”Osteoporosis” Affecting the Greatest Biodiversity of the Marine Realm

Since the industrial revolution began over two centuries ago, the oceans have absorbed an estimated 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. This is about a quarter of the total amount spewed into the atmosphere as the burning of coal, oil and natural gas gathered pace and agriculture replaced forests. As a result, the basic chemistry of seawater is being altered on a scale scientists say has not occurred for at least 20 million years. Moreover, it is happening at a rate not seen in the last 65 million years, Michael Richardson reports in The Straits Times.  

By Michael Richardson,

For the Straits Times, 27 December 2010

Since the industrial revolution began over two centuries ago, the oceans have absorbed an estimated 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. This is about a quarter of the total amount spewed into the atmosphere as the burning of coal, oil and natural gas gathered pace and agriculture replaced forests.

As a result, the basic chemistry of seawater is being altered on a scale scientists say has not occurred for at least 20 million years. Moreover, it is happening at a rate not seen in the last 65 million years.

Does it really matter? More specifically, will it affect future food security in a world where one billion people already rely on fisheries for their primary source of animal protein and another three billion depend on the sea to meet at least 15 per cent of their protein needs?

When carbon dioxide enters salt water, it makes the upper layer of the ocean more acidic. Since 1750, ocean acidity has increased by 30 per cent. If we continue at this rate, it will record a 150 per cent rise by the end of the century. In addition, as carbonic acid intensifies in seawater, calcium carbonate used by marine organisms to build shells, plates and skeletons, including coral reefs, is diluted.

Global fish stocks are declining in many areas due to over-harvesting, marine pollution and habitat destruction. A study commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program and presented to the international climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, earlier this month warned that fisheries face new threats from ocean acidification.

The study called for more extensive research on the impact this will have on catches of fin fish and shell fish, as well as fish farming. Aquaculture is the world’s fastest-growing food source and last year produced half of all the fish consumed by humans. It is seen as a panacea for dwindling wild fisheries. However, the fishmeal used in aquaculture comes from wild stock.

As the oceans acidify, marine scientists are observing another alarming trend, falling oxygen content. A study of the tropical ocean published earlier this year found that zones without enough oxygen for fish and other marine animals to survive expanded by 4.5 million square kilometres between 1960 and 2008, an area about half the size of the United States.

A lowered oxygen level can be a significant constraint on the growth of marine life because it takes a lot of energy to extract oxygen from water. Daniel Pauly, a biologist at the University of British Columbia in Canada, predicts that the drop in the ocean’s oxygen combined with acidification will reduce the global fish catch by between 20 – 30 per cent by 2050.

Tropical reefs provide shelter, food and breeding grounds for an estimated 25 per cent of fish species and account for as much as 12 per cent of the global fish catch. These coral reefs are built from calcium carbonate over many centuries. Yet they are among the most vulnerable forms of marine life to more acid seas and warming waters.

One of the most severe episodes of coral stress hit reefs in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean earlier this year. It was the latest of several major episodes of mass bleaching over large reef areas in different parts of the world in the past 20 years. Since then, the number and frequency of these die-backs have increased. If the trend continues, it may disrupt the slow process of reef recovery.

There have been five mass extinctions in Earth’s history and corals provide clues about what happened and why. They have been around for most of that time and they readily fossilize, thus providing a record.

Very little is known about the first mass extinction. But in the wake of the following four, reefs disappeared for millions of years long after adverse climatic conditions returned to benign levels.

Dr J.E.N Veron, former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and author of numerous books on coral reefs, says that only a few decades ago he thought it ridiculous to imagine that reefs might have a limited lifespan as a consequence of human actions.

Today, he warns that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and sea continues to rise, acidification will have a widespread impact by 2050. Different species of coral, coralline algae, plankton, and mollusks will show different tolerances, and their capacity to calcify will decline at different rates.

But, he wrote earlier this month, “they will all suffer from some form of coralline osteoporosis. The result will be that corals will no longer be able to build reefs or maintain them against the forces of erosion.”

Dr Veron added that what were once thriving coral gardens supporting the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm would become “red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way.”

His warning is a reminder that although the costs of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions may be high, the costs of inaction may be even higher.

- The writer, Michael Richardson is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Source: www.iseas.edu.sg

What’s in the Wind for 2011? Is it Sustainable & Manageable?

If it appears that resolutions for each New Year flow plentifully (but don’t stick around for long), Glenn Meyers has released a very simple and painless way for each member of the world population to participate in contributing toward an increase in sustainability practices. Meanwhile, Australia needs to resolve how to fix the low price of the Renewable Energy Certificates.

Glenn Meyers, storyteller, new media producer in Green Building Elements

(31 December 31, 2010)

If it appears that resolutions for each New Year flow plentifully, launching a resolution for sustainable practices comes as easy as pulling a wisdom tooth.

With this in mind, the “New Year x(1)” practice of sustainability has been released as a very simple and painless way for each member of the world population to participate in contributing toward an increase in sustainability practices.

During the upcoming year, people can start their “New Year x(1)” practice as follows:

1. Use one less light each day, wherever it’s convenient. (reduces demand for electricity)

2. Buy one additional local product. (encourages local production to serve local communities)

3. Buy one less foreign product. (reduces supply chain CO2 emissions and demand for fossil fuels)

4. Turn the thermostat down one degree at bedtime. (reduces generation of greenhouse gases used to produce energy)

Buy one more product made from recycled materials. (promotes the economic engine that makes recycling a feasible business model)

6. Mow the lawn one time with a mulching mower (provides natural fertilizer for the lawn & reduces the need for so much chemical fertilizer)

7. Use one less plastic trash bag to collect the grass clippings. (reduces the requirement for more fossil fuels used in plastics manufacturing)

Eat one less hamburger. (reduces CO2 emissions from cow burps, the petroleum used for shipping, and the electricity used for freezing and cooking)

Rescue and put to use one item that’s headed for the landfill. (as Ben Franklin once said: Waste not, want not.”)

Devise one unique sustainable practice for yourself.  (choose from hundreds of options to spread new sustainable practices; the imagination has no limits — see Steven Sisters photo below for pest control:  ”a mixture of coffee and rum is placed in the bottom and then hung on the coffee tree. The bugs are attracted to the coffee smell, drink the mixture, get drunk, fall into the liquid and drown. Voila! Instant, natural pest control!”

Such a list can grow exponentially for those who choose, but let’s look at the results from simple “New Year x(1)” math to measure effectiveness: 10 practices for each member of the population of this country – now counting at 308 million people – multiplies out to 3.8 billion sustainable practices in one year. Or if the world population of 6.9 billion people takes up this practice, multiplying by a factor of 10 will generate 69 billion more sustainable acts than were generated in 2010.

This is doable, quite easy to practice, and saves more than money. Cheers to the Future!

Happy New Year

Source: www.greenbuildingelements.com

Building a Green Future in Malaysia Makes Financial Sense

With leading multinational corporations at the forefront to lease green office space, the demand for green buildings in Malaysia will continue to rise as environmental awareness grows and more companies embrace the practice of corporate social responsibility. Another driver is the growing body of evidence demonstrating that green buildings make financial sense. There is growing recognition of the need to adopt sustainable building practices and related technologies in order to play a pro-active role in climate change mitigation.

Angie Ng in The Star, Malaysia, (25 December 2010):

With leading multinational corporations at the forefront to lease green office space, the demand for green buildings in Malaysia will continue to rise as environmental awareness grows and more companies embrace the practice of corporate social responsibility.

Another driver is the growing body of evidence demonstrating that green buildings make financial sense.

CB Richard Ellis (Malaysia) vice-president research, Nabeel Hussain says there is growing recognition that key participants in the country’s real estate sector have a responsibility to adopt sustainable building practices and related technologies in order to play a pro-active role in climate change mitigation.

“Malaysia has introduced its own green rating system, the Green Building Index (GBI) in 2009. The Government is supporting the drive towards green buildings and technology and its Budget 2010 was the first one ever to give priority to the procurement of goods and services that are environmentally friendly,” he adds.

Nabeel reveals that studies by CB Eichard Ellis on mature markets such as the United States and Australia have found that developing green buildings can help landlords achieve higher values, fetch higher rents and enjoy higher occupancy rates than comparable non-green buildings.

In an ongoing study of national office portfolio in the United States managed by CB Richard Ellis, the company concludes that sustainable buildings are expected to generate stronger investment returns than traditionally-managed properties.

The study found that owners of sustainably-managed buildings anticipate 4% higher return on investment than owners of traditionally-managed buildings, as well as 5% increase in building value.

“Roughly 79% of owners surveyed believe that sustainable properties perform well in attracting and retaining tenants, yielding a 5% increase in building occupancy and 1% increase in rental income,” Nabeel says.

This is the second phase of a multi-year study initiated in 2009 by CB Richard Ellis and the University of San Diego’s Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate.

The largest and longest-running study of its kind, the ongoing analysis benchmarks and measures green building benefits and economic results as a framework of investment criteria for retrofit activity.

According to the study, tenants in sustainably-managed buildings report increased productivity, satisfaction and health. Roughly 10% of tenant respondents have seen increased productivity, 94% of tenant managers register higher employee satisfaction in green space and 83% of tenants believe their green space provides a healthier working environment.

The study defined a green building as those with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification at any level or those that bear the EPA Energy Star label. All Energy Star buildings in the survey group had been awarded that label since 2008. Most of the buildings included in the research cohort had also adopted other sustainable practices like recycling, green cleaning and water conservation.

CB Richard Ellis was recently ranked 30 among Newsweek’s greenest companies in America, and occupied top spot in the financial services sector. The US Environmental Protection Agency has named CB Richard Ellis an Energy Star Partner of the Year for the past three years, including recent recognition for “Sustained Excellence.”

Nabeel says the US Green Building Council has awarded CB Richard Ellis its Leadership Award for Organisational Excellence and the industry group, CoreNet, recognised CB Richard Ellis with a special commendation for Sustainable Leadership and Design Development.

In Asia, CB Richard Ellis recently won a Merit Award for Interior Projects in an Existing Building at Hong Kong Green Building Council’s 2010 Green Building Awards, in relation to its office relocation in Hong Kong.

CB Richard Ellis’ new office premises in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Mumbai have been designed and constructed in accordance with LEED best practices.

Source: www.biz.thestar.com.my and www.eco-business.com

How’s This For An Entrepreneur’s Guide To Green Purchasing

More and more, small-business owners are evaluating their supply chain through the lens of the “triple bottom line” — that is, balancing economic considerations with social and environmental ones. But the rapid proliferation of sustainable products and services proves it’s not so easy being green. With more than 600 green labels on the market worldwide, according to a recent article on Greenbiz.com, business owners are awash with choices that didn’t exist three years ago. Anna Clark, author of Green, American Style, has come up with “The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Green Purchasing”.

By Anna Clark, Author of the book Green, American Style, which released last year, and owner of Earth People, a Houston on based consultancy specialising in building best-in-class brands by harnessing human potential, fostering leadership and driving sustainable values through every facet of an organization. 

This first appeared in the American Express OPEN Forum

More and more, small-business owners are evaluating their supply chain through the lens of the “triple bottom line” — that is, balancing economic considerations with social and environmental ones.

But the rapid proliferation of sustainable products and services proves it’s not so easy being green. With more than 600 green labels on the market worldwide, according to a recent article on Greenbiz.com, business owners are awash with choices that didn’t exist three years ago.

Despite the challenges, companies of all sizes have much to gain by getting on board. Here’s a road map to help you navigate the green fog when buying products and services for your business. 

Mission Sustainable

A logical place to begin is to look at how you buy, not just what you buy. Inefficient processes always carry ecological and financial costs, hidden though they may be.

If, for example, you purchase supplies from a big-box retailer and are required to meet a minimum with each order, you’re probably ordering more products than your company needs. This increases the likelihood that miscellaneous items will go unused. How many companies have obsolete toner cartridges gathering dust on the shelves? Too many.

The next step is to create a green supply chain that corresponds with your business objectives. If your goal is to cut costs, you may save more money by printing double-sided than by switching to paper with higher recycled content.

If your goal is to reduce energy costs, you probably know to purchase ENERGY STAR-qualified products. But to go the extra mile, consider switching to a commercial electricity plan that offers a combination of renewable energy in varying amounts — at prices equal to or less than the competition. 

People, Planet and Profits

When evaluating your supply chain, you can rely on virtually the same set of criteria for everything from the cups in the break room to the packaging of your products. Most certifications apply the following attributes when determining a product’s environmental impact:

Clean. Emits the least amount of pollution possible for its category.

Energy-efficient. Energy is not wasted in producing or operating the product.

Water-conscious. Water is not wasted in manufacturing and/or the product itself is a water-saving device.

Resource-efficient. Goods are made with recyclable content.

Recyclable. At the end of its life, some or all of the product’s parts can be recycled.

Streamlined. Not over-packaged. 

Fair trade.The environment is half the battle. People matter too. Are those who make the product compensated fairly and are their working conditions safe?

Necessary. No product can be green if you can easily do without it.

Certified. A third party validates the manufacturer’s claims.

From a public relations standpoint, “certified” is one of the most pragmatic solutions. It’s far easier to say, “I work in a LEED-certified building” than it is to say, “I work in a building that conserves energy, has superior indoor air quality and was constructed with materials sourced from within 500 miles.” Credible green product certifications, such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED designation, communicate dozens of green attributes in a single term or phrase.

The Big Picture

Switching to certified products is a step in the right direction, but a more holistic policy is required to weave sustainability principles throughout the supply chain. Case in point: EarthSmart, a comprehensive program that integrates environmental responsibility with business solutions, work culture and community outreach efforts at FedEx.

“FedEx understands that we have a responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint while being a positive resource to communities around the world,” says Laura Fortenberry, a global brand manager for FedEx. “With EarthSmart, we’re able to measure our efforts against our goals to make sure we remain challenged to always do more and be better.” 

For small-business owners struggling to develop a sustainability policy, the  FedEx Global Citizenship Report includes more details on EarthSmart and provides some inspiration in terms of big-picture strategy.

In addition, several organizations offer practical tools for aligning an eco-friendly ethos with purchasing requirements. The EPA’s Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Guide features an index for evaluating green products and services, and calculating the costs and benefits of purchasing choices. 

Members of the Responsible Purchasing Network have access to green purchasing tools and guides, an explanation of certifications, and a list of products that meet recommended criteria. 

And, to access lists of hundreds of green vendors for every type of product or service, look no further than Green America’s  National Green Pages and the Organic Consumers Association’s GreenPeople Directory.

Changing the way you purchase products is not a financial cost as much as an investment in your future. An environmentally responsible business plan will set you apart from the competition, while helping you conserve precious resources — not least of all your own.

 Source: www.earthpeopleco.com

Feeding the birds and watching the young ones take flight from my balcony, I feel I am paying off some of the bad karma I sowed by hunting birds for the pot when growing up in a very different India. In just my lifetime, I have seen the number of birds in the sky and fields dwindle, and great forests rolled back to small islands of green.

And I am part of this. I bought a tiny piece of land some years ago, in scrub forests in the foothills of the Himalayas, partly because when I visited the site, I heard a leopard calling nearby. Yet, if I ever build a house there, I will be eating into the habitat of that leopard.

I try not to be an eco-fascist or to wallow in guilt. But I believe we should try as individuals, even as governments and vested interests fail, to stop collectively sawing at the branch we are sitting on.

So I propagate my own island on my balconies. I switch off all lights when I leave. I buy ‘green’ products. I use things until they fall apart. I take public transport.

Yet, for all that, my footprint on this planet is still large.

Next year (2011), we should strive to walk more lightly, writes Nirmal Ghosh in The Straits Times.  Read More

OPINION: Will we have a greener 2011?

Nirmal Ghosh in the Straits Times ( 29 December 2010):

BANGKOK — The two balconies in my eighth floor apartment in downtown Bangkok are stuffed with green plants.

In one, where I keep only palms and bamboos, I put out a bowl of birdseed every morning along with an earthen platter filled with water.

More than 30 sparrows frequent the bamboos. A pair of spotted doves built a nest among them a year ago and has since reared half a dozen chicks.

I work from home, and see the palms and the bamboos as a successful scrap of nature — even if it is less than a tiny fraction of the big city, and smaller than dust in the wind on this planet spinning around the sun. But it makes my apartment more liveable.

To keep our planet green and habitable amid mounting pressure from a human population of about seven billion, we have seen, in recent months, two major worldwide efforts — the Biodiversity Convention meeting in Japan last month and the Climate Change meeting in Mexico earlier this month.

The talks at Cancun were approached with more realism both by those involved and by the media, after the crushing deflation of expectations at climate change talks in Copenhagen last year.

Cancun ended in a consensus agreement, the headlines assured us. The magazine New Scientist, for instance, said: ‘Dawn breaks on a low-carbon world.’

But the content of the article visibly struggled to live up to that vision. A false dawn, perhaps.

As Bolivia resentfully pointed out: ‘Compromise was always at the expense of the victims, rather than the culprits of climate change.’

The fact remains that whatever will be done as a result of Cancun will most likely be too little, too late.

True, there is more environmental awareness than ever. Ecological products are the rage — by choice for the rich in their mansions and condos, and by default for the poor in their mud and reed shacks.

There is some evidence of slowing deforestation. Several countries have ambitious national targets for curbing man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Cricket stars and children have marched in India to save the tiger.

Bookstores are full of doom-boom books with titles like The Flooded Earth, The Rising Sea and The Coming Famine. Several are not far off the mark.

Recent and under-reported data from the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration shows that from 1995 to 2005, global annual plant consumption rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of all plant production.

Which brings us to biodiversity.

If Cancun was lukewarm, the Biodiversity Summit in Nagoya the previous month was a disgrace. Only five heads of state showed up.

‘One-third of the countries represented there couldn’t even be bothered to send a minister. This is how much they value the world’s living systems,’ wrote columnist George Monbiot.

Indeed, even as Japan hosted that summit, it continues to fish for the disappearing bluefin tuna.

The plunder of marine life makes plunder on land seem gentle. A merchant ship captain recently told me that the sight of fishing boats as his container vessel approached the coast of China, was like a ‘snowstorm on my radar’. Europe’s fishing fleets have long since emptied many seas off Africa’s coast.

Will we have a greener 2011? Possibly. But it is likely to be superficial.

We remain locked in a model that emphasises consumption and materialism, with little respect for the thin skin of land, sea and sky that makes it possible for us to live.

Environmentalists have long sought to put a value to things like clean air and wetlands, in the hope of proving that preserving offers better returns than polluting or plundering. But once something is given a value, it can also be traded.

Production and trade is at the heart of our economic system and civilisation. In a logical consequence, as our population grows to over seven billion, we are trading the very biosphere which gives us life for little more than a handful of change.

Next December offers another opportunity to secure a meaningful agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, at the next talks on climate change in Durban, South Africa.

It may be the last chance, but nobody is holding his breath.

My guess is that it will take disasters, on a scale unheard of in human history, to force change.

Feeding the birds and watching the young ones take flight from my balcony, I feel I am paying off some of the bad karma I sowed by hunting birds for the pot when growing up in a very different India. In just my lifetime, I have seen the number of birds in the sky and fields dwindle, and great forests rolled back to small islands of green.

And I am part of this. I bought a tiny piece of land some years ago, in scrub forests in the foothills of the Himalayas, partly because when I visited the site, I heard a leopard calling nearby. Yet, if I ever build a house there, I will be eating into the habitat of that leopard.

I try not to be an eco-fascist or to wallow in guilt. But I believe we should try as individuals, even as governments and vested interests fail, to stop collectively sawing at the branch we are sitting on.

So I propagate my own island on my balconies. I switch off all lights when I leave. I buy ‘green’ products. I use things until they fall apart. I take public transport.

Yet, for all that, my footprint on this planet is still large.

Next year, we should strive to walk more lightly.

Source: www.dailyme.com

Let it be! The Good News of Christmas

Christmas is that time of the year when most of us go out of our way to be kind and generous; even peaceful and hopeful. So let it be! And the tone of this issue – the last for the year – is one where we take a hopeful stance, looking at the positives of the landmark Cancun climate change conference (while not totally ignoring the negatives). We present Jessica Cheam, reporting very positively from Cancun for the Straits Times and ecobusiness.com. And review  the overview of Cancun achievements by Greg Picker and Fergus Green in “A Very Cancun Christmas Present to Savor”. The cost of the Cancun decisions – not unlike the cost of Christmas spending for many – will be paid off over time, but necessarily so. Talking about costs – and a little negativism creeping in here – is the “cash for clunkers” scheme in Australia. The UK is looking at helping households carry the rising cost of  fuel bills by promoting effective energy efficiency programmes, while IBM is advancing its work on Smarter cities and the Australian Green Building Council plugs the Government’s “our cities” plan. Julian Hunt gives his slant on China’s approach to climate change action and José Goldemberg advocates a practical way towards the dream of energy and food security, and sustainable development and growth. We are doubly pleased to profile Dr Martin Blake, sourced from Eco Walk The Talk, as he has not only agreed to join our Singapore venture, Sustain Ability Showcase Asia, but has committed to base his new global consultancy Carbon Zero Solutions in the heart of Asia/Pacific. Season’s Greeting to all our readers where-ever they may be – snow-bound, sun-burnt or rain-drenched! – Ken Hickson

Cancun Shows It Can Be Done

World leaders finally made a breakthrough on climate change when they approved a fresh text called the Cancun Agreements that marked a historic point for international co-operation. The United Nations climate conference was awash with optimism after conference president Patricia Espinosa – who won praise for her firm but diplomatic handling of the show – banged down the gavel to approve the landmark text.

By Jessica Cheam in Straits Times and eco-business.com (11 December 2010)

World leaders finally made a breakthrough on climate change on Saturday when they approved a fresh text called the Cancun Agreements that marked a historic point for international cooperation.

The United Nations climate conference was awash with optimism after United Nations Cancun conference president Patricia Espinosa banged down the gavel to approve the landmark text – despite several repeated objections by Bolivia’s negotiators.

The approval came in the wee hours of Saturday morning after a back-and-forth discussion between Mrs Espinosa and Bolivia’s negotiator Pablo Solon, who insisted that the deal was a “step backward, not forward”.

But Mrs Espinosa said she was not going to allow one party to veto the wishes of 193 other nations, which had worked very hard to put that text together.

Many negotiators had worked around the clock the past few days to produce a text that would advance the talks, which had been dogged many years by petty politics and disagreement over several issues.

She was moved to tears when she received thunderous applause and standing ovations through the final hours of the conference, with many leaders praising her vision and determination for brokering the climate deal.

India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh calld her a “goddess” who, through the talks, had “restored the confidence of the world community in multilateralism and in the multilateral process”.

Fresh hopes have now been injected into the global climate treaty process, which suffered a serious loss of confidence after last year’s climate talks ended in disarray in Copenhagen.

Mexican president Felipe Calderón, addressing the conference in the final speech, said that the Cancun Agreements had started a “long but renewed course” for international work on climate change.

Although leaders acknowledged that the texts were not perfect and needed to be worked on, almost all said it was a “very balanced package” that reflected the “spirit of compromise” between parties.

This included the establishment of a US$100 billion annual green fund by 2020 for developing countries vulnerable to climate change, potentially to be managed by the World Bank. The texts also set out guidelines on technology transfer from developed to developing nations, and a fund for forestry protection known as REDD.

The new deal, which was first presented to delegates by the UN climate conference president Patricia Espinosa mid-day on Friday, was supported by key players including the United States, China, Japan, the European Union, the entire Africa bloc, and Singapore.

It did not have specific binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions but recognized that nations needed to reduce emissions so as to arrest the increase in global average temperature two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Earlier during the two-week summit, many leaders including Singapore Senior Minister S Jayakumar warned that failure to reach consensus could lead to a breakdown in confidence of the UN-led multilateral process which had gone on for 16 years.

Chief US negotiator Todd Stern said the deal “while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward,”, reflecting the hope that what was achieved in Cancun would now mark a new dawn towards “a low-emissions and sustainable future.”

The latest texts also received widespread support from observers such as NGO Greenpeace International. Its climate policy director Wendel Trio said of the updated text: “This is getting closer to what the science demands.”

However, others such as humanitarian NGO CARE’s climate change coordinator Poul Erik Lauridsen cautioned that although progress has been made, “we should be cautious because the difficult questions of mitigation and finance remain unresolved”.

Still, there was no dampening of high spirits at the conference even as it went on through the entire night into Saturday morning.

Mr Ramesh declared to the conference: “Tonight, God has been very close to Mexico.”

Source: www.ecobusiness.com

Profile: Martin Blake

His Mission – and his business case – is clearly to cut costly energy bills, reduce carbon emissions and save the organisation a lot of money. Martin Blake, until recently the brains and inspiration behind the award winning Carbon Management Programme at Royal Mail in the United Kingdom – saving 30 million pounds annually – has enjoyed a whirlwind tour through Australia and Singapore speaking out and getting his Carbon Zero Solutions business up and running. Bhavani Prakash, of Eco Walk the Talk, caught up with him in Singapore.

As Head of Social Responsibility and Sustainability Team at Royal Mail Group Plc for eight years, he oversaw a multi-pronged CSR strategy in the areas of CO2 emission reduction, waste management, water conservation and workplace diversity.

He was in Singapore recently where he spoke to us about the initiatives at Royal Mail and his future plans. Most Asian countries have large nationalised postal services, and it was fruitful to learn of his experiences. Dr Blake has an MBA in Organisational Analysis and Strategic Management from Hull University and a Doctorate in Business (DBA) in Organisational Change. He also serves as an adjunct professor at two Australian universities – the University of Southern Queensland and Griffith University.

Bhavani Prakash (BP): How did sustainability become important to Royal Mail?

Martin Blake (MB): It started becoming important to Royal Mail when we started a group-wide Corporate Social Responsibility agenda about 7 or 8 years ago. We began to look at how to use CSR to improve the business performance of Royal Mail as well as by doing the right thing. Fundamentally, the CSR programme had to serve the stakeholders well – the customers, shareholders, employees, management board. Part of that CSR approach was environmental sustainability. We began to pursue that vigorously.

BP: How did an organisation like Royal Mail balance short-term pressures such as sales targets and shareholder earnings versus long-term sustainability issues?

MB: We didn’t do anything that didn’t have a good business case. Let’s take some win-win-win scenarios. One of the issues we had to deal with when we began the CSR program was sick absence. A lot of people were either becoming ill at work, injured or just pretending to be ill. That was a significant cost to the business. We put a program of sick absence management which reduced the problem and created significant benefits. Each 1% reduction in sick absence had a value of 40 million pounds a year.

In the environmental sustainability area, the reduction of energy led to very clear cost reduction. So in all parts of the CSR program, you have to be able to judge that there is tangible, and sometimes in a social policy area, intangible benefits apart from the peripheral benefits around branding, attracting and retaining staff, attracting and retaining customers.

Facts on Royal Mail?

• One of the largest employers in the UK with around 185,000 employees
• Handles 83 million items every working day
• 113,000 collection points
• 28 million delivery addresses
• 33,000 vehicles travelling 1.8 million miles a day
• 145 million litres of diesel annually
• 14,000 retail outlets
• Turnover in excess of £8bn per annum

Annual impacts

• CO2 emissions would fill 99 billion party balloons
• Road mileage is equivalent to a return trip to Jupiter
• Diesel volume would fill 59 Olympic sized swimming pools
• Energy consumption would power 43,731 UK homes 1,152 GWh per annum
• Landfill waste is equivalent to 11,157 fully laden Ford Transits
•Water consumption equivalent to > 33 litres for everyone in the UK with 2 billion litres

Source: Climate Change Solutions

BP: What were the main strategies you implemented in Royal Mail with respect to energy?

MB: Under the banner of CSR, there were four main strategic pillars – Health and Wellness which encompassed workplace safety, Sustainability, Social Policy which included volunteering opportunities, and Diversity focussing on gender issues and workplace harassment.

The Sustainability programme covered energy, transport, water, waste and supply chain issues.

Royal Mail would consume roughly the same amount of energy in a year as about 45,000 houses. Now that’s a big electricity bill, a big oil bill and a big gas bill. It made sense that if that was managed appropriately we would reduce costs significantly. So we put in place a program that analysed the usage. With smart metering, we were able to disaggregate energy usage to identify what kinds of buildings had what kinds of profiles, and then begin to look at the kind of technologies that could be used to reduce usage.  We were able to do this successfully. The program won many awards and saved a lot of money.

BP: What were initiatives with respect to transport?

MB: Royal Mail has 35,000 vehicles. They do around 2 million miles every night. There are lots of vehicles on the road at night. In terms of scale and size, the Royal Mail fleet covers the same distance as the return trip to Jupiter in a year. It’s a very long way and the fuel bill is accordingly very large. There was a significant interest in reducing the amount of miles that we covered, and reducing the fuel that we used, making sure that we in no way compromised quality of service or the availability of the fleet. So we used a marginal abatement cost curve, to see where we can get the most savings in the fleet, and how that was to be achieved.

We also recognised however that even some of the more expensive technology which would sit at the far right of an abatement curve and which didn’t save very much in terms of carbon or cost a lot in terms of price per tonne – we had to work with those so we understood them, and we could be ready to move into those technologies as they became more mainstream.

So we certainly did play with hydrogen vehicles as we converted internal combustion engines vehicles to run on hydrogen. We had the first hydrogen fuel cell postal van in the world outside California.

Where we made big reductions were on the heavy fleet and double deck trailers. For each double decker trailer, we removed one of the big tractor units in the front, which made it much more efficient to move around as we only had one vehicle instead of two. The payback period of such steps was less than six months. So in terms of the business case, it was very clear that there was a very good reason to do this.

Sustainability targets

• Reduce absolute CO2e emissions by 25% by 2010
• Reduce normalised transport related CO2e emissions by 20% by 2010
• Reduce normalised building related CO2e emissions by 10% by 2010
• Reduce normalised quantity of solid waste sent to landfill by 25%
• Reduce fresh water consumption by 5%
• A carbon neutral Letters business in Scotland by 2012
• Zero tailpipe emissions in Inner London (LEZ) by 2012
• Reduce absolute CO2e emissions by 50% by 2015 (CN)

Source: Climate Change Solutions

BP. Did you face any challenges convincing the stakeholders?

MB: The first step is to do a stakeholder analysis and identify who your stakeholders are. Of course, the key ones are going to be the customers, the union as it’s a unionised environment, our regulators and our employees as Royal Mail employs just under one percent of the UK working population which is a significant number, the government and our competitors. How do you work with all of these people? First was to analyse who they were, and then identify what it was that they wanted and making sure you that you were talking in the language they wanted to hear, and the message was properly aligned with the overall direction.

BP:  Where you able to influence the system for example in the case of hydrogen cell vehicles in getting the infrastructure set up?

MB: Very much so. I was able to influence manufacturers to move more rapidly towards deployment of vehicles, and governments on the deployment of infrastructures and that was done through the supply chain.  For example, in the hydrogen agenda, I spoke to a number of postal authorities in Europe, and I started talking to manufacturers of vehicles, and told them that collectively as an industry we would like to move in this direction. This is the sort of numbers we are talking about, and would you be interested in working with us?

Interestingly at first they said no, and that they are going to continue to make the conventional vehicles, and that the vehicles we wanted were 20 or 30 years away. I said, “That’s interesting, then perhaps I’ll go to China.” We spoke to the Chinese and they said, “How many would you like and when would you like them?”

I announced this at an European conference, that it would appear that Europe is going to fall behind to be able to provide hydrogen vehicles of the future, and that the Chinese can, and that we are going to be talking to them about design specifications for the future. Within one month, there had been a MOU between between 8 or 9 major OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers), stating that by 2014 they would deploy hydrogen cell vehicles into Europe and two countries, namely Germany and UK would spend significant amounts of money.

BP: Carbon is a narrow definition of sustainability. Did you ever think about biodiversity and Royal Mail’s impact on it?

MB: Carbon is a narrow definition of sustainability. Carbon is one agenda but it’s an important agenda as it has critical mass now. So we focussed a huge amount of attention on carbon but that doesn’t mean we ignored the water, the waste and other issues. With regards to biodiversity, I think if we’re going to be truthful, what we are actually talking about isn’t so much biodiversity. Biodiversity makes it sound nice and pleasant. We’re actually talking about extinction rate or how many species we are eliminating from the planet on a daily basis and how can we manage that scenario. For me, I would say we need to be dealing with the extinction rate and in future, that is going to be a major issue. If you ask me, what’s going to be the issue of the next five years, it’s going to be water and that businesses, countries and regions, need very carefully at their water resources and how they can husband those resources very carefully.

BP: You’re intending to move into Singapore. What are your plans?

MB: I am indeed planning to move to Singapore. I left the Royal Mail end of October. Having created what is recognised as the best CSR and carbon management programs in the world with 75 national and regional awards, I wanted to share that and make a difference in companies in the Asia-Pacific region. I have spent quite a bit of time researching where would be the best place to operate from, and absolutely no doubt in my mind that Singapore is positioned in the centre, it has excellent banking facilities, investment opportunities and a  highly motivated desire to be a thought leader in many areas. I will be relocating in February and operating from this base to all parts of Asia and Australia.

Dr Martin Blake runs the consultancy Carbon Zero Solutions, which is to have its global headquarters in Singapore. He is also a Director of Sustain Ability Showcase Asia (SASA).

Interviewed by Bhavani Prakash
http://www.ecowalkthetalk.com/blog
Asia’s Global Green Community featuring Eco News, Insights, Living Tips and People

Source: www.ecowalkthetalk.com and www.carbonzerosolutions.com

Is the Tide About to Turn for Carbon Markets Around the World?

The modest deal forged after two weeks of talks in Cancun commits rich countries, from 2020, to finance $US100 billion a year in climate aid for poor countries. It also sets a target to limit the rise in average world temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius. News too, that California will launch a carbon market in 2012. All is not lost, and maybe the tide is turning for carbon markets, even if sea levels are rising.

Reuters report in Climate Spectator (14 December 2010)

Global carbon markets will struggle after the deal reached at annual UN climate talks did little to ensure mandatory emissions caps would be extended next year. The modest deal forged after two weeks of talks in Cancun commits rich countries, from 2020, to finance $US100 billion a year in climate aid for poor countries. It also sets a target to limit the rise in average world temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

But it delayed the extremely difficult task of extending the 1997 Kyoto Protocol until next year’s talks in South Africa. In Cancun, Japan, Canada and Russia said they would not support a second phase of Kyoto if it did not include caps on the United States and rapidly developing countries like China. Kyoto, which expires in 2012, obliges all developed countries – except the United States, which never ratified it – to cut emissions blamed for warming the planet or face penalties.

It was the pact’s binding emissions cuts, and expectations of tougher ones after a first phase, that gave birth to the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, the world’s only carbon market that operates at national levels, as a way for businesses to meet mandatory caps. “The outcome of Cancun does not change the fact that most of the important work of cutting emissions will be driven outside the UN process,” the Council on Foreign Relations in New York’s Michael Levi said.

But after a bleak year, carbon markets will not do that work either.

Banks let go many emissions traders even before the US climate bill failed in July. Canada’s Senate failed to pass a climate bill, Australia postponed legislation and Japan is struggling to set up a cap-and-trade market.

The Cancun agreement locked into the UN process a pledge last year by China to reduce its emissions intensity, or amount of carbon released for every unit of economic output. But it paved no path for the world’s largest coal producer and greenhouse gas emitter to embark on mandatory emissions targets. Cancun also did little to cheer bankers and brokers trying to build a global carbon market who had hoped the world would now be on its way to a trillion dollars or more per year of emissions transactions.

If carbon markets remain weak and fragmented, they will do little to tackle global warming because they fail to push the price on carbon high enough to force emitters to make billion-dollar clean energy investments vast wind and solar farms, nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Bright spots

The UN deal provided some bright spots for carbon markets, like taking steps to reform the Clean Development Mechanism, in which polluters in the EU market pay for emissions-cutting projects, known as offsets, in developing countries to get credit at home. The deal also allowed CCS to be counted as an offset, which could lead to advances in the technology where carbon is siphoned from coal plants and factories and buried underground in hopes it will never reach the atmosphere.

And advances were made in reducing emissions from forest degradation and deforestation, or REDD, an UN offset program. So far the program has generated only voluntary carbon credits as businesses look to enhance their green image and prepare for carbon pollution limits expected sometime in the future.

Carbon traders and environmentalists believe it can slowly be turned into a mechanism to help save carbon-storing forests in the Amazon, Indonesia and the Congo basin. But progress could be slow. “Lack of specifics on finance, including future use of carbon markets, is a concern,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s global head of carbon markets, Abyd Karmali, said of the Cancun deal.

Carbon prices in the EU market, now hovering around €14.5 or $US19.20 a tonne, were expected to react more to EU policies than anything that happened in Cancun. Those prices are less than half of what would be needed to drive polluters that burn coal to invest in nuclear energy and CCS at home.

“For the market, the expectations were low for Cancun, because the expectations of the negotiators were low,” emissions and energy brokerage Evolution Markets spokesman Evan Ard said. “The market is now focused on the sub-national and regional developments.”

Developers in the United States, where emissions markets were invented, have much work to do. California will launch a carbon market in 2012 but growth will be slow as the struggling economy has already pushed emissions down.

Prices in regional emissions market on the US East Coast have sunk to a low below $US2 per ton. Toughening the region’s emissions cap would raise prices. But governors from the 10 states in the pact have showed no signs they can do that during hard economic times.

“Neither the United States nor China … look willing to take leadership roles in tackling greenhouse gas emissions,” Eurasia Group director of energy and natural resources Robert Johnston wrote in a research note. “Ongoing disagreements between developed and developing countries … on burden sharing are likely to impede progress at the next UN summit in South Africa.”

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

A Very Cancun Christmas Present To Savor

It was far more like Christmas in tropical Cancun than it was in snowy Copenhagen a year earlier, but did all that peace and good will really achieve anything? And will it carry over to the end of 2011 for COP17 in South Africa? Greg Picker and Fergus Green look closely at the likely outcomes for the developed and developing world, appropriately wearing their Santa hats and imbued with the Christmas spirit.

Greg Picker & Fergus Green Climate Spectator (21 December 2010):

In our previous reports in Climate Spectator on the Cancun Conference, we have argued that keen climate observers should consider not just the decisions made by the Conference of the Parties (COP), but also the “culture” of the UN climate negotiations and its evolution.  Now that reporting on the details of the Cancun outcome is winding down, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the broader trends at play in Cancun and what these portend.

We noted three areas where reform was both possible and necessary:

– Increased diffusion of negotiating blocs (shift away from monolithic coalitions of “developed” v “developing” countries to smaller groupings more reflective of their constituents’ interests);

– Moving from a “grand bargain” theory of negotiation in which “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” to a more progressive approach in which trust and cooperation is fostered through the gradual agreement and implementation of deals on particular issues; and

– A shift to a less combative and more cooperative modus vivendi among negotiators.

By these measures, the UNFCCC underwent significant cultural reform during Cancun. 

Was there a Christmas spirit in Cancun?

While peace and good will are worthy goals, they may be unachievable in the competitive environment of international climate change negotiations. But it was far more like Christmas in tropical Cancun than it was in snowy Copenhagen a year earlier.

The United States and China found effective ways of working together; not only was there are a marked decrease in bilateral sniping during press conferences, but there seems to have been a deliberate effort from both countries to demonstrate sensitivity to each other’s position.  While this newfound politeness may be more illusory than real, it did improve the public ambiance.

India moved from its self-appointed role as guardian of the developing countries and defender of the culture of “differentiated responsibilities” to be a more constructive negotiating force, finally recognising that it is in an ideal position to mediate between countries. As a major emitter (but not the biggest), a leading developing country (but not the most influential) and an important world player (but not yet a super-power) it is in a good position to shape debate and influence the outcome. By playing an active role in the search for compromise between countries, India began to fulfill its potential.

Lastly, the 27 countries (including Australia) that make up the Cartegena Dialogue – a group formed out of the bitterness of the Copenhagen outcomes – seem to have kept to their principles, namely that they will “openly discuss the rationale behind each other’s positions and to explore areas where convergence and enhanced joint action could emerge.” Several commentators in Cancun noted that the links that were established in the Dialogue were useful in working through issues and finding compromises during the negotiations.

Were negotiators willing to leave some presents under the tree?

One of the criticisms of the outcomes from Cancun (including by us) was that little was achieved about the most thorny issue – how much will countries reduce their emissions. This is thefundamental question and failure to substantively answer it must leave the majority of participants and observers unsatisfied.

Yet, the approach taken in Cancun was to focus on what is politically and technically possible.  The Cancun outcomes show for the first time in many years that negotiators can agree some things without needing to agree everything. This may be a useful development, as it allows momentum to build and for a package of decisions to be delivered over time, rather than requiring Father Christmas to have all of the pressies in the sleigh on one glorious morning.

Of course, it is essential that all issues are resolved and that countries can agree to necessary emission reductions. As we have argued elsewhere, we remain sceptical about whether the UNFCCC will be able to deliver that most important present of all.

Were negotiators naughty or nice?

By all accounts, countries tried hard to work together. There was a conscious group effort to avoid the disharmony of Copenhagen. Ensuring effective and open dialogue was clearly a priority for the Chair, who took the innovative approach (trialed by the Danes the year before) of pairing ministers from developing and developed countries to work together on particular issues and sharing the results of those dialogues with the broader group. It paid dividends.

While perhaps having enjoyed too much Christmas cheer, Jake Schmidt, a long time observer of the negotiations currently with the US Natural Resources Defense Council, said:

“Countries came to Cancun, with a desire to work together and find common ground … Countries pushed, nudged, and cajoled each other to move towards an agreement that matched their vision of success – in essence they negotiated. But in the final hours they also didn’t let this negotiation dynamic stop them from seeing the opportunity to move forward … [What emerged] was a resounding applause, many standing ovations, and … words of support from the big emitters, the most vulnerable, middle-income countries, the developed and developing world, and from all the different regions of the world.

But what about Tiny Tim?

The problem with this story is that everyone didn’t get what they wanted in their Christmas stocking. Bolivia, determined to be the red-nosed reindeer, repeatedly objected to the agreements. According to the consensus rule – as it was formerly understood – this should have been sufficient to block agreement. Yet, in an unprecedented decision, the Mexican Chair “noted” Bolivia’s stance and indicated that the agreement would stand.

Even more amazingly, the US representative indicated that “consensus” did not require unanimity, but merely a general level of agreement. This departure from precedent is astonishing given that a number of countries – particularly the US and Australia – have previously argued that consensus requires a lack of objection. On many occasions over the last decade, the US voiced its support to countries blocking agreement on an issue not because they agreed with those countries on the issue at hand, but because they supported the each country’s right to a veto.

It is not yet clear what this means. Presumably a more powerful country with a less odious political agenda (Brazil or Canada, rather than Bolivia, for example) would have been able to block agreement by itself. But what about, say, Singapore or Egypt? At the very least, the “Bolivian exception” signals an evolution of the effective, if not the formally endorsed, rules of procedure. 

The UNFCCC culture shifted in Cancun. Old norms were discarded, while new cultural mores were clearly detectable. Whether these New Year’s resolutions last throughout 2011 and survive COP17 in Durban, where political pressure and public interest are expected to be higher, remains to be seen.

Greg Picker is a consultant working on climate change issues and a former Australian climate change negotiator. Fergus Green is a climate change lawyer at Allens Arthur Robinson. The authors have written two papers on international climate policy for the Lowy Institute: Confronting the Crisis of International Climate Policy (with Warwick McKibbin, July 2010) and Comprehending Copenhagen (November 2009).

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au