It’s a Gas & it’s Going to Waste

A GE study, “Flare Gas Reduction: Recent Global Trends and Policy Considerations” estimates that 5% of the world’s natural gas production is wasted by burning or “flaring” unused gas each year—an amount equivalent to 30% of consumption in the European Union and 23% in the United States. But with greater global attention and concerted effort—including partnerships, sound policy and innovative technologies—large-scale gas flaring could be largely eliminated in as little as five years. It’s a win-win outcome, says GE.

GE Reports (4 April 2011):

GE today released a study, Flare Gas Reduction: Recent Global Trends and Policy Considerations, which estimates that 5 percent of the world’s natural gas production is wasted by burning or “flaring” unused gas each year—an amount equivalent to 30 percent of consumption in the European Union and 23 percent in the United States.

Gas flaring emits 400 million metric tons of CO2 annually, the same as 77 million automobiles, without producing useful heat or electricity. Worldwide, billions of cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas are wasted annually, typically as a by-product of oil extraction.

The study finds that the technologies required for a solution exist today. Depending on region, these may include power generation, gas re-injection (for enhanced oil recovery, gathering and processing), pipeline development and distributed energy solutions. Nearly $20 billion in wasted natural gas could be used to generate reliable, affordable electricity and yield billions of dollars per year in increased global economic output.

“Power generation, gas-reinjection and distributed energy solutions are available today and can eliminate the wasteful practice of burning unused gas. This fuel can be used to generate affordable electricity for the world’s homes and factories,” said Michael Farina, program manager at GE Energy and author of the white paper.

“With greater global attention and concerted effort—including partnerships, sound policy and innovative technologies—large-scale gas flaring could be largely eliminated in as little as five years. It’s a win-win outcome,” continued Farina.

The report provides a region-by-region analysis of gas flaring trends, including:

•           Within the Russian Federation, by some measures the world’s largest source of flare gas emissions, as much as 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas produced is wasted annually. If half of this flare gas (25 bcm per year) was captured and sold at prevailing domestic prices in Russia, the economic opportunity may exceed $2 billion U.S. dollars (65 billion rubles). A significant portion of this waste could be avoided with modest policy efforts and greater emphasis on investments in power generation and gas processing technologies.

•           Although Nigeria has reduced flare gas emissions by 28 percent from 2000 levels, the country’s oil industry still wastes 15bcm of natural gas every year. While nearly half of the population has no access to electricity, the country spends nearly $13 billion per year on diesel-powered generation and perhaps 10GW of potential electricity is flared away. Successful capture and flare gas utilization could potentially triple per capita electricity consumption for this nation of 155 million people.

•           Elsewhere in West Africa, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Congo and Cameroon collectively waste about 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas every year.

•           Low natural gas prices and higher costs related to capturing flare gas in the Middle East inadvertently encourage the wasteful burning of unused gas.

“Making better use of vented and flared gas is a tremendous opportunity. It will help slow global warming while also saving scarce natural resources. While this issue has been on the radar screen for some time, many countries still waste massive amounts of gas through flaring and venting,” said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law & Regulation at the University of California San Diego.

The study highlights the following recommendations to reduce gas flaring:

Strengthen International Commitments

The next phase of flare gas eradication requires a coordinated effort from central and regional governments, oil and gas producers, technology providers and the international community. These efforts must include both proper punitive actions and incentives to encourage investment.

Advance Local Solutions

Local efforts are critical to flare gas reduction. Governments, producers and technology providers across the globe must cooperate to:

•           Communicate the value of gas, including greater efficiency;

•           Highlight the financial benefits associated with gas flaring reduction;

•           Secure local government support for monitoring and enforcing flaring regulations; and

•           Build capacity that helps local investors and contractors develop, operate and service distributed power generation.

Expand Access to Financing

Local efforts require capital support, including investments in pipeline, processing and storage, which make it economically efficient to gather and utilize flare gas. Various forms of credit enhancement, including partial risk guarantees, are one option to support investment while policy reforms are underway. Targeted technology funds and carbon partnerships also can facilitate projects, along with carbon financing and expanded eligibility for flare gas reduction within the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism.

About GE

GE (NYSE: GE) is an advanced technology, services and finance company taking on the world’s toughest challenges. Dedicated to innovation in energy, health, transportation and infrastructure, GE operates in more than 100 countries and employs about 300,000 people worldwide. For more information, visit the company’s Web site at www.ge.com.

GE serves the energy sector by developing and deploying technology that helps make efficient use of natural resources. With more than 90,000 global employees and 2010 revenues of $38 billion, GE Energy www.ge.com/energy is one of the world’s leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technologies. The businesses that comprise GE Energy—GE Power & Water, GE Energy Services and GE Oil & Gas—work together to provide integrated product and service solutions in all areas of the energy industry including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy; renewable resources such as water, wind, solar and biogas; and other alternative fuels.

Source: www.genewscenter.com

Governments Under Carbon War Room Spotlight

British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, co-founder of the Carbon War Room, announced  (not on April Fool’s Day!) new awards for the best and worst performing countries on climate change action. The Carbon War Room, a non-profit organisation that promotes business solutions to climate change, is adding the new awards to its existing, high-profile Gigaton Awards to spur government action. 

By Jenny Marusiakin eco-bsiness.com (1 April 2011)

British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, co-founder of the Carbon War Room, announced on Wednesday (not on April Fool’s Day!) new awards for the best and worst performing countries on climate change action.

The Carbon War Room, a non-profit organisation that promotes business solutions to climate change, is adding the new awards to its existing, high-profile Gigaton Awards to spur government action. 

Gigaton Awards are given annually to companies who deliver the best measurable results on reduction of carbon emissions through energy efficiency and best sustainability practices within their industry. The goal is to challenge entrepreneurs, investors and policy makers to take bold, innovative steps to stabilize the climate.

Sir Branson’s announcement extended that challenge to national governments.

“Businesses have to fulfill their promises. When they do they inspire others, but when they don’t they stifle growth. In this way, countries are no different,” said Sir Branson.

The top country award will be presented to the country deemed to have made the most progress in setting and acting on carbon emission targets, and on implementing policies that encourage businesses to take carbon reduction measures.

Aimed at exposing the worst performing countries, the “Melting Glacier Award” will go to the country that has made the least headway in implementing effective carbon reduction policies.

The awards are similar to those handed out by NGO Climate Action Network (CAN) at the annual UN climate change summits to countries who perform worst during each day’s negotiations at UN climate change conferences.

Started in 1999 in Germany,  ‘Fossil of the Day’ awards are determined by CAN at the end of each day’s talks and presented by local activists at ‘winning’ embassies in capital cities around the world.

Chief executive of Carbon War Room Jigar Shah said, “This new category sends a clear message to the world’s leaders that there does not have to be a trade-off between the economy and the environment. Citizens and businesses cannot reap the benefits of climate wealth unless the right conditions are created.”

This year’s Gigaton Awards ceremony will take place on December 3rd at the World Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa and will coincide with the United Nations climate change summit.

The World Climate Summit, a forum that brings together businesses, policy-makers and financial experts to improve actions on climate change, is working with Carbon War Room to produce the awards. The World Climate Summit is organised by UK-registered company World Climate Ltd.

Winners will be selected by an independent panel of judges, comprised of business and civic leaders, according to both quantitative and qualitative criteria.

The first Gigaton Awards were presented during the United Nations talks on climate change held in Cancun in December. Six awards were given to companies from across six different sectors. Recipients included Suzlon, 3M and Nike. 

Until now, Gigaton Awards were given only to corporations. This year marks the first year that countries will be selected.

The encouragement for countries on climate policy is timely. In December, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), released a statement urging national leaders to follow through with promises regarding climate change policies.

“In Cancún, governments renewed their trust in each other, but to succeed fully they need to press boldly ahead with what they have agreed. Implementation is the most effective avenue to harness the support of business and civil society, both of which are critical,” said Ms. Figueres.

Carbon War Room chief executive Jigar Shah told Eco-Business that given the uncertainties around oil and commodity prices, there is a real benefit to Asian economies to pursue gigaton scale reductions through energy efficiency, energy diversification, and proper management of forests.

He added that those reductions are difficult to implement because the current process around deploying infrastructure favor familiar technologies over the most cost effective technologies.

Countries that successfully overcome this barrier through innovative policy can serve as a positive example to Asian governments. “The Gigaton awards will highlight countries that have mined this potential for the betterment of their economies,” he said.

Source: www.eco-business.com

Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room, a non-profit organization that harnesses the power of entrepreneurs to implement market-driven solutions to climate change, The Gigaton Throwdown, and the World Climate Summit today announced that the 2011 Gigaton Awards will go deeper than business evaluations to include a country specific category.

In just its second year, the Gigaton Awards expands its arena by not only recognizing pioneering companies that inspire gigaton change through their delivery in carbon reduction, but by also celebrating the best and exposing the worst countries—based on actual progress against promises and baselines as well as progressive business policies.

“Although this will be a fun event, there is definitely a serious side to it,” said Sir Richard Branson, Co-Founder of the Carbon War Room.  “Businesses have to fulfill their promises. When they do they inspire others, but when they don’t they stifle growth. In this way, countries are no different.”

Winners will be selected by an independent Academy, comprised of business and civic leaders, according to both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The Academy will select a winner for the country that has made the best overall progress in both reducing carbon emissions and using policy to stimulate the right conditions for business to create climate wealth. The country with the least progress, however, will be awarded the “Melting Glacier Award”.

“This new category sends a clear message to the world’s leaders that there does not have to be a trade-off between the economy and the environment. Citizens and businesses cannot reap the benefits of climate wealth unless the right conditions are created.” said Jigar Shah, CEO of Carbon War Room.

The 2011 Gigaton Awards ceremony will take place during the United Nations Climate Summit in South Africa on December 3 at the World Climate Summit, Southern Sun Hotel Elangeni, Durban.

Last year the Awards recognized individual companies across six major sectors for their leadership in emissions reductions and sustainable practices.  A pool of 28 nominees across six major sectors was selected based on quantitative data indicating emissions reductions on an annual basis. The six sectors included consumer discretionary, consumer staples, energy, industrials, telecommunications and utilities. The 2010 Gigaton Award winners included:

◦NIKE for its energy savings program aimed at reducing its global greenhouse gas emissions,

◦Reckitt Benckiser Group for demonstrating its leadership in mitigating risk from climate change and sustainable practices,

◦Suzlon for its achievement in managing its emissions and overall sustainability milestones,

◦3M for its leadership in improving energy efficiency and sustainable practices,

◦Vodafone Group for its new business which provides carbon reducing connections, and

◦GDF Suez for its demonstrated leadership by emitting among the lowest CO2 per KWh produced in Europe.

The Awards are based on the Gigaton Throwdown project, launched in 2007, at the Clinton Global Initiative by Sunil Paul. The project encourages entrepreneurs, investors and policy makers to grow companies that stabilize the climate.

About the Carbon War Room

The Carbon War Room harnesses the power of entrepreneurs to implement market-driven solutions to climate change. The War Room’s unique approach focuses on bringing together successful entrepreneurs, business leaders, policy experts, researchers, and thought leaders to focus on market-driven solutions. For more information, visit http://www.carbonwarroom.co

About World Climate Summit

The World Climate Summit is a new, open and collaborative framework for business, finance and government leaders to accelerate solutions to climate change until 2020. It is a global platform facilitating large-scale collaboration between businesses, financiers, philanthropists and governments on regional, national and global solutions to climate change. This annual summit will run in parallel to the UNFCCC, with the inaugural one at COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico. For more information, visit www.wclimate.com

About the Gigaton Throwdown Initiative

The Gigaton Throwdown Initiative inspires companies, entrepreneurs, policy makers, and investors to think big about solutions to the climate crisis.  Founded by Sunil Paul in 2007, it sponsors research and awards to educate and inspire the private sector to achieve climate stability.  For more information visit www.gigatonthrowdown.org

BMW’s Mini E UK field trials programme which involved two groups of forty drivers  in “real world” use of adapted battery-powered versions of the Mini, raised one of the biggest challenges faced by car manufacturers hoping to sell lots of EVs; how to reshape sometimes mistaken preconceptions about battery-powered cars held by potential buyers -  range and performance. And a CNN Money report shows that charging electric cars will be a vital part of the consumer experience, and the auto industry knows making the experience as easy as possible is crucial to the cars’ success.

By David Wilkins in the Independent (18 March 2011):

BMW’s Mini E UK field trials programme which began in December 2009, has ended. Two groups of forty drivers took part in the trials, which involved “real world” use of adapted battery-powered versions of the Mini.

The Mini E is a research vehicle, based on an existing car originally designed to take a combustion engine, rather than being designed from the ground up as an electric vehicle (EV), but BMW believes it has been able to gather useful information on the likely future use of battery-powered cars. A full assessment will be completed later on, but the company’s analysis of early feedback shows that those who took part were fairly typical of drivers in general in terms of their daily mileage and other aspects of their car use.

Perhaps the most interesting findings concern the subject of range. So-called “range anxiety” is widely perceived to be one of the biggest obstacles to the widespread adoption of EVs; a recent survey of European consumers by the consulting firm Deloitte highlighted the limited distance EVs could cover between top-ups from the grid as an important issue, and participants in the trial also expected difficulties with range and the lack of recharging facilities away from their home base before they had experience of driving the Mini E. But once the test drivers had experience of the car in daily use, few of them actually had any problems in practice. Although they wanted more public charging points, most said they’d been able to cope even in the absence of a comprehensive recharging infrastructure.

This points to one of the biggest challenges faced by car manufacturers hoping to sell lots of EVs; how to reshape sometimes mistaken preconceptions about battery-powered cars held by potential buyers. This is true not just of range but also of performance. Most people who actually get the chance to drive one of the latest electric cars are favourably impressed by their acceleration and refined behaviour, and this was borne out by feedback from BMW’s UK test group, although there were reports that the cars’ performance was affected by the very cold weather of December 2009 and January 2010.

One of the snags with the Mini E identified by trial participants, a need for more passenger and luggage space, should be easier to fix. While the Mini E has a big battery pack where the rear seat would be on a normal Mini, future plug-in BMWs such as the recently announced i3 will be designed from the ground up as EVs. That will make it much easier to arrange the packaging of the car in order to accommodate the batteries and electric drivetrain, and also to incorporate exotic weight-saving materials such as carbon fibre into the structure.

BMW also reports that “the BMW Group is trusted to provide a technically mature solution to the challenges presented by EVs.”. Perhaps an established badge will go a long way to reassuring sceptical buyers that electric cars really can work.

Source: www.independent.co.uk

By Steve Hargreaves, senior writer for CNN Money (6 April 2011):

Charging electric cars will be a vital part of the consumer experience, and the auto industry knows making the experience as easy as possible is crucial to the cars’ success.

In a bid to avoid the eight million different types of chargers available for mobile phones — and the resulting frustration among consumers — the industry is working hard to standardize plugs for new electric vehicles.

There are currently about seven different types of plugs and sockets worldwide for car charging, according to Tom Baloga, an executive at BMW — much better, he said, than the 20 or so there could have been.

“There has been a great collaboration among the industry to standardize as much as possible,” Baloga said during a roundtable discussion Tuesday at Fortune’s Brainstorm Green conference.

The industry is also working on ways to make electric cars more friendly for city dwellers, who don’t often have the luxury of a garage and nearby electric outlet to plug in a vehicle.

Among the devices in the works are portable charging pedestals that could be anchored in parking lots or even on side streets.

The panel, which included executives from BMW, General Electric (GE, Fortune 500) and CODA, among others, debated the merits of charging company Better Place’s system.

Under Better Place’s model, consumers don’t buy the actual battery. Instead, they use service stations where the battery is swapped out in a matter on minutes, eliminating the charging process for the consumer all together.

Exotic cars for eco-millionaires

The panelists thought the concept will take off in certain places, notably Israel where the company’s founder is from, and among some fleet vehicles like taxis.

But they also felt building the infrastructure is expensive, and fast charging batteries could endanger its business model. 

Source: www.money.cnn.com

Lucky Last Word – Science of Communicating Science

Two scientists –one from the US and one from the UK – have called for a new “science of communicating science” to be deployed in order to deal with the fact that public concern over global warming has plunged in recent years, says this report from Lewis Page posted on The Register (UK) site.

We could have assumed this was an April Fools’ Day joke, but we read on and decided it was for real. It was based on a research paper published in Nature 29 March 2011 by Nick Pidgeon of the Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University and  Baruch Fischhoff of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA.

A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential changes over the coming years, decades and centuries. Although there are many guidelines for climate communication, there is little empirical evidence of their efficacy, whether for dispassionately explaining the science or for persuading people to act in more sustainable ways.

With the aid of their special teams of advisers and decision scientists and communications experts, the climate scientists would avoid falling into obvious traps and perhaps alienating the very public they seek to win over. Read More

By Lewis Page Posted in Environment, The Register (1April 2011):

Trick-cyclists in Blighty and the USA have called for a new “science of communicating science” to be deployed in order to deal with the fact that public concern over global warming has plunged in recent years, says this report from Lewis Page posted on t in We could have assumed this was a April Fols’ Day joke, but we read on and decded it was for real.

This won’t do at all

“We need to move on from a sterile debate about whether global warming is happening or not,” says Professor Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff uni.

Pidgeon and his fellow psychologist Baruch Fischhoff (of Carnegie Mellon uni in the States) say that instead climate scientists should ally themselves with psychologists and others from the “social and decision sciences” so as to change the public’s mind and motivate global action.

The two trick-cyclists indicate that modern psychological methods could help mainstream climate scientists to be much more persuasive than they currently are. They write:

Recent advances in behavioural and decision science also tell us that emotion is an integral part of our thinking, perceptions and behaviour, and can be essential for making well-judged decisions … Emotion creates the abiding commitments needed to sustain action on difficult problems, such as climate change … appropriately framed emotional appeals can motivate action, given the right supporting conditions (in particular a sense of personal vulnerability, viable ways to act, feelings of personal control and the support of others).

In order to generate these emotions in the public, Fischhoff and Pidgeon suggest the creation of special cross-disciplinary teams comprised of “climate and other experts, decision scientists, social and communications specialists, and programme designers”. They write:

In this strategy, social and decision science research provides connections that scientists normally lack.

The two men suggest that these teams would be large and well-funded, along the lines of the RAND Corporation in the States. In the UK, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research would be a good basis to start from, but it would need to develop “a major focus on communication and decision-making research”.

With the aid of their special teams of advisers and decision scientists and communications experts, the climate scientists would avoid falling into obvious traps and perhaps alienating the very public they seek to win over.

Many climate scientists are understandably frustrated by the limited response to what they see as the greatest threat facing our planet. One impulsive response to a seemingly recalcitrant public is a big advertising campaign. However, unless founded on sound social and decision science principles and accompanied by rigorous empirical evaluation, such efforts have little chance of sustained success. Moreover, each communication failure makes future success less likely … Given the gravity and the complexity of climate-related decisions, we need a new model of science communication.

The proposed new “science of communicating science” would seem to have certain parallels with Isaac Asimov’s famous imaginary discipline “Psychohistory”, which in his books could be used to predict – and alter – the behaviour of large populations. Admittedly Psychohistory only worked on huge galactic civilisations, and then only if the people being manipulated for their own good were unaware that the science of Psychohistory existed – neither of which are the case here. But it’s interesting all the same.

You can read the would-be psychohistorians’ paper in full here, courtesy of Nature Climate Change. There’s also a statement with canned quotes from Cardiff uni here. Given what day it is, we should note that neither are datelined today. ®

Source: www.theregister.co.uk

A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential changes over the coming years, decades and centuries. Although there are many guidelines for climate communication, there is little empirical evidence of their efficacy, whether for dispassionately explaining the science or for persuading people to act in more sustainable ways. Moreover, climate communication faces new challenges as assessments of climate-related changes confront uncertainty more explicitly and adopt risk-based approaches to evaluating impacts. Given its critical importance, public understanding of climate science deserves the strongest possible communications science to convey the practical implications of large, complex, uncertain physical, biological and social processes. Here, we identify the communications science that is needed to meet this challenge and the ambitious, interdisciplinary initiative that its effective application to climate science requires.

Published Nature 29 March 2011

Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

Nick Pidgeon

Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

Baruch Fischhoff

Source: www.nature.com

Editor’s Note: We have for some time been calling for improvements in the communicating science – and particularly climate change – and in the book “The ABC of Carbon” we did our best to demystify and desensitise the issues and the opportunities. But when you observe the tone of political debate in Australia and the US, as well as the noticeable resistance from many business for a carbon price, one can only wonder whether all the words from scientists and other knowledgeable sorts is getting through at all. But we will keep plugging away. We do believe the “pen is mightier than the sword” – or maybe a more up-to-date way of saying the same thing would be:  all modern means of communication will help make sure that truth will prevail and Government and business will be forced take appropriate action on climate change before we reach the tipping point! – Ken Hickson

No Laughing Matter!

It is a serious business. We know only too well. But sometimes you have to step back. Reflect.  Not take yourself – and others – too seriously. With that thought in mind, it is refreshing to learn of the animated feature , Life Pscycle-ology, which takes a light-hearted, but nevertheless meaningful, look at sustainability. There might not be much more to chuckle about in the world, as Japan continues to count the cost of its earthquake/tsunami, along with its ongoing nuclear disaster. So we do mention – in passing – that there’s nothing clean and green about nuclear power, according to Benjamin K. Sovacool. Then Giles Parkinson tells us that a little known Japanese wind power company is moving head as the country and the world thinks renewable energy might be a better way to go.  Australia gets in the news with its ongoing carbon tax process and Ross Garnaut’s final review. We learn that adaptation is something we need to take seriously and there are a host of innovations and inventions to absorb.  World Water Day and Earth Day have passed but their impact will continue for some too we hope. Three big events for Singapore and South East Asia get rated, we learn that aircraft should stay on the ground longer to save fuel and there’s a fresh food portal coming out of  Chile to munch on. Generous people always deserve a slot, none more than the very outgoing and green Chinese tycoon Chen Guangbiao, Mr Low Carbon himself.   Recycling cash can be good for the economy too! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Chen Guangbiao or “Mr Low Carbon”

Chen Guangbiao, the billionaire chairman of a Jiangsu-based recycling company, is a Chinese philanthropist who has a knack for getting his name in the news. Calling on the country’s wealthiest citizens to donate more of their wealth, he famously pledged to donate his entire fortune at his death. What’s more he is so green he has changed his name to reinforce the fact. Call him Chen Ditan or “Mr Low Carbon”.

Reported in the Straits Times 5 March 2011 and on www.danwei.org

When Chinese tycoon Chen Guangbiao said he was going green, he meant what he said.

In an Online chat organised by People Online Mr Chen said that his entire family had changed their names to demonstrate their commitment to environmental conservation, the portal danwei.org reported.

Chen Guangbiao, the billionaire chairman of a Jiangsu-based recycling company, is a philanthropist who has a knack for getting his name in the news. Calling on the country’s wealthiest citizens to donate more of their wealth, he famously pledged to donate his entire fortune at his death.

He will now be known as Chen Ditan (低碳, “low-carbon”), his wife is now Zhang Luse (绿色, “green”), and his daughters are Chen Huanbao (环保, “environmental protection”) and Chen Huanjing (环境, “environment”). Today he plans to distribute 500 reusable bags after biking to the opening of this year’s national legislative sessions, known as the lianghui.

Chen was born in Anhui, so Anhui’s Jianghuai Morning Post made him the focal point of is pre-lianghui reporting. Yesterday, the paper sent several reporters to follow him around. The highlight of the day’s activities was a banquet at which twelve of sixteen dishes were meatless. “‘Eating more vegetables is good for your body and is low-carbon and environmental,’ Chen Guangbiao said with a smile. ‘I studied medicine. I’m an expert on matters of nutrition’.”

Chen recently took a high-profile philanthropic tour of Taiwan during which he distributed cash to needy people as a show of gratitude for the assistance the island has shown to mainland China. Upon his return he called on other mainland tycoons to donate 5% of their wealth to construct a tunnel linking Taiwan to the mainland.

He told the paper that he intends to visit the United States later this year and distribute envelopes of cash to needy people on Wall Street.

Mr Chen made his fortune from recycling construction materials. “We need to bring social responsibility into our daily lives”, said the chairman of Jiang Huangpu Recycling Resources, who is one of China’s best known philanthropists. He has called on China’s wealthiest citizen’s to donate more of their wealth and he himself has famously pledged to donate his entire fortune upon his death.

Source: www.danwei.org

Chen Guangbiao, the renowned Chinese philanthropist famous for his unorthodox, un-subtle approach to charity (he’s been known to make it rain on the less fortunate, hongbao style), has made headlines this week for taking his flashy show on the road to Japan. The only thing more overwhelming than the ostentatious nature of the visit (see flag-draped escort, flag-pinned suits, Mao-esque poses above) is how genuinely impressive it is.

From WSJ  RealTimeReport:

Chen Guangbiao, a 42-year-old billionaire and chief executive of recycling company Jiangsu Huangpu Renewable Resources, headed to Japan Friday to personally donate rescue supplies and 13 million yen (US$158,820) to the country’s earthquake and tsunami victims, according to the Yangtze Evening News (in Chinese).

With four vans draped in Chinese national flags and wearing a suit decorated with Chinese flag stickers, Mr. Chen distributed food, water, sanitary goods, blankets and “good wishes from Chinese people” to shelters in the northeastern Japanese prefectures of Chiba, Ibaraki and Fukushima, the report said. He personally pulled three people from destroyed homes, the report said without elaborating further.

Reportedly, Chen purchased 30 tons of relief materials for the trip. He handed out a total of about 2 million yen, giving 1,000 yen and 100 yuan each to students gathering street-side with donation boxes. He stuffed his name card in as well for good measure.

Chen has inevitably faced some harsh criticism online, as anti-Japanese sentiments flare during the crisis (something dumb people are doing the world over) and many Chinese demand why he isn’t in Yunnan helping Yingjiang earthquake victims.

That may be why today Chen flew directly from Tokyo to Yunnan in order to assist with the earthquake recovery efforts, after being forced to leave Fukushima in the face of increasing radiation risks.

Here’s a guy who runs straight into the heart of disaster, whips out the fliff like mad for a few days, pulls some people from the rubble, has to evacuate due to radiation risk, then flies straight over to another disaster area. Say what you will about philanthropic showmanship, this guy’s got balls.

Source: www.shanghaiist.com

April Rabkin in the latest issue of FAST Company

It is a couple of weeks before Chinese New Year and Chen Guangbiao is sitting in the back of his SUV, barking orders out the window at his press secretary, a serious lady with a serious clipboard: “Beijing News, Beijing Evening News, Beijing Youth Daily …”Chen, a member of China’s new and fast-growing billionaire ranks, has just paid these newspapers to publish articles listing the charitable deeds he’s done over the course of the year.

“Make sure it’s all sourced to the People’s Daily,” Chen says, referring to the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece. Then he picks up his mobile phone and starts calling his friends. “Hey, did you see the papers today?” he says, chuckling. “Chen Guangbiao’s Report Card for the Year 2010!”

One highlight of his year: a September dinner with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They had come to Beijing to encourage its wealthiest citizens to consider joining their Giving Pledge by promising to donate at least half of their fortunes to charity. Chen was the first to accept the dinner invitation and the first Chinese to sign on — and he has been the quickest to position himself at the vanguard of China’s fledgling philanthropic movement. “China’s newly wealthy don’t understand this concept yet. They think, Whatever money I have in my hand, earned by my own sweat and tears, has nothing to do with society, so I don’t owe them anything,” says Chen, 43, a farmer’s kid turned recycling tycoon who proclaims himself China’s “philanthropist-in-chief.” “But philanthropy here is developing very fast — with me as a model.”

Chen’s model of giving is the philanthropic equivalent of nouveau-riche ostentation: He’s fond of publicity stunts, cash giveaways, and media scrums. Every natural disaster — earthquake, typhoon, drought — looks like an opportunity to Chen, who, fittingly, made his fortune turning trash to cash. When conditions are quieter, he likes to stage public distributions of money and goods; in January, he handed out 13,000 parkas to people in three regions of China, but only after alerting the media.

Chen says there’s a clear purpose to his spotlight-hogging ways. China now has more billionaires (in U.S.-dollar terms) than any other country except for the U.S., and the increasing income disparity between rich and poor has been a growing concern both in the corridors of Communist officialdom and at the grassroots level. China’s rich “need Chen Guangbiao to lead them, to awaken them,” he says, so that they know how to behave properly. But his story is also a modern Chinese version of that classic tale of the poor boy who grew up to be very, very rich and wants everybody to know it. “I want Chinese history to remember me as Carnegie is remembered. I want Chinese people to remember me as they remember Marx and Lenin. I want people for the next century to think of me when they hear the word philanthropist,” he says. “Everyone knows that Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. But the position of top philanthropist is vacant. My goal is to work diligently to become the top philanthropist in the world.”

In 2004, laws regulating charitable organizations were finally liberalized, allowing private foundations to be established in China for the first time in more than 50 years. But fundraising from the public is still generally prohibited, even though, Deng says, the increasingly bourgeois nation has more and more “white-collar people who say, ‘I want to donate, I want to volunteer, but I don’t know where I can.’ ” They can give to organizations like the Red Cross, but that’s tantamount to paying additional taxes. “The lion’s share of funding goes into the revenue accounts of government agencies,” says Pei Bin, director of China partnership development at BSR. After the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, there was an outpouring of billions of yuan in giving — which wound up mostly in the coffers of the same government agencies and officials responsible for the shoddy schools and buildings that collapsed on thousands of citizens.

Chen knows all about the lives of the poor in China because for most of his life, he was one of the have-nots. Born in 1968 during the Cultural Revolution, he grew up the son of a farmer in a Jiangsu Province county called Sihong, which has been famed since the 1730s for its fierce liquor. In the early 1970s, two of Chen’s siblings starved to death, and the young Chen expected to eat meat only once a year, during Chinese New Year. According to his father, Chen Lisheng, Chen started working for neighbors at an early age, herding cattle, cutting hay, and carrying water. As the younger Chen tells it, his giving began then too; he earned enough money during one summer of field labor to pay for not only his tuition but also those of a neighbor’s children. At age 15 or 16, the elder Chen recalls, his son “spent a summer selling popsicles. He wanted to use the money to pay for his dormitory fees, but when he ran into poor children who couldn’t afford popsicles, he would give them away for free.”

After finishing high school, Chen studied traditional Chinese medicine in Nanjing, Jiangsu’s capital, and in the 1990s, he invented a disease-detection device. Officially labeled a “low-radiation ear acupuncture point illness probing and curing apparatus,” the machine is basically a gutted computer monitor whose screen has been replaced by an anatomical diagram with an array of tiny lightbulbs. Two cords connect the machine to metal prongs, which the doctor places on the patient’s ears to detect interruptions in the body’s qi, the Chinese word for “life force” (and the salvation for many a Scrabble player with a q but no u). If any ailment is detected, the light on the diagram corresponding to that part of the body lights up and a siren shrieks.

In the late 1990s, Chen switched careers. He found, he says, “an invisible gold mine in the middle of the city”: construction sites. He realized that demolished buildings, with all that metal and concrete, could be valuable sources of salable materials. His company, Jiangsu Huangpu Recycling Resources, has become one of China’s premier dismantling and rubble-recycling firms. It has won prestigious contracts to take down some of the World Expo facilities in Shanghai and to demolish the Television Cultural Center tower in Beijing, which was set ablaze by Chinese New Year fireworks in 2009. “The profit margin is not large, but the amount of material is tremendous,” Chen says. He declines to offer details about his company, which is privately held; its clients; its revenues; or its profits — each further question is answered with a dismissive “yes, yes!”

According to the Hurun Rich List — the best source for wealth statistics in China, although it is based, at least in part, on self-reported numbers — Chen has amassed enough of a fortune to be, as of late 2010, the 406th wealthiest person in China. The most recent Forbes list of China’s richest had him at No. 223, with an estimated net worth of $675 million (4.45 billion yuan). He has at least a dozen homes around China, including three in Nanjing, where his company is headquartered.

The Hurun Rich List also declared Chen the fourth-most-generous person in the nation. Last year, he pledged that upon his death, what remains of his wealth will go not to his two children, but to charity. He is, he says, the first of many Chinese “naked donors”: “We come into the world naked, and we leave the world naked. We don’t want to take money with us into the afterlife.” So far, Chen claims, he has recruited 100 Chinese millionaires and billionaires to join him on his list of naked donors.

The aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake still looms large in his mind. He had arrived a few days after the quake, along with bulldozers, earth-moving equipment, supplies, and demolition teams. “I carried more than 200 bodies,” he says. “I was covered in blood. When I couldn’t cradle them, I hauled them. When I couldn’t haul them, I lifted them. To this day, I still have a back problem from it.” He also has plenty of other mementos. On his desk, he keeps two figurines of himself midrescue, limp bodies in his arms. The walls of his company headquarters are lined with life-size photos of him in Sichuan, as if they were the stations of his own cross: There’s Chen wiping the tears from a girl’s face. There’s Chen carrying a corpse out of the rubble. There’s Chen directing bulldozers. There’s Chen shaking hands with President Hu Jintao.

Chen insists on beginning every interview with a visit to the sixth floor of his headquarters, which he has turned into something of a personal shrine to his own philanthropy, filled with photos of him shaking hands: Hu again, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, politburo members, Gates and Buffett. During my visit, a delegation of university administrators were there to pay their respects, so he sat us down in a conference room, turned down the lights, and put on his self-produced biopic.

After the viewing, Chen says to one of his guests, “You see all these awards. What do they mean?”

“He’s not a man,” says a visitor from Beijing. “He’s supernatural.”

“He’s a superman,” adds another.

Such grandiose pronouncements rankle other Chinese billionaires, who see them as immodest — though none would criticize Chen on the record. But the Chinese authorities tolerate and even abet his self-promotion. On September 29, 2010, a government directive was issued that said simply: “All newspapers are forbidden from reporting negative news about Chen Guangbiao.” He frequently appears in the official Chinese media, giving away red envelopes of cash and distributing aid in disaster zones. He likes to build “walls of money,” ostentatiously piling up banknotes, and then have himself photographed in front of them. In January, he had one constructed in Beijing from 15 million yuan, or $2.28 million; the money came from a larger pot of more than $19 million in cash and goods donated by Chen and 90 other entrepreneurs for distribution to poor families in three regions of China.

Chen admits he enjoys the attention. “When I was young, I liked to be acknowledged in class by little gestures such as a small red star for doing something good. Now that I’m older, I still want to be acknowledged for good work.” But he sees a broader purpose to the promotion: “When you do a good deed, if you broadcast it to 10,000 people, you encourage 10,000 people to do the same.”

This is an edited version of an article appearing in the April 2011 issue of Fast Company

Source: www.fastcompany.com

Laggards on Emission Cuts; Leaders on Power Price Rises

The impact of a carbon price on electricity bills will be relatively small compared with other factors which have forced up power costs since 2006, Australia’s climate change adviser Ross Garnaut says in his latest and final review. Meanwhile, as other parts of the world move ahead to cut emissions and invest in renewables, Australia stands out not only as the biggest emitter per capita in the world, it is regarded as a policy laggard.

Herald Sun & AAP (29 March 2011):

THE impact of a carbon price on electricity bills will be relatively small compared with other factors which have forced up power costs since 2006, Australia’s climate change adviser Ross Garnaut says in his latest and final review.

 What’s more, the increase could be offset by reducing the cost of distributing power from generators to homes.

In the final update to his landmark 2008 climate change review, Prof Garnaut argues electricity generators shouldn’t receive any compensation.

Instead, he wants the commonwealth to offer loan guarantees to secure supply.

Treasury modelling in 2008 suggested a $23 a tonne carbon price would increase household electricity bills by around 20 per cent.

Prof Garnaut is now flagging a starting price closer to $25, but he argues the percentage increase would actually be lower due to the inflation in prices over the past few years.

From 2007 to 2010 household electricity prices rose across the country by 32 per cent. It’s a similar story for business.

“That is bigger than the initial impact of the carbon price,” Prof Garnaut told reporters.

The “exceptional” price rises followed the introduction of a new regulatory regime governing electricity networks.

Prof Garnaut says it encourages overinvestment in the poles and wires that distribute electricity from power plants to homes as well as price gouging.

Investment over the current five-year regulatory period is estimated at $39 billion.

The update calls for an independent review. If it leads to a strengthening of regulation it “may yield large benefits in lower rates of increase in electricity prices”.

Other factors pushing up power bills include rising coal and gas prices and higher construction costs due to the resources boom.

“It’s quite likely that electricity prices would continue to rise in the period ahead with or without a carbon price,” Prof Garnaut said.

Labor’s doomed 2009 carbon pollution reduction scheme would have given generators $7.3 billion worth of assistance over 10 years.

But Prof Garnaut says they shouldn’t get anything.

He does, however, suggest two measures to ensure Australia’s power supplies aren’t threatened by the introduction of a carbon price.

First, he wants a new energy security council to oversee the sector, much like the banking regulator, APRA.

Second, he argues the commonwealth should guarantee loans to generators which could be at risk of failing.

Prof Garnaut said the council would act as a belt to keep the nation’s pants up as it transitions to a clean energy future.

The loan guarantee would be back-up braces “just in case the belt breaks”.

But he doubts the braces will be needed. That’s because if one brown coal-fired generator closes, it will increase electricity prices and improve cash flow for the others.

“That makes it less likely that there’ll be a second,” Prof Garnaut said.

Prof Garnaut suggests brown coal-fired generators could survive longer, but possibly operate only when demand and prices are high during summer.

His update, the last before a final report is delivered to the government in late May, also suggests a “five pillars” energy policy.

It would ensure the big players, including Origin, TRUenergy and AGL, couldn’t merge.

The economist further recommends at least two publicly owned entities, such as Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania, be allowed to act as private companies.

Prof Garnaut wants to increase competition by creating a true national grid and boosting inter-connectivity between the five eastern states and the ACT.

With a carbon price in place driving abatement, current mitigation policies such as the renewable energy target and support for household solar schemes “should be phased out”.

Source: www.heraldsun.com.au

National Times & The Age (29 March 2011):

GEOGRAPHY has always isolated Australia. Rarely, though, is the effect so obvious as it is in the debate on climate change. Globally, the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions is widely accepted. Visitors to Australia are surprised to find that not only is the effect of emissions in dispute, but even scientific records of climate trends.

In the past week, The Age has examined at length the premises of the local debate. These reports have shone a light on fallacies about scientific opinion and uncertainty, economic impacts and global action on emissions.

A key problem in drawing on complex science is that scientists are versed in assessing degrees of uncertainty. The public is not; any unresolved issue is taken as suggesting serious doubt about even a broadly accepted scientific conclusion. And if laypeople are prepared to dismiss the weight of scientific opinion what is left of informed debate?

The existence of dissenting voices is a mark of democracy, but this does not mean that balance in reporting scientific and policy debates is achieved by giving opposing sides equal weight when that ”balance” does not remotely resemble the weight of scientific support for human-caused climate change.

A carbon tax was first imposed overseas almost two decades ago. Like Australia, Norway has a developed economy built on cheap fossil fuels. Today it has cut emissions per person to half those of Australia. As to the ”cost” of this, Norway’s economic worth per person is up with the best in the world. The European Union has run an emissions trading scheme for years. By 2009, Europe had managed to cut emissions by 16 per cent since 1990, while its economy grew by 40 per cent. Several major European nations have direct carbon taxes as well.

As a bloc, the European Union is the world’s largest economy, but produces only about 14 per cent of global emissions, compared with China’s 22 per cent and the United States’s 20 per cent. Even then it is not accurate to argue that a lack of action by China and the US makes anything Australia does irrelevant. In the past four years, China’s emissions have been cut to almost 20 per cent below business-as-usual projections. China is committed to a carbon market and an increase in energy from renewable sources from 8 per cent to 11.4 per cent by 2015 (Australia’s renewable input is barely 5 per cent). In the US, 10 states already participate in an emissions scheme, while California, which ranks in the world’s top 10 economies, is set to start pricing carbon next year.

Amid these developments, Australia stands out as the biggest emitter per person in the world. This country is regarded as a policy laggard. The impact of climate change depends largely on decisions taken by 20 or so leading nations, as countries outside this group and the European Union produce less than a fifth of global emissions. Of the 14 countries that emit more than Australia, very few are doing less to cut emissions. If a rich, developed nation with so much room for improvement does so little, the signal this sends to the world’s most populous developing nations hinders global action.

Many argue a case of pure self-interest: Australia’s contribution to global emissions is minor, so why lead the way? This assumes any damage to Australia is only to its reputation. Australia is missing out on a boom in the growth industries of the 21st century. Early adopters of new energy technology have prospered. Germany’s renewable energy sector rivals its famed vehicle industry. Globally, renewable energy has attracted more investment than fossil fuels three years in a row.

Climate change is, however, much more than an economic challenge. If only the debate in Australia reflected that.

Source: www.theage.com.au

The Good, Bad & Ugly Side of Nuclear Power

THE unfolding situation with nuclear plants in Fukushima, Japan has underscored the grave safety concerns with the so-called clean energy source of power. But nuclear has never had a laudable environmental record. Even climate change – an issue the nuclear industry has been quick to rally around – does not bode favourably for new nuclear plants. Reprocessing and enriching uranium require a substantial amount of electricity, often generated by fossil fuel-fired power plants. Uranium milling, mining, leaching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases.

By Benjamin K. Sovacool in the Straits Times (17 March 2011):

THE unfolding situation with the Fukushima No. 1 and Fukushima No. 2 plants in Japan has underscored the grave safety concerns with nuclear power, which has never had a laudable environmental record.

South-east Asian planners, including those in Singapore, often forget the serious environmental impact associated with other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, especially those relating to uranium mining and climate change.

For example, the uranium needed to fuel all reactors, including those in Japan, is mined in three different ways: underground mining, open-pit mining and in-situ leaching. Each is hazardous, and bad for people and the environment.

Underground mining extracts uranium much like other minerals such as copper, gold and silver, and involves digging narrow shafts deep into the earth.

Open-pit mining, the most prevalent type, is similar to strip mining for coal, where upper layers of rock are removed so that machines can extract uranium.

Uranium miners perform in-situ leaching by pumping acid or alkaline liquid solutions into the areas surrounding uranium deposits.

In Australia, the third-largest producer of uranium, a detailed investigation of the environmental impact from the Rum Jungle mine found that it discharged acidic liquid wastes directly into creeks that flowed into the Finniss River.

The Roxby Downs mine has polluted the Arabunna people’s traditional land with 80 million tonnes of annual dumped tailings, in addition to the mine’s daily extraction of 30 million litres of water from the Great Artesian Basin. The Ranger mine has seen 120 documented leaks, spills and breaches of its tailings waste, which has seeped into waterways and contaminated the Kakuda wetlands. The Beverley mine has been fined for dumping liquid radioactive waste into groundwater.

In China, the country’s largest uranium mine, No. 792, is reputed to dump untreated radioactive water directly into the Bailong River, a tributary of the Yangtze.

In India, researchers from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai found that underground uranium mines at Bhatin, Narwapahar and Turamdih, along with the uranium enrichment plant at Jaduguda, discharged mine water and mill tailings contaminated with radionuclides such as radon and residual uranium, radium and other pollutants directly into local water supplies.

Such examples have not been chosen selectively, with scores of serious documented incidents also at uranium mines in Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, South Africa, Tajikistan, the United States, Uzbekistan and a slew of African states – virtually every major country where it is produced.

Even climate change, an issue the nuclear industry has been quick to rally around, does not bode favourably for new nuclear plants. Reprocessing and enriching uranium require a substantial amount of electricity, often generated by fossil fuel-fired power plants. Uranium milling, mining, leaching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases.

When one takes into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change – and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high-grade uranium are depleted.

An assessment of 103 life-cycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants found that the average carbon dioxide emissions over the typical lifetime of a plant are about 66g for every kilowatt hour (kwh), or the equivalent of about 183 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005.

If the global nuclear industry were taxed at a rate of US$24 (S$31) per tonne for the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with its life cycle, the cost of nuclear power would increase by about US$4.4 billion per year.

A secondary impact is that by producing large amounts of heat, nuclear power plants contribute directly to global warming by increasing the temperature of water bodies and localised atmospheres around each facility.

The carbon-equivalent emissions of the nuclear life cycle will only get worse, not better, because, over time, reprocessed fuel is depleted, necessitating a shift to fresh ore, and reactors must utilise lower-quality ores as higher-quality ones are depleted.

The Oxford Research Group projects that because of this inevitable shift to lower-quality uranium ore, if the percentage of world nuclear capacity remains what it is today, by 2050, nuclear power would generate as much carbon dioxide per kwh as comparable natural gas-fired power stations.

These two factors – the environmental degradation with uranium mining, and the associated greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power facilities – mean that regardless of whatever happens in Japan, nuclear power is in no way clean, green or carbon-free.

The writer is an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

Source: www.heresthenews.blogspot.com

Get Rich Quick & Adapt to Changing Climate

The most damaging consequences of climate change will be in the Third World. But developing countries aren’t disproportionately vulnerable to climate change because they’re in more dangerous parts of the globe, but because they’re poor. Wealth and sturdy institutions are critical for handling natural disasters and climatic changes. This makes the real climate change question a question about economic development. How can the world’s poor get rich quick?

Chris Berg in Sydney Morning Herald (27 March 2011):

The answer to climate woes is to make countries rich and stable.

JULIA Gillard is half-right. The world is acting on climate change. But not acting to stop it – to adapt to it. In the 1920s, an average of 240 people out of every million died every year from extreme weather events: drought, flood, windstorm, landslide, earthquake, extreme temperatures and wildfire.

According to data from the International Disaster Database, last decade that figure dropped to just three per million.

Actually, the numbers are even better than they first look. The 20th century saw a 99.9 per cent reduction in the risk of death from drought. And the risk of death from floods came down almost as much: 89 per cent. Floods and drought – two of the most commonly mentioned consequences of climate change. We’re getting much better at managing and surviving them.

The causes of this remarkable decline in mortality are many. Better transport and communications help move food to where it’s needed, quicker. Globalised trade gives producers an incentive to do so. Hardy modern agriculture can survive not just long-term climatic shifts, but the more pressing problem of bad growing seasons.

Better flood control and prevention, weather forecasting and more responsive emergency services all help reduce the damage from floods. Never have we been better at protecting ourselves against nature.

If the past is any guide to the present, that’s how we’ll deal with further changes in climate (whether caused by human activity or not): through adaptation. Especially considering there’s next to no chance of serious international action to reduce carbon emissions. Sure, if Australia introduced a carbon price now, we would not be ”leading the world”. Other countries have introduced their own. But there’s action on climate, and then there’s ”action on climate”.

The only purpose of carbon pricing programs is to achieve deep emissions cuts. By that measure, they’ve been a dismal failure. Those jurisdictions that have introduced them have been slowly backing away from serious reductions. The coalition of 10 American states acting on climate that Gillard often cites will soon be nine: New Hampshire is planning to withdraw.

European climate policy is pushing bravely ahead. But if nuclear power is off the table after the Fukushima scare then cutting emissions there will be a dead end. As George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian last week, ”the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel”.

And China has been increasing its carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 12 per cent every year this century. By 2020, China will be emitting nearly 500 per cent above its 1990 levels, even after their highly publicised emissions reduction efforts.

The goal of public policy must always be to increase human welfare. One lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Richard Tol, has pointed out that many studies of the economic impact of climate change have excluded the possibility of adaptation entirely – as if potential sea level rises will be met by humanity with a stoic fatalism, rather than levies and insurance. (Tol, it’s worth pointing out, is no climate sceptic.)

Nor do enough studies consider the positive effects of temperature increases. In a warming world, marginal land can become productive for agriculture, just as often as productive land can become marginal.

Given how we’re getting better at coping with extreme weather events, there’s reason for optimism. Taking all peer-reviewed studies of the economic consequences of temperature rises into account, Tol estimates that climate change could cost just a few per cent of global GDP over the next 90 years. That’s about one year’s economic growth. The cost of climate change is the equivalent of a bad recession, spread over nearly a century.

With the economic cost of climate change so low, Tol suggests (at most) an optimal carbon price would be $2 per tonne – a lot less than the $26 to $40 per tonne suggested by the government and commentators. But at $2, the cost of collecting such a tax would seriously eat up its revenue; hardly worth doing at all, and a bit trivial to be ”major economic reform” on which Julia Gillard could build her legacy.

The most damaging consequences of IPCC-projected climate change will be in the Third World. But developing countries aren’t disproportionately vulnerable to climate change because they’re in more dangerous parts of the globe, but because they’re poor.

Wealth and sturdy institutions are critical for handling natural disasters and climatic changes – as we’ve seen in the difference between the 2010 Haitian earthquake and the 2011 Japanese earthquake. This makes the real climate change question a question about economic development. How can the world’s poor get rich quick?

If her government is serious about tackling the consequences of climate change, that should be the one question exercising Julia Gillard’s mind. Her carbon price is, at best, a distraction.

Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs and Editor of the IPA Review. He is a regular columnist with the Sunday Age. His book, ‘The Growth of Australia’s Regulatory State: Ideology, accountability and the megaregulators’, was published in 2008.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Dishing Out Water Awards & Water Brickbats

Dr James Barnard, internationally known for his innovations in sustainable, non-polluting water treatments, will accept the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize during Singapore International Water Week in July. And the experts say – on World Water Day -  that the world’s urban water problems can be solved within a decade, with good governance, with the knowledge, technology and investment resources that we now have. The fact that we will likely not do so is a damning indictment of the way utilities are run, the lack of political will to consider water as an important public policy issue and the apathy of the public, which has become used to third-grade service.

By Jenny Marusiak  in Eco business .com (17 March 2011):

Dr James Barnard, internationally known for his innovations in sustainable, non-polluting water treatments, will accept the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize during Singapore International Water Week in July.

Water treatment inventor Dr James Barnard today became the fourth winner of Singapore’s prestigious Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize.

He was recognised for his role in revolutionising the water treatment industry over the past 40 years through the application of natural, eco-friendly methods of treating wastewater.

Dr Barnard is currently a Global Practice and Technology Leader for Black & Veatch’s Global Water Business. Black & Veatch is a global engineering, consulting and construction company headquartered in the United States and is listed among the Fortune 500’s largest private companies.

His innovation, called Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR), is an environmentally-friendly technology that naturally removes nitrogen and phosphorous from waste water. The resulting water is safer for recycling and discharge into lakes and rivers. Left untreated, nitrogen and phosphorous promote uncontrolled algae growth and deteriorating water quality.

The technology replaced conventional chemical treatments which were costlier and more damaging to the environment. Treatment plants have saved significant amounts on operating costs by eliminating those chemicals. Dr Barnard previously estimated that a single plant in Washington D.C. could save more than $11.5 million annually in chemical costs by converting to BNR technology.

In addition to reduced chemical inputs in the water treatment process, there are significant benefits to BNR by-products.

According to a statement from Black & Veatch, harvesting the high concentrations of phosphorous that result from the BNR process could have a significant impact on the world’s fertiliser industry. The industry has seen phosphorous prices double in recent years due to dwindling supplies. The United States, the United Kingdom and Japan are all currently developing the technology necessary to recover the phosphorous from the water treatment process.

Bridging the gap: research to application

Dr Barnard’s accomplishments go beyond inventing new technology. He has spent his career, which started in his native South Africa in the 1970’s, adapting the technology to different regions and climates.

The result is widespread implementation of BNR-based processes around the world, including the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. In recent years, the technology has been adopted in developing countries such as China and Brazil.

Tan Gee Paw, Chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize Nominating Committee said, “His relentless pursuit of adaptable solutions to resolve the challenge of water reclamation has led to a highly sustainable technology that protects the quality of precious water resources and the environment.

“It delivers immense benefit to mankind. Bridging the gap between research and industrial application, his technology now forms the basis of all BNR processes in use today in both developed and developing countries.”

Known within the industry as the Father of Biological Nutrient Removal, few individuals have had such a singular impact on the sustainability of the world’s water supply.

President of the International Water Association Glen Daigger said, “Not only have his efforts been instrumental in the development of a technology (BNR) that has become essential to protecting global water resources, through his efforts, Dr Barnard serves as a role model for all water professionals through his generosity, development of people and commitment to continued advancements.”

Commenting on the award, Dr Barnard said he was honoured to be recognised for all the years he spent working in the field. “This is particularly meaningful coming from Singapore which has taken the reclamation of wastewater for potable use to new heights,” he added.

Singapore is internationally recognised for its innovative and extensive water recycling technology. In 2003, the city-state built its first NEWater treatment facility, which uses reverse osmosis to recycle wastewater. Its goal is to expand the NEWater programme to meet half of Singapore’s water needs by 2060, when its water supply agreement with Malaysia ends.

The island’s commitment to advanced sustainable water policies and technologies has led to the establishment of Singapore International Water Week, a global platform for water solutions attended by over 1,500 industry leaders and policy-makers.

In addition to showcasing new technologies and exploring best practises, Singapore International Water Week – to be held from 4 to 8 July this year – celebrates achievements in the water world. The highlight of this is the presentation of the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize, a high-profile international award to recognise outstanding contributions in solving global water issues.

Dr Barnard, who was chosen from among 72 nominees from 29 different countries, will receive his award from Singapore’s first Prime Minister and present Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew during the event.

The winner of the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize receives a cash prize of S$300,000 provided by the Singapore Millennium Foundation, a philanthropic body supported by Temasek Holdings.

Source: www.eco-business.com

Running out of time to deal with water challenges?

Asit K. Biswas & Leong Ching in Jakarta Globe & Straits Times (22 arch 2011):

The theme of this year’s World Water Day is the current challenges facing urban water management.

We are often told the world is running out of clean water. One billion people lack access to safe drinking water. By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population will face water stress, and the situation will become worse by 2050. Even worse, less than 1 per cent of the world’s water is usable.

But these are red herrings.

First, the world, as an elementary physical fact, cannot run out of water. Water, unlike coal, wood or fossil fuels such as oil, is a renewable resource. With good management practices, water can be used, treated and reused, and this cycle can continue many, many times.

Second, while it is true that there are many who face hardship in getting water, the notion of water stress has no scientific basis. Some international institutions have decided arbitrarily that a region becomes water stressed when per capita water availability falls below 1,700 cubic meters (cu m) per year. Others use 1,000 cu m per year. The two figures differ by 70 per cent. Yet there are countries that have half this amount, and feel no water stress because of good management practices.

Third, which follows from the first two points, there has to be a fresh approach to water management that divorces itself completely from conventional thinking, voodoo science, universal panaceas and false paradigms. Instead, each situation should be analyzed with common sense and “can do” attitudes.

The Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority is a fine example of this fresh approach. The PPWSA is in the capital city of Cambodia, a relatively poor country that still relies on foreign aid for more than half of its government spending.

Yet because of the work of the water authority,  people can drink straight from the tap in Phnom Penh. Its water meets World Health Organization drinking water standards.

There is universal access and, more astonishingly, not more than six drops are lost out of every 100 through the pipes. In contrast, a private sector organization such as Thames Water in the UK loses up to 25 per cent of its water because of losses and leaks through pipes.

PPWSA has been able to do this because it has successfully tackled the three paradoxes dogging most urban water reforms.

The first paradox is: Do we price water as an economic good to provide the necessary incentives to use water well, as well as give water for free as a matter of equity to the poor? From the start, PPWSA decided it needed to price water to reflect its value and to control its use. So PPWSA bit the bullet and charged a volumetric price for water. The very poor were not exempt – they received a bill but if they could not pay, their supply was not cut off.

The second paradox, which applies especially to countries that rely on loans from outside agencies, is this: Do we put in place a system of rigid rules and regulations to ensure accountability or do we allow personal discretion? The PPWSA shows that the two are not always in conflict. Water collectors for PPWSA are paid much higher than others in the public sector. A large part of their pay is tied to collection rate bonuses, especially for 100 per cent collections. But it was nearly impossible for the collectors to get 100 per cent of the bills.

What the collectors did was to pay the last few bills themselves as the bonus they would get would be higher than the bills. PPWSA knew this, but it did not hold the water meter readers to a strict accounting, especially since the outstanding bills were often from the very poor.

The third paradox is this: Do we work with a strong charismatic leader, or do we have a system to turn out leaders of a certain sort? PPWSA has become almost synonymous with the name of  Ek Sonn Chan, 61, who has led the authority since 1993. He has been credited with eradicating corruption, improving governance and providing transparent and generous compensation.

But within the organization,  Ek has already found two or three people ready to succeed him. The lesson is not that of victory in the face of despair, nor overcoming of insurmountable odds – although both are true. The learning lies in the fresh-eyed and practical approach taken to solve an urgent problem. Phnom Penh is a pocket of success and good governance in a country like Cambodia, which in 2009 ranked No. 158 in the world corruption perception index of Transparency International.

The world’s urban water problems can be solved within a decade, with good governance, with the knowledge, technology and investment resources that we now have. The fact that we will likely not do so is a damning indictment of the way utilities are run, the lack of political will to consider water as an important public policy issue and the apathy of the public, which has become used to third-grade service.

If Phnom Penh, with its serious constraints, can supply all its residents, both rich and poor, with clean and drinkable water 24 hours a day, there is no reason other major urban centers in the developing world cannot do the same.

Asit K. Biswas is distinguished visiting professor and Leong Ching is a PhD candidate at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.

Source: www.thejakartaglobe.com