found that solar power has reduced the price of electricity on the EPEX exchange by 10 per cent on average in the survey period – which ran from 2007 to 2011 – with reductions of up to 40 percent in the early afternoon when the most solar power is generated.

Uwe Leprich, research director at IZES, told the website Renewables International said the study found that the price of power was still rising considerably in 2007 between 10AM and 1PM as demand skyrocketed. But in the last two years, the sudden price increase no longer took place even though demand remained largely unchanged. “In addition, the differences between the base price and the peak price reduced considerably in 2010 and 2011,” he said.

“These are the two years in which the most photovoltaics was installed. At the same time, power demand did not change. We can therefore assume that photovoltaics is the reason why the base and the peak price have approached each other.” The base and peak prices used to be 20 to 25 percent apart, but that difference has shrunk to around 12 percent.

Leprich argues that this merit-order effect – which translates into an annual saving of 520 million to 840 million – has to be taken into account when discussing the cost of photovoltaics. “Of course, the effect is greater in the summer than in the winter, but it is there all year. After all, solar power is still generated in the winter – just not as much.”

IZES also comes to a similar conclusion to the Australian study, which suggested the extent of the savings gradually declines as more solar PV is installed. Leprich said solar PV will initially display more of the expensive power plants in Germany – such as peaking gas stations, two of which may face premature closure – and further deployment will increasingly cut into the inexpensive base load.

As an addendum to this, CleanTechnica reports that in the recent cold snap in Europe, Germany’s solar PV array has helped it export energy to France, whose nuclear-reliant grid has been unable to cope with increased demand, sending prices up by more than 50 per cent, and forcing the government to ask consumers to try and reduce consumption.

“Because France has so much nuclear power, the country has an inordinate number of electric heating systems. And because France has not added on enough additional capacity over the past decade, the country’s current nuclear plants are starting to have trouble meeting demand, especially when it gets very cold in the winter,” the website wrote, quoting Craig Morris of Renewables International.

Source: www.reneweconomy.com.au

Climate Action: As Easy As Falling Off a Log!

Carbon sequestration via fallen-log burial. Black carbon reduction. Methane reduction.  Three climate change mitigation actions which could help keep the earth’s temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees. For an annual cost of US$238 billion at full scale, with the returns from enhanced crop yield and health benefits far exceeding this amount. Plus stimulation of local manufacture and employment. Not as crazy as it sounds.  Read More

3 Ways to Get Ahead of Climate Change, Without Ditching Oil (Yet)

By Kumar Venkat in Green Biz.com

Published February 10, 2012

Greenhouse gas emissions are at record highs. The world’s major emitters recently failed once again to reach an agreement to limit emissions. In the midst of all the gloom and doom, it is understandable that the International Energy Agency’s latest World Energy Outlook has not received the attention it deserves.

But anyone seriously concerned about climate change needs to understand two fundamental constraints that emerge from this report. How we respond to these two constraints will determine if there is a reasonable way forward on climate change.

The first constraint has to do with trajectory of energy-related CO2 emissions required to keep the average temperature increase below the commonly accepted 2 degrees C threshold [PDF]. In the graph below, the IEA calls it the “450 Scenario” where the atmospheric CO2 concentration stays within 450 ppm.

It requires emissions to peak around 2017. By 2035, emissions in the 450 Scenario need to be just half of what we would have in the business-as-usual Current Policies Scenario. The difference between these two scenarios is as much as 22 Gt CO2 per year by 2035, about two-thirds of today’s total energy-related CO2 emissions.

Before we ponder how to find those reductions with current and future energy technologies and efficiencies, here is the second constraint that makes the task even more difficult. If we take no further action by 2017 — a likely situation — emissions locked in by existing capital stock (such as power plants, buildings, factories, and vehicles) will use up the entire carbon budget for 2035, leaving no maneuvering space to achieve the 450 Scenario.

As the graph below shows, these locked-in emissions will ramp down as older capital stock is phased out over time, but all replacements and expansions will have to be zero carbon!

The IEA estimates that demand for primary energy will increase by one-third between 2010 and 2035, and 75 percent of all the energy will come from fossil fuels in 2035. The new BP Energy Outlook concurs with this trend and estimates an 81 percent share for fossil fuels in 2030. The 450 Scenario will be out of reach without rapid breakthroughs in renewable energy, battery technologies, biofuels, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Unless, perhaps, if we are willing to think outside the box.

What if we could find practical and affordable emission reduction and sequestration opportunities outside of the energy realm that could offset a big part of fossil fuel emissions through 2035 and buy us the additional time needed for a full transition to clean energy?

A survey of recent research shows some remarkably simple ideas that, in some combination, may have the potential to take us to 2035 on a path equivalent to the 450 Scenario. I’ll highlight three that seem down to earth, two of which provide substantial non-climate benefits:

1. Black carbon reduction. About 18 percent of global warming is caused by black carbon, a result of incomplete combustion of both fossil fuels and solid biofuels. Black carbon stays in the atmosphere for several days to weeks, and works by absorbing light and radiating out heat. The heated air molecules last longer and can move long distances. Black carbon also reduces the earth’s reflectivity (known as albedo) when deposited on snow and ice, which further increases warming.

Solutions include: reducing particulate emissions from diesel vehicles; transitioning to clean-burning biomass stoves, brick kilns and coke ovens; and banning agricultural waste burning. There are large non-climate benefits by way of avoided premature deaths and reduced health costs and, to a lesser extent, avoided crop losses. Black carbon is expected to figure prominently in the next IPCC report.

2. Methane reduction. Methane emissions from oil and gas production, gas transmission, coal mining, municipal waste, wastewater, rice paddies and livestock manure present a mitigation opportunity similar in scale to black carbon. Non-climate benefits include avoided crop losses, avoided premature deaths and lower health costs.

3. Carbon sequestration via fallen-log burial. Dead trees on forest floors decompose in about 10 years, releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Slowing down the decomposition to a longer time frame (100-1,000 years) by burying or storing the fallen logs in anaerobic conditions could potentially sequester large amounts of carbon at a relatively low cost.

The potential is estimated to be around 10 Gt of carbon each year. There are risks, however, such as nutrient lockup, habitat loss, disturbance to forest floors and soils, and the need for some road construction. If these risks are managed well, while utilizing just a small part of the potential as I have assumed here, the impact could be substantial in the short term.

I have summarized rough estimates of climate change mitigation potentials, costs and benefits (by 2035 and beyond, in today’s dollars, using current technologies) for the three solutions in the table below based on literature sources. More than half of the 22 Gt CO2 gap between Current Policies and the 450 Scenario could be closed using these three solutions alone if they are ramped up to scale before 2035.

In conjunction with advances in clean energy, efficiencies and conservation, these solutions could put us within striking distance of meeting the 2 degrees C challenge.

An approximate annual cost for the three solutions is about $238 billion at full scale, with the returns from enhanced crop yield and health benefits far exceeding this amount. Moreover, investments in these solutions would stimulate local manufacture and employment, and climate change mitigation by itself might have some additional monetary value in the future; however, the benefits are substantial even without including these.

While the non-climate benefits of black carbon reduction are greatest in the regions where much of the emissions would be reduced – particularly China, India and other developing nations in Asia and Africa – they do not necessarily go to those who might bear the costs. In addition, methane is fairly well mixed in the atmosphere and the benefits of methane reduction are more global.

This means that most of the mitigation will probably need to be funded by public means, particularly where the air pollution comes from public infrastructure, residential sources, small businesses and farms. Air quality regulations could be another mechanism to cut back on industry-generated black carbon and methane.

There are several additional opportunities at varying levels of cost, benefit and risk. Here is a sampling of some simple as well as grand ideas: soil carbon sequestration using biochar [PDF]; utilizing a larger percentage of the fallen-log burial potential; painting roofs white in regions with low winter heating needs (could be particularly effective with black carbon reduction); harvesting fallen logs to produce eco-neutral fuel for existing coal-fired power plants; and large-scale irrigated afforestation of subtropical deserts.

All of this suggests that there are plausible trajectories that can keep the long-term average temperature increase under the 2 degrees C limit. In the short term, any such path would involve readily available technologies, a highly engineered approach, modest public spending, and benefits that extend far beyond climate.

Kumar Venkat is president and chief technologist at CleanMetrics Corp., a provider of analytical solutions for the sustainable economy.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

Energy in India: Boost Security, End Subsidies & Promote Efficiency

If India has to compete in the global market, it would be at a disadvantage if much of the country’s industrial sector remains lower than global benchmarks of energy efficiency. Advice from former global climate change panel boss R.K. Pachauri. With high oil prices, government should scrap energy subsidies and raise energy efficiency levels.

R K Pachauri, Director-General, The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI) in  Economic Times of India (10 February 2012):

The International Energy Agency has projected the possibility of oil prices reaching $150 per barrel by 2035. Oil price projections are fraught with uncertainties and complexities, which defy conventional analysis. It is entirely possible that the IEA’s projections will turn out to be off the mark.

But, fundamental changes in the global oil market suggest growing pressure on supply as a result of production capacity lagging behind quantity demanded.

Hence, while 2035 may not be the precise date by which prices hit $150, the trend will undoubtedly be upwards, leading perhaps to the spectre of four years ago with prices reaching $147 per barrel. The IEA’s prediction could very well occur earlier.

The Prime Minister, in his statement on New Year’s Eve, has rightly emphasised energy security as an important objective of development. This emphasis is timely and important. In a business-as-usual scenario developed through rigorous modeling by TERI, it has been projected that by 2031 India may be importing 750 million tonnes of oil and around 1,300 million tonnes of coal.

Such staggering levels of imports could run into serious physical constraints not only at the source of supply, but also in shipping internationally and port capacity and inland transportation within India.

Ideally, government policies and particularly real as well as relative prices of different forms of energy should reflect expected scarcity, so that market forces induce major improvements in the efficiency of energy use as well as the development of substitutes, thus reducing the expected dependence on imports of fossil fuels.

But given the enormous resistance to increase of energy prices, the government is unable to recover even operating costs of power supply and persists with heavy subsidies for oil products such as kerosene, LPG and diesel. It seems unthinkable, therefore, that prices would include some form of security premium to help moderate the increase in demand for imports.

Consequently, decision makers in business would not, in the immediate future, carry any part of the security burden, even as they may foresee serious difficulties ahead on account of India’s growing dependence on fossil fuels.

However, in a globalised world, businesses would need to consider how opportunities are likely to expand for renewable energy technologies as well as products, processes and production systems which are based on much higher levels of energy efficiency.

Countries like China and the Republic of Korea are making major investments in renewable and green energy technologies, not only as a commitment to a greener path of economic growth and development but also as a strategy for seeking a large share of the global market for renewables, which would emerge in the future. An important element driving action in these directions is the worldwide challenge of mitigating climate change.

Even though at the global level there is no binding agreement requiring nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by specified amounts, there is growing concern across the globe on the need for significant reductions. The recently concluded Conference of the Parties in Durban reaffirmed its commitment to limiting global average temperature increase to 2°C, but there was no matching agreement for reducing emissions to attain this objective.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had clearly specified in 2007 that if temperature increase was to be limited to 2.0-2.4°C along a least cost trajectory, then global emissions of CO2 would need to peak no later than 2015. Indeed this is not the only pathway that the world can pursue to stabilise the concentration of GHGs, but other options may carry a higher cost and would be associated with far more serious impacts of climate change if mitigation of emissions is delayed.

While global developments and concerns clearly suggest an energy future very different from business-as-usual, any analysis of the Indian scene suggests an approach by which energy security is made not only an important element of national policy, including rationalisation of energy prices, but also a part of corporate decision-making.

This is not something that is dictated by reasons of patriotism but an acceptance of the fact that energy prices cannot continue at levels below cost in India, and that globally prices of fossil fuels are projected to increase according to every credible study.

Besides, with India’s growing demand for imports, the day is not far when at the margin India may have a significant upward impact on global prices of fossil fuels. Finally, global trends indicate a shift to much higher levels of efficiency in energy use, which would be reflected in the prices of goods and services produced.

If India has to compete in the global market, it would be at a disadvantage if much of the country’s industrial sector remains lower than global benchmarks of energy efficiency. Enlightened business policy would, therefore, require assessment of global trends and drivers of change, and implementing actions that would give Indian firms a cost advantage today and minimise the risk of facing much higher energy costs in the future. Forward looking companies would base their policies on robust assessment of the energy future facing India and, therefore, every business entity in the country.

Source: www.economictimes.indiatimes.com

Economy First, Environment Second in China’s Carbon & Climate Games

What’s the reality behind China’s new, high-profile enthusiasm for a green revolution?  There’s to be a carbon tax and trial carbon trading scheme. Maybe it reflects strategic concerns that extend well beyond the boundaries of climate change and the desire for a cleaner world. Read More

Graham Lloyd in The Australian (11 February 2012):

CHINA’S new, high-profile enthusiasm for a green revolution, including a carbon tax and trial carbon trading scheme, reflects strategic concerns that extend well beyond the boundaries of climate change and the desire for a cleaner world.

Both welcomed and greeted with some suspicion, China’s internal decisions on carbon pricing  cannot be separated from the bigger questions of global trade and reciprocal market access.

China’s primary objective is not necessarily to save carbon but to bolster its economic opportunity. Being seen as a co-operative global citizen will be central to China’s long-term ability to preserve good relations while being the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

Further economic opportunity comes from using domestic markets to help underpin China’s position as the world’s leading supplier of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar.

China’s low starting price of 10 yuan ($1.59) per tonne of carbon suggests the economic imperative and good public relations are more important than the amount of carbon emissions that will be ultimately saved.

But the carbon tax announcement builds on a commitment to pilot a cap-and-trade scheme in selected industrial regions, and is in line with China’s most recent five-year plan that, for the first time, mentions climate change as a state concern.

More pointedly, the carbon tax move coincides with a series of escalating trade wars between China and the US and European governments over wind and solar power and air travel.

In an aggressive move ahead of a summit meeting with EU leaders next week, China this week banned its airlines from participating in a European carbon tax on air travel.

China has already warned of a trade war in air travel and claims the support of other nations, including India, Russia and the US.

Meanwhile, the US International Trade Commission ruled unanimously in November that Chinese solar panel and cell imports were harming the American solar manufacturing industry, and the US Department of Commerce may impose retrospective duties on imported Chinese renewable energy products.

The US action was initiated by German manufacturer SolarWorld AG, which has seen its grip on the world’s solar panel industry destroyed by the rise of cheaper Chinese exports.

China is facing the same trade issues in Europe, where the financial performance of wind and solar stocks has been in freefall as financially straitened governments wind back taxpayer-funded subsidy schemes to promote renewable energy use.

At one level, China’s carbon tax plan can be seen as rearguard protection for its heavily state-subsidised renewable energy sector. But there are deeper messages as well.

According to John Lee, adjunct associate professor at the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, China’s new language on climate change recognises that it has lost its traditional arguments against taking domestic action.

These arguments are that the developed world is responsible for past carbon emissions and therefore must take responsibility for future cuts. In addition, with 800 million people still living on less than $2 a day, China’s primary responsibility is economic growth.

China’s plans remain firmly rooted in a policy of “economy first”. And the country’s lead negotiator on climate change, Su Wei, says China believes the system of different treatment for developed and developing countries should remain in place.

Lee sees China’s carbon tax plans as an attempt to win a long-standing argument with the West over who should be responsible for carbon emissions, effectively shifting the burden to the largely foreign-owned export manufacturing sector.

Su argues that China considers a carbon tax to be one of the instruments that can be used to direct the economy towards low-carbon development, and he says senior officials are still debating whether they should even use the term “carbon tax”.

“Whether we call it a carbon tax – or environment tax or resource tax or even fuel tax – we have lots of taxes already. We need to carefully redesign the category and type,” he says.

China is also looking at a plan to put voluntary labels on low-carbon products, Su says, “in order to try to give a clear signal to business and industry”.

For Lee, such measures underscore the acute embarrassment China faced when it was blamed for the collapse of the overly ambitious climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009.

“I think the Chinese have lost the argument on who should bear responsibility for climate change,” Lee says. “All that is being taken into account is how much is China emitting and how much are they due to emit in the future.

“The Chinese realise that whatever arguments they put forward, the pressure will be on them to do something about it, and I see the pronouncement of a carbon tax as some sort of token effort that they are serious about it.”

Lee says disputes over renewable energy and air travel must be seen in the broader context of reciprocal market access: “Even though it is not stated publicly, I think the Americans and the Europeans are privately negotiating a separate deal with China.

“They are pushing anti-dumping measures and the currency issue, but what they really want is market access to the protected sectors of the Chinese economy,” he says. “If the US and European firms can get that, then you will see America and Europe become a lot less vitriolic about the anti-dumping measures.”

The list of protected industries has been a movable feast. It used to be sectors such as telecommunications, construction, heavy industrial machinery, mining, chemicals and media. But in the past few years China has included renewable technologies, IT platforms and the energy sector.

“The big concern the West has,” Lee says, “is that China has shown it will preserve every significant, important sector for state-owned enterprises in the name of helping national champions.”

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Dying to Give a Green Tick to Nike

“Just do it” or “Just dye it.” That might be a fitting twist on Nike’s iconic slogan after the announcement that it is adopting a waterless dyeing technology that uses recycled carbon dioxide to colour synthetic textiles. The process could eliminate the use of countless billions of gallons of polluted discharges into waterways near manufacturing plants in Asia, where much of the world’s textile dyeing occurs. Green Biz has the story. Read More

By Joel Makower in Green Biz.com (7 February 2012):

“Just dye it.” That might be a fitting twist on Nike’s iconic slogan after today’s announcement that it is adopting a waterless dyeing technology that uses recycled carbon dioxide to color synthetic textiles.

The process, which the company has been exploring for eight years, could eliminate the use of countless billions of gallons of polluted discharges into waterways near manufacturing plants in Asia, where much of the world’s textile dyeing occurs. On average, an estimated 100-150 liters (about 26-40 gallons) of water is needed to process one kg (2.2 pounds) of textile materials. Industry analysts estimate that more than 39 million tons of polyester will be dyed annually by 2015.

The waterless dyeing process, developed by Netherlands-based DyeCoo Textile Systems — the name “DyeCoo” comes from conflating “dyeing” with “CO2” — will begin to show up on Nike products later this year. It utilizes a supercritical fluid carbon dioxide, or SCF, technology, so called because it involves heating carbon dioxide to above 31º C (88° F) and pressurizing it. At that stage, it becomes supercritical, a state of matter that can be seen as an expanded liquid or a heavily compressed gas. DyeCoo’s process was launched last fall after 11 years in R&D.

Water is used as a solvent in many textile pretreatment and finishing processes, such as washing, scouring, bleaching, and dyeing. Water scarcity and increased environmental awareness are global concerns. Textile coloring and treatment accounts for between 17 percent and 20 percent of global industrial pollution, according to The World Bank, including 72 toxic chemicals in water solely from textile dyeing, 30 of which are cannot be removed using conventional treatment techniques.

SCF CO2 technology already is utilized at scale in other industries such as the decaffeination of coffee and the extraction of natural flavors and fragrances. DyeCoo is believed to be the first company to successfully apply the SCF CO2 process to the commercial dyeing of polyester fabric, and research is underway to apply the technology to cellulosic and synthetic fabrics.

Making the switch “wasn’t that difficult,” Eric Sprunk, Nike’s VP of Merchandising and Product, told me recently. “The biggest resistance was an investment in the way things are done today. But I don’t think it’s going to be difficult going forward to dye textiles using zero water. That’s an easy sell for anyone in the apparel industry.”

Moreover, he said, the cost wasn’t prohibitive. While Sprunk wouldn’t disclose the price differential for the waterless technology, he said, “We’re not going to be at a cost-disadvantage almost from the get-go.”

Sprunk added: “This is a game-changer for us.”

DyeCoo hadn’t been an existing Nike supplier, a terrific case study of an innovative young company potentially disrupting global markets. “When we met up with them, they had the IP [intellectual property] and the appetite and motivation to do this on a large scale,” said Sprunk. He noted that DyeCoo, which manufactures the dyeing equipment, will sell its technology not just to companies in the Nike supply chain, but also to Nike’s competitors. “Our intention and belief is that dye houses and textile manufacturers for other brands will have access to this.”

According to DyeCoo, the environmental benefits of its technology include the elimination of water consumption and discharges, the elimination of wastewater as well as effluent from the drying process, reductions in energy use and air emissions, faster dyeing time, and the elimination of surfactants and other chemicals used in many dyes. It says that 95 percent of the CO2 used in the process is recycled.

In addition, the process requires less re-dyeing, another massive water consumer. According to Pawan Mehra, Managing Director at cKinetics, which helps early-stage companies in emerging economies adopt sustainable technologies, “We have seen 4-6 times the amount of energy and water being used by dye-houses when fabric is meant for US or EU markets, as compared to the energy and water spent for fabric going to other markets.” The reason, he says, is that US and EU buyers demand exact color-matching, requiring more frequent re-dyeing.

(Ever since Mehra first shared this factoid with me a couple years ago, I’ve wondered why some sustainably minded apparel company — a Patagonia, say — doesn’t end this practice and proudly advertise that “Our Shirts Don’t Match!” In addition to explaining why, it could point out that most of us buy only one shirt anyway — and why would we want it to look exactly like everyone else’s?)

I asked my friend, Summer Rayne Oakes — model, activist, and co-founder of Source4Style, which helps designers find sustainably source materials — about Nike announcement. She applauded the move, calling it “a manifestation of the general movement within the industry to reduce water, energy, and chemical consumption.” Oakes explained that a few other textile and apparel companies are already engaged with water-reduction techniques, including Huntsman Dyes, which recently came out with water- and energy-efficient reactive dyeing technologies for natural materials (Huntsman is a Source4Style sponsor); Levi Strauss & Co., which in 2010 launched a Water<less campaign; and Air-Dye, another waterless dyeing technology for polyester and other synthetic materials, which has done large-scale applications for brands like Jones Group, Argenti, Title Nine, MycraPac, Marks & Spencer, Asics, and Wacoal. Air Dye’s technology “allows for greater breadth of design options than Dyecoo’s because the application allows you to dye very different prints or colors on opposite sides of the fabric,” she noted.

Oakes, who recently produced two brief, fun videos on water-saving textile technologies — see here and here — added, “I believe that water is going to be — and is starting to become — one of the major focus points for apparel brands. It’s the new ‘organic’ — that is, it’s going to be a major buzzword now.”

Joel Makower is chairman and executive editor of GreenBiz Group Inc., producer of GreenBiz.com.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

Sustainable Auto Business News: Cars Go Small, Green & Local

The Hiroko is a tiny European electric and drive motors hide inside each of the four wheels. Living Journey aims to make Hertz equipment solutions and sustainable mobility an industry leader in environmental practices via a defined set of new initiatives. Significant improvements in vehicle technology have resulted in new cars in the Australian market recording their lowest ever CO2 emissions. Read More

Hertz announcement by Wes Lane (8 February 2012):

Car hire firm Hertz has announced the launch of its new global sustainability strategy.

The program, called ‘Living Journey’, aims to make Hertz equipment solutions and sustainable mobility an industry leader in environmental practices via a defined set of new initiatives, the company said in a press release this week.

Hertz has outlined three specific points in which it will work to pave the way in sustainable business practice: Smart Mobility, in which it will offer low-emission products to consumers; Environment, in which it will reduce the firm’s environmental footprint via the use of renewable energy and efficiency improvements; and Community, in which it will give back to its neighbours via volunteer and philanthropic efforts.

Mark P. Frissora, Hertz’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement that sustainability has been a part of the company’s culture for a long time, adding that last year it set precedent for the industry via its Electric Vehicle product offerings and solar generator programs at rental facilities and corporate offices.

Mr Frissora went on to say that Living Journey would continue such efforts and would encompass all of the firm’s sustainability initiatives through investments, partnerships and employee education.

The firm also noted in the statement that it had received recognition by the Global Business Travel Association for Sustainable Practice in 2011 for its hourly Hertz On Demand rental scheme.

Source: www.comparecarhire.co.uk

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Australia (7 February 2012):

Significant improvements in vehicle technology have resulted in new cars in the Australian market recording their lowest ever carbon dioxide emissions.

The National Average Carbon Emission (NACE) figure for 2011 is 206.6 grams of CO2 per kilometre – down 2.8 per cent compared to the 2010 figure of 212.6 grams of CO2/km.

“The average new car sold in Australia is now at least 20 per cent more efficient than it was in 2000,” the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) Chief Executive Ian Chalmers said.

All new passenger cars, SUVs and light commercial utes, vans and buses (up to 3.5 tonne) are included in calculating the NACE figure, therefore including many more vehicle types than CO2 measures used in other parts of the world, including Europe.

“This is one of the most significant yearly improvements in the NACE figure and demonstrates the industry’s commitment to continue to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” Mr Chalmers added.

“The result is a combination of improvements in vehicle technology and a change in consumer buying preferences toward lower emission vehicles,” he said.

“There has been a strong uptake in new-generation diesel and hybrid powered vehicles by consumers.

“In addition, ongoing efficiency improvements in average emissions from petrol powered vehicles by almost 7% indicates that consumers are continuing to purchase more efficient across the new vehicle fleet,” Mr Chalmers advised.

“Carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles have reduced significantly without regulation and the industry now looks forward to working constructively with the Federal Government in developing a new standard,” he said.

Source: www.fcai.com.au

By Mark Brown in Wired UK (26 January 2012):

This teeny fold-up car will be silently zipping along the streets of major European cities in 2013. It’s called Hiriko, and it was unveiled at the European Commission headquarters on 25 January.

Like a child’s stroller, the car’s chassis can collapse in on itself to dramatically reduce its size and occupy a smaller footprint when parked. When folded and stacked, three Hirikos could squeeze into one traditional parking space.

To save on space (even when unfolded it’s just 2.5 metres long), the car also has no doors. Instead you have to clamber in and out through the giant fold-up windscreen. Luckily, the steering console — which sports a spiffy LCD screen — pivots out of the way.

The car is entirely electric and drive motors hide inside each of the four wheels. The wheels can be controlled independently, allowing the car to execute tight manoeuvres, sharp U-turns and easy parallel parking in tight spaces.

The battery will get you 120 kilometres without a recharge, and can be rapidly re-juiced using relevant lithium-ion battery technologies. Also, the car’s speed is electronically set to respect city limits.

The design, originally dubbed CityCar, was dreamt up by Boston’s MIT Media Lab as an answer to urban stress, space and pollution. Since then a consortium of seven small firms from Spain’s Basque country have turned the idea into the commercial Hiriko (“urban”, in Basque).

The car will hit European cities in 2013. There are plans to make it a city-owned vehicle, up for hire like Boris bikes. Or, alternatively, it could be released for sale privately at around 12,500 euros (£10,500).

According to the AFP, several cities have shows interest, including Berlin, Barcelona, San Francisco and Hong Kong. Talks are underway with Paris, London, Boston, Dubai and Brussels.

Source: www.wired.co.uk

Funding for Sceptics & Climate Change Deniers Exposed

A major leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science. Libertarian think-tank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy. It also funds education to schools in the US with an alternative climate view. Read More

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent for Guardian (15 February 2012):

The inner workings of a libertarian think-tank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an “insider” at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.

The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”, the documents said.

It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents, although Heartland issued a statement on Wednesday claiming at least one document was fake, and that it was the victim of theft and forgery. However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: “They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.”

Watts, in an email, did not mention the entire cost of his temperature station initiative but said: “Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project.”

“There is nothing I can tell you,” Jim Lakely, Heartland’s communications director, said in a telephone interview. “We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning.” Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels in New York’s Times Square as well as in Washington DC.

If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.

“It’s a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation,” Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. “It’s more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy.”

The Valentine’s Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN’s climate summit later that year.

In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.

The documents posted on Desmog’s website include confidential memos of Heartland’s climate science denial strategy, its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting.

The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year.

The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as Microsoft and RJR Tobacco.

The documents confirm what environmental groups such as Greenpeace have long suspected: that Heartland itself is a major source of funding to a network of experts and bloggers who have been prominent in the campaign to discredit established science.

Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. “This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out,” Heartland documents warn.

But the cache raises an equal number of questions – such as the identity of an anonymous donor that has been a mainstay of Heartland. The unnamed donor, who contributed $4.6m in 2008, has since scaled back contributions. Even so, the donor’s $979,000 contribution in 2011 accounted for 20% of Heartland’s overall budget, the fundraising plan says

According to the fundraising document Heartland hopes to bump that up to $1.25m in 2012

The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland’s operations is underscored by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. “We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with,” the document said.

Heartland hopes to cash in on its vocal support for the controversial mining method known as fracking, the document suggests.

Heartland operates on a range of issues besides the environment. But discrediting the science of climate change remains a key mission. The group spends $300,000 on salaries for a team of experts working to undermine the findings of the UN climate body, the IPCC.

It plans to expand that this year by paying a former US department of energy employee to write an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming. The fundraising plan notes the anonymous donor has set aside $100,000 for the project.

The plan also notes the difficulty of injecting non-scientific topics in schools. “Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet curriculum guidelines, and the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12 education,” the fundraising plan said.

The Heartland Institute’s conference on climate change in 2009. Link to this videoThe documents suggest several prominent voices in the campaign to deny established climate science are recipients of Heartland funding.

They include, according to the documents, a number of contrarian climate experts. “At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found,” the documents say.

Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified. However, Heartland’s website notes that Idso, Singer, and Carter were commissioned to write a report for the organisation.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

10 Global Sustainability Megaforces to Threaten Business

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is encouraging more businesses to embrace the principle of sustainability in their strategies –it should be in the DNA of business culture and operations. KPMG reports that climate change could be the only global megaforce that directly affects all others, with annual output losses ranging from 1% per year, if strong and early action is taken to tackle rising temperatures, to as much as 5%  a year, if policymakers fail to act. It is but one of the 10 sustainability “megaforces” threatening your business. What about the others? Read More

By BusinessGreen staff (16 Feb 2012):

Businesses have been urged to step up their efforts to ensure they are resilient to an increasingly resource-strained world, after a new report by KPMG identified 10 “global sustainability megaforces” that could derail businesses’ plans over the next two decades.

Climate change

KPMG says this could be the only global megaforce that directly affects all others, with annual output losses ranging from one per cent per year, if strong and early action is taken to tackle rising temperatures, to as much as five per cent a year, if policymakers fail to act.

Energy and fuel

Fossil fuel markets are likely to become more volatile and unpredictable due to higher demand, shifts in the geographical pattern of consumption, supply and production uncertainties, and increasing regulation to tackle climate change.

Material resource scarcity

As developing countries industrialise rapidly, global demand for material resources is predicted to increase dramatically, says KPMG. Businesses are therefore likely to face increasing trade restrictions and intense global competition for a wide range of material resources that become less easily available. However, such scarcity also creates opportunities to develop substitute materials or to recover materials from waste.

Water scarcity

Based on a forecast that the global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40 per cent by 2030, KPMG warns that businesses may be vulnerable to water shortages, lower-quality water, price volatility and resulting reputational challenges.

Ecosystem decline

With global ecosystems showing signs of breakdown and stress, more companies are realising how dependent their operations are on the critical services these ecosystems provide. The decline in ecosystems is making natural resources scarcer, more expensive and less diverse, which increases the costs of water and escalates the damage caused by invasive species to sectors such as agriculture, fishing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and tourism.

Population growth

The world population is expected to reach 8.4 billion by 2032, increasing pressures on ecosystems and affecting supplies of natural resources such as food, water, energy and materials. KPMG maintains, however, that this population boom also provides business opportunities to grow commerce and develop new ways of addressing the demand of growing populations for agriculture, sanitation, education, technology, finance and healthcare.

Wealth

Within growing populations, the middle class is forecast to grow 172 per cent between 2010 and 2030. This presents a challenge for businesses, which will be required to provide services and goods to this new middle class market at a time when resources are likely to be scarcer and more price volatile. Additionally, increasing wealth means that many companies will no longer be able to take advantage of “cheap labour” in developing nations in the same way they have previously.

Urbanisation

By 2030, all developing regions, including Asia and Africa, are expected to have the majority of their inhabitants living in urban areas. Virtually all population growth during the next 30 years will be in cities, which will require extensive improvements in infrastructure, such as construction, water and sanitation, electricity, waste, transport, health, public safety, and internet and cell phone connectivity.

Food security

Global food prices are predicted to rise 70 to 90 per cent by 2030 as a result of growing populations, water scarcity and deforestation. Farmers in water-scarce regions are likely to have to compete for supplies with electric utilities and mining, as well as with consumers.

Deforestation

Wood products contributed $100bn per year to the global economy from 2003 to 2007, while the value of non-wood forest products, mostly food, was estimated at about $18.5bn in 2005. But the OECD predicts that forest areas will decline globally by 13 per cent from 2005 to 2030, mostly in South Asia and Africa, hitting the timber industry as well as downstream industries such as pulp and paper. However, KPMG notes that new opportunities may arise through the development of market mechanisms and economic incentives to reduce the rate of deforestation such as the UN-backed REDD+ programme.

Source: www.businessgreen.com

Hameed Shaheen in Pakistan Observer (16 February 2012):

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is encouraging more businesses to embrace the principle of sustainability in their strategies, noting that with the most of the world’s ecosystems in decline, widening social inequality and climate change, global prosperity, productivity and stability was at stake. “We need corporate sustainability to be in the DNA of business culture and operations,” said Mr. Ban in his address to a gathering in New York entitled ‘KPMG Summit: Business Perspective for Sustainable Growth, says a UN report.’

Mr. Ban pointed out that corporate sustainability is currently not properly valued, noting that many proven innovations and solutions – from energy efficiency to emissions reductions – are not supported with the right incentives.

“In fact, incentive structures still tend to encourage unsustainable behaviour. As a result, too many companies limit their sustainability efforts to pilot programmes that never take off. Even worse, sustainability becomes more a matter of public relations than how companies operate,” he added.

He lauded the nearly 7,000 corporations in 140 countries that had joined the United Nations Global Compact initiative that seeks to foster responsible business practices. Stressing the UN’s commitment to supporting companies to carry out their businesses in a sustainable way, Mr. Ban cited the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment that been embraced by more than 900 institutional investors representing at least $30 trillion in assets.

Through the UN-backed “Principles for Responsible Management Education,” over 400 business schools and related institutions are integrating sustainability into curriculum and research, he said, adding that the recently issued report of his Global Sustainability Panel also provided a blueprint for mainstreaming sustainability. Mr.

Ban also highlighted the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative that is mobilizing the private sector towards a more accessible, efficient and clean energy economy, and the fact that more than 400 business leaders had pledged their support for the Caring for Climate initiative designed to advance low-carbon solutions and help make the green economy a reality, he said.

He urged business leaders gathered at the conference to five steps to advance sustainability: Join the Corporate Sustainability Forum to be held on the sidelines of the UN Conference on Sustainable development in Brazil in June; Heed the call of a new generation of investors by publicly reporting on sustainability performance;Engage in responsible lobbying and advocacy to affirm their belief in free and fair trade; Work with governments to adopt smart regulatory frameworks and incentives that reward environmental and social performance; Work with the UN in its platforms and initiatives on sustainable business practices.

Source: www.pakobserver.net

Ken Hickson has the last word:  Leaders’ Loss Lamented

Like the plot in a Shakespearean play, leaders have been removed from positions of power. One by a coup, one facing charges arising from a traffic misdemeanour!

We often go on a bit about leadership and the importance of having people in the world who will take a stand and push for things sustainable:  good for people and the planet.

Climate change leadership seems to come and go. We once hung our hopes on US President Obama and in Australia on opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull. But political forces – inside and outside a country – often prevent someone from showing their true colours and achieving what they set out to do.

How sad and therefore unfortunate that two strong leaders for climate change action in two very different places – the United Kingdom and the Maldives – were effectively forced out of the front line. Is there someone to step into the vacancy left by Climate Change Minister Chris Huhne or that of former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed? We provide two articles which reflect on the sudden loss of these two leaders. Read More

Michael McCarthy  in The Independent Saturday 04 February 2012

With the enforced departure of Chris Huhne the environment in Britain has lost its most intelligent and powerful defender. In his 20 months at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the MP for Eastleigh has shown not only a masterful grasp of policy, but a willingness to fight his corner in the Cabinet for the green causes he has long championed.

In particular he has stood up to the Chancellor, George Osborne, and to Mr Osborne’s intensifying attack on environmental concerns as an irrelevant side issue which only harms economic growth.

After the Chancellor’s discourse to last October’s Conservative conference, in which he roused the party faithful by crying “We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business!”, Mr Huhne responded by echoing Mr Osborne’s own words back to him, asserting: “We are not going to save our economy by turning our back on renewable energy.”

It did not make him popular with his Tory cabinet colleagues – indeed, it made him hated by some, who will privately cheer his fall – but it did reassure all who care about the environment that their concerns were being upheld at the highest level.

Strange that it should be Mr Huhne taking this role, a former financier and financial journalist (he was once City editor of The Independent) who, let it be said, is a rich man with a portfolio of properties, but who could have devoted his whole life to money making and raked in millions.

He could have bought a flash country estate and taken up huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ like many an upwardly mobile hedge-fund boss of his generation. Instead, after a visit to Africa, he conceived a passion for environmental and developmental causes and went into politics full time for the Liberal Democrats.

His rise has been helped by what even his enemies acknowledge is a brilliant brain. “You should see him in negotiations with the Treasury,” a Tory colleague once murmured in admiration. “But then, he was a ratings analyst.”

This intellectual agility was never put to better use than at the Cancun climate conference in December 2010, when the laboriously constructed negotiating process appeared to be in ruins after the disastrous Copenhagen talks of the previous year.

Cancun was meant to repair the process so that the world could continue to grapple with the global-warming threat, but it too appeared to be heading for deadlock over the current emissions-cutting treaty, the Kyoto protocol: South American countries insisted on renewal, but the Japanese said Never.

Mr Huhne was put in charge of a committee to try to bridge the divide, which he proceeded to do by producing a text of such subtlety that even the opposing sides felt able to agree to it, and the process was saved.

It might seem an obscure victory – but it was a crucial one for the future. There is no doubt that Mr Huhne, as was said of Othello, hath done the state some service. He has been a genuine big beast in the political jungle, and to see him brought low is very sad. His departure is also a very great loss to anyone who cares about the environment and the green economy – especially in an administration which proclaimed it would be the greenest government ever, but which looks a paler shade of green with every day that passes.

Source: www.independent.co.uk

By Kate Sheppard in Mother Jones (8 February 2012):

The president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, resigned on Tuesday amid what has been described in some press accounts as a coup. There are plenty of questions about the circumstances of his departure from power, but what is clear is that it means the loss of one of the most powerful and visible international leaders on climate change.

Nasheed told reporters on Wednesday he was forced to resign at gunpoint, after what appeared to be a mutiny by police officers and protesters. From Reuters:

“Yes, I was forced to resign at gunpoint,” Nasheed told reporters after his party meeting a day after his resignation. “There were guns all around me and they told me they wouldn’t hesitate to use them if I didn’t resign.

“I call on the chief justice to look into the matter of who was behind this coup. We will try our best to bring back the lawful government.”

Yet the newly installed president, Mohammed Waheed Hassan, said on Tuesday that it was a peaceful transition. The change of power has sparked rioting in the streets as well. It’s not clear at this point what will happen in the country, and a United Nations political mission is expected to visit later this week.

The tiny island nation in the Indian Ocean has a population of just 395,000, and in 2008 Nasheed became the country’s first democratically elected president. In that capacity, he has been a leading international voice advocating action on climate change. To illustrate the threat that sea level rise posed to his nation, he held a cabinet meeting underwater in 2009. And in 2010 his government installed solar panels on the presidential residence and rolled out a plan to cut the country’s emissions. As Maldivian Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam told Mother Jones at the time, “We are the front line, we can start dealing with it ourselves.”

Source: www.motherjones.com

Don’t mention the war – or climate change!

This is the work of Tom Toles, who has been The Washington Post’s editorial cartoonist since 2002. It says it all really. But not quite. Read on through the articles in this issue from around the world. The State of the Union and the state of island states. What it takes for the world’s biggest navy to go green and how bad is black carbon. Who’s on the list of the top 100 most sustainable companies – and who’s not! There is a green shift going on around the world and Kraft Foods is one good example. The UK puts smarts meters in the home. Singapore is realising that its high time to face up to higher tides and the new map of South East Asia shows what will happen if temperatures rise by 4 degrees. Electric vehicles in focus and GM cars come clean. There are words on behaviour change, social media, communication and leadership. From the World Economic Forum and closer to home. – Ken Hickson