More Cost Effective Ways to Reduce Emissions

Julia Gillard’s cash-for-clunkers proposal for Australia would cost 15 times more than an emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon pollution. And no research has been conducted on the fallout on used car dealers from the vehicle buyback policy. Australian National University climate change academic Frank Jotzo said if the federal government was going to spend $430m of taxpayers’ money, there were far more effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Samantha Maiden in The Australian (14 December 2010): 

JULIA Gillard’s cash-for-clunkers proposal would cost 15 times more than an emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon pollution.

And no research has been conducted on the fallout on used car dealers from the vehicle buyback policy.

Bureaucrats charged with administering the Cleaner Car Rebate scheme have confirmed that compliance to ensure vehicles were scrapped was a “major concern” overseas.

Under the plan, owners of cars manufactured before January 1, 1995, will be eligible for a $2000 rebate when they buy a new car with a Green Vehicle Guide greenhouse rating of six or above.

The scheme is capped at 200,000 vehicles over four years.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has repeatedly declined to detail the carbon abatement cost per tonne of the cleaner car scheme, which has already been delayed for six months.

Related Coverage

But the Department of Innovation has now confirmed for the first time that the cost of abatement under the $430 million scheme is $429.70 per tonne over the decade.

That compares with a carbon price under the Rudd-Gillard government’s original ETS of about $30 a tonne.

The Gillard government has already been forced to delay the start of the cash-for-clunkers scheme for six months as a budget savings measure.

But critics of the scheme believe Wayne Swan and Penny Wong should take the opportunity to axe it when they consider savings measures as part of next year’s budget process.

It is scheduled for next July 1.

A Senate estimates committee has previously heard evidence that the Innovation Department had “not put forward a proposition for the adoption of a scheme of that nature” before the announcement of the federal election campaign.

The department has now confirmed in response to questions on notice that it was “not involved in the process of deliberations on election commitments”.

Asked on notice: “From the research that has been done by the department, what will be the likely impact of this scheme on Australian vehicle and component manufacturers?”, the department responded: “No such research has been undertaken.”

Other questions on notice lodged with the department note that concerns have been raised over the fate of similar schemes in the US, Britain, France, Germany and Austria.

“Forecasting demand for assistance from these schemes was difficult,” the departmental response states. “Capping such schemes to a certain number of claimants (as in Austria) helps overcome this. Compliance to ensure vehicles were scrapped was a major concern.”

Opposition innovation spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella said yesterday the departmental response confirmed there was no serious modelling, no serious discussion with the industry or research on likely effects.

“Kim Carr and Greg Combet have been like rabbits in the spotlight when asked about the carbon costs of this program,” she said. “It’s absurd. The government’s own (emissions trading scheme) price was under $30 and this is now $429, it’s just insane and there is no justification. It’s disastrously inefficient from an environmental perspective.

“It makes imported cars more attractive. The used car market will be seriously distorted.”

Australian National University climate change academic Frank Jotzo said if the federal government was going to spend $430m of taxpayers’ money, there were far more effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“This kind of scheme is a very high-cost operation if the motivation is reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. “In the US and Europe, the aim of such a scheme was to essentially prop up the car industry after the global financial crisis.”

A spokeswoman for Industry Minister Kim Carr said he was travelling overseas.

Source:  www.theaustralian.com.au

Metering & Managing Energy in a Low Carbon Economy

New time-of-use tariffs could be introduced in the United Kingdom from 2014 as 26 million homes are fitted with smart meters at a cost of £340 per household, paid for partly in higher bills. Featuring electronic displays, the meters will provide minute-by-minute information about energy consumption as well as heralding more accurate billing. A wide-ranging UK Committee on Climate Change report set out how Britain would need to develop a low-carbon economy by 2030 in order to meet targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

By Alastair Jamieson in UK Daily Telegraph (12 December 2010):

The UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC), a panel of experts set up by the Climate Change Act, says charging more for electricity at busy times would cut demand on the national grid and help meet Britain’s carbon reduction targets.

Some households could save money, for example by using their dishwasher at night when prices are lower.

But consumer groups have warned that working families, and others who cannot change when they use their appliances, could lose out by paying only the higher rates.

New time-of-use tariffs could be introduced from 2014 as 26 million homes are fitted with smart meters at a cost of £340 per household, paid for partly in higher bills. Featuring electronic displays, the meters will give consumers and utility firms minute-by-minute information about energy consumption as well as heralding more accurate billing.

A wide-ranging CCC report last week set out how Britain would need to develop a low-carbon economy by 2030 in order to meet targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

It said a more energy-efficient grid would be achieved if Britain’s smart meters were also used to vary prices, charging higher rates at peak times in order to curb usage.

Demand is highest on weekdays between 5pm and 7pm and lowest during the night.

The CCC’s Fourth Carbon Budget also says time-of-use pricing would make electric cars more affordable as they could be recharged from the mains during cheaper off-peak periods.

Households could lower bills further by agreeing to partial blackouts. Smart meters will allow utility firms to remotely switch off appliances such as water heaters or freezers for short periods in order to manage demand.

“Having your fridge off for half an hour would not affect the contents and it would allow better use of energy at times when there is high demand,” said David Kennedy, chief executive of the CCC. “This is already quite common with fridges and air conditioning in places like Florida.”

The report calls on the Government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2030 with a package of measures including more than 12 million electric cars and vans, 25 renewable energy power stations and buses that run on hydrogen.

It said smart meters “together with time of day pricing would allow charging of electrical vehicle batteries when there is spare capacity in the system”. It adds they would allow “remote or automated control of energy usage by suppliers and consumers.”

Although time-of-use pricing has been widely anticipated in the energy industry, its inclusion in the CCC carbon budget means ministers will now decide whether it should become the norm for millions British households.

Ministers will decide early next year whether to implement the report’s recommendations, but the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has already specified that smart meters should have the technological capability to allow time-of-use pricing.

Charles Hendry MP Minister of State for Energy, last week signalled the final smart meter would be installed earlier than the original 2020 target.

British Gas says it hopes to offer time of day pricing as soon as technology allows but this is “not imminent”.

Darren Braham, chief financial officer at First Utility, a smaller supplier that has pioneered the use of smart meters, said it was already trialling a three-price tariff and plans to offer hourly pricing “but not until about 2013 or probably 2014″.

He said: “Existing night-time tariffs such as Economy 7 aren’t enough to change consumer behaviour”.

The Coalition has pledged to be the “greenest government ever” and will this week announce a consultation on further incentives for low-carbon energy such as nuclear or renewable power plants.

More than one in five households would adopt time-of-use pricing, according to DECC estimates. It predicts average bills across all homes falling by an estimated three per cent as suppliers pass on nationwide efficiency savings, but admits some users may end up paying more.

David Hunter, an analyst at M&C Energy Group, said: “There will always be a rump of consumers who want to stay on a flat rate and they are likely to find themselves paying more to do so.”

Zoe McLeod, energy expert at Consumer Focus, said: “Suppliers say time-of-use tariffs will mean consumers benefit from cheap off-peak energy. However, we are worried that people whose circumstances mean they cannot change when they use energy, for example working families, may end up losing out.

“Energy pricing is confusing enough and new time-of-use tariffs could make it even harder for people to understand their bill. We would like to see a guarantee that nobody will end up paying more than if they had stayed on their original tariff.”

More than one in 10 households already get night-time discounts such as ‘Economy 7′ but they need a special meter that switches between only two different rates whereas smart meters could vary prices by the hour.

Dr Sarah Darby, of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University, said: “For too long we have been looking at the supply side to solve our energy problems rather than making changes to the demand side.

“By implementing these measures we can reach carbon targets without having to generate as much power.”

Ahmad Faruqui, principal at San Francisco-based consultants Brattle Group, said: “At the moment in Britain most people pay a flat rate but that will need to change in order to provide a real incentive to use energy at different times. There won’t be much benefit overall unless it hurts a bit for some.

“Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Some people who don’t want to change will complaint that they end up paying more, but at the moment those people are being subsidised by those who use less energy or at times of low demand.”

He added: “Dynamic pricing will come to Britain eventually. I wouldn’t say it is inevitable because the liberalised energy market in the UK means suppliers would be the ones charging the new tariffs and could face a backlash so there would need to be a long period of consumer education.”

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

How China Views Climate Change Issues & Opportunities

It is imperative to understand the Chinese perspective on climate change, especially as China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. While there has been discussion about US climate change policy, less attention has focused on how and why China views the problems of global warming differently from the West. Julian Hunt writes on that things are happening in China. The authorities are already encouraging industries to reduce emissions by using carbon trading at five regional centres and Beijing is also considering a mandatory carbon trading scheme.

By Julian Hunt in The Straits Times (10 December 2010:

THE Cancun climate change conference, which ends today, is taking place in the context of the summer’s extraordinary floods in Asia and record high average temperatures around the whole world (with drought in parts of Asia and southern Africa). Moreover, with the snows melting last year on the Andes, as on high mountains everywhere, the Amazon had record high and record low levels.

While the ‘urgency to act’ is thus growing, the prospects of a comprehensive global deal on climate change remain slim. The central problem is that there is uneven elite and popular support for the United Nations’ objective of achieving within the next 20 to 30 years the necessary reductions in overall emissions of greenhouse gases.

At the Cancun preparatory meeting in Tianjin in October, little progress was made amid widely reported public disagreements between the United States and China. While Washington accused Beijing of reneging on its commitments to transparency under last year’s Copenhagen Accord, China asserted that the US was not reducing its greenhouse gases.

Some news reports have suggested the US and China have narrowed their differences at Cancun, though Chinese officials say China’s emissions should remain free of binding limits. A significant US-China rapprochement on this and other issues will probably not be enough to secure a comprehensive deal at Cancun, but it will increase the prospects for a new agreement next year and beyond. What are the chances of the US and China moving closer in the months to come?

To answer this question, it is imperative to understand the Chinese perspective on climate change, especially as China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. While there has been discussion about US climate change policy, less attention has focused on how and why China views the problems of global warming differently from the West.

For instance, in discussions in the West over how to avoid dangerous climate change, two numbers are especially prominent: 450 parts per million (ppm) and 2 deg C. These are, respectively, the upper ‘safe’ concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and the upper ‘safe’ limit of average global temperature increase. The fear is that if we exceed either, the climate will pass an irreversible tipping point.

In my visits to China, I have heard some very different numbers. China is committed to political stability, which depends on economic growth. Over the next 40 years, its gross domestic product (GDP) will increase by a factor of six. The driving force of this growth will be fossil fuels, in particular coal.

China’s policy is to increase the output of its coal-fired electricity generation while improving efficiency. This is its only significant target in relation to climate change. It is not committed to limiting emissions so as not to exceed any particular target for global CO2 concentration.

This is not to say, however, that China does not regard climate change seriously. Legislation will soon also be introduced to make compulsory the reductions in emissions per unit of energy by up to 40 per cent and to expand low carbon supplies by up to 15 per cent of the total, including solar, wind, hydro and nuclear fission. The authorities are already encouraging industries to reduce emissions by using carbon trading at five regional centres. Beijing is also considering a mandatory carbon trading scheme.

Despite these efforts, the country’s booming overall emissions will contribute significantly to atmospheric CO2. The Beijing Climate Centre estimated last year that by 2050, total Chinese greenhouse gas emissions might be more than double what they are now.

Climate models indicate that this continued growth in emissions will lead to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas equivalent to about 600ppm and global land temperatures in excess of 3 to 4 deg C by 2100. These are staggering numbers. The key question now is whether the rest of the world can do anything to avoid the risk of dangerous climate change that these numbers imply?

I believe there are reasons to be hopeful. The main way that China can limit its emissions will be to improve the efficiency of its coal-fired power stations, adopt carbon capture and storage, and expand nuclear energy. Developed countries can facilitate this transition by providing it with substantial technological assistance.

But first, the Western nations must commit to making deep cuts in their own emissions – in the order of at least 80 per cent – before 2050, conditional on China doing so after 2050.

As ambitious as it may seem, an international agreement along these lines next year or beyond is a credible goal for two reasons: first, because China has a long-term financial interest in collaborating with the West; and second, because China has a good track record in delivering on advanced technology projects and sticking to international agreements.

For those of us who believe that global warming is the greatest danger to humanity in the 21st century, it is to be hoped that all countries will show the ambition and imagination needed to move nearer towards a comprehensive deal. With the urgency to act growing, we simply cannot afford to see the shambles of Copenhagen repeated in Cancun and beyond.

The writer, Julian Hunt, is a member of Britain’s House of Lords, a visiting professor at Delft University and former director-general of Britain’s Met Office, the country’s national weather service.

Source: www.admpreview.straitstimes.com

Get Smart in Cities To Make Planet a Better Place

IBM is helping cities worldwide get “smarter” about using resources in ways that are good for the Earth as well as local budgets. The coastal Texas town of Corpus Christi has joined cities such as London, Sydney, Stockholm, and Amsterdam in using Internet Age tools to better manage water, trash, parks and more.”We want to use information to make the planet a better place,” said Guruduth Banavar, chief technology officer of global public sector efforts at IBM.” We can start solving these problems on the city level, then start connecting cities and scale out across the whole planet.”

Glenn Chapman in The Age (13 December 2010):

IBM is helping cities worldwide get “smarter” about using resources in ways that are good for the Earth as well as local budgets.

IBM announced that the coastal Texas town of Corpus Christi has joined cities such as London, Sydney, Stockholm, and Amsterdam in using Internet Age tools to better manage water, trash, parks and more.

“Look at the way the planet is evolving in terms of demographics and environmental considerations,” said Guruduth Banavar, chief technology officer of global public sector efforts at IBM.

“It is pretty easy to see that we need to do some things dramatically differently.”

Urbanization and climbing population are putting stress on the environment, and problems are exacerbated by inefficient uses of energy, water and land.

Technology can glean information about pipes, streets, parks, traffic and other once “dumb” parts of cities to effectively target solutions and, in some cases, fix things before they break, according to Banavar.

“There is a lot of information available to us through technology that is not being put to use very well,” he said.

New York State based IBM and rivals such as Siemens in Germany and Cisco in California are providing systems that collect, share, analyze and act on data from historically “dumb” things in communities.

Banavar used the example of Corpus Christi, which went from tracking city work crews and projects on paper and index cards to getting real-time feedback and analytics regarding roads, buildings and more electronically.

“Now, they have information to say why problems occur, where they are and what can be done to prevent them,” Banavar said. “At the end of the day, it is all about managing information to improve operations.”

IBM software is being used in Corpus Christi to manage wastewater treatment plants, reservoirs, approximately 1,250 miles (2,012 kilometers) of wastewater mains and a water treatment plant that can hold 170 million gallons (643,520 cubic meters).

The system is relied on to provide water to the city’s more than 280,000 residents.

Tracking of water pipe repairs revealed that nearly a third of the problems were at 1.4 percent of the sites served. Plans were put in place to fix underlying problems and cut ongoing repair costs.

Data analysis also showed that small pipes accounted for a disproportionate number of water main breaks, prompting a switch to larger pipes to avoid future troubles.

Skills of repair crew members are automatically factored into scheduling jobs.

“You can improve efficiencies maybe two-fold,” Banavar said. “When problems persist, you can dig deeper to find out underlying causes and apply predictive maintenance.”

Corpus Christi is going to use sensors in its trash collection program to improve recycling and handling of waste.

“We want to use information to make the planet a better place,” Banavar said. “We can start solving these problems on the city level, then start connecting cities and scale out across the whole planet.”

Cities can have a more selfish motivation in that better using resources means doing more with tight budgets.

“Corpus Christi is evolving into a more sustainable city,” said city administrative superintendent Steve Klepper.

“We have the real-time status of city services, automated work orders and an overview of city’s infrastructure to better manage our resources, as well as better maintain the city’s mission-critical assets.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Green Buildings Essential in National “Our Cities” Plan

The Green Building Council of Australia, together with a list of influential industry groups, corporations and academic institutions, is calling for a bi-partisan approach to urban policy across all tiers of government. It supports the Australian Government “Our Cities” plan to build a productive, sustainable and liveable future as the basis for a national urban policy. This is an important step towards an integrated, co-ordinated and nationally-consistent approach to urban policy.”

In Architecture & Design (13 December 2010)

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), together with a list of influential industry groups, corporations and academic institutions, has published an open letter in The Australian, calling for a bi-partisan approach to urban policy across all tiers of government.

The signatories to the letter, which include the Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia, the Planning Institute of Australia, and the Property Council of Australia – all partners in Built Environment Meets Parliament (BEMP) – have called for a new discussion around how we achieve liveable, sustainable cities.

According to the GBCA’s chief executive Romilly Madew Australia’s cities are confronted by significant long-term challenges.

“Population growth, transport congestion and housing affordability – three issues affecting everyday Australians – will be felt most severely in our major cities, which will accommodate around 85 per cent of our 36 million plus population by 2050. These challenges will only be addressed successfully through a nationally consistent approach.

“We have made this statement to stimulate further public conversation around the future of Australia’s cities. It’s important that we avoid polarising discussion about the future of our cities into a debate about whether we go ‘up’ or ‘out’ – in other words arguing about the merits of urban infill versus greenfield development,” says Ms Madew, who is also Chair of the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council’s Cities Taskgroup.

“Just last week, the Australian Government released the Our Cities – building a productive, sustainable and liveable future discussion paper to frame the policy approach to cities as the basis for a national urban policy. This is an important step towards an integrated, co-ordinated and nationally-consistent approach to urban policy.”

The GBCA is currently leading the Green Star Communities project, which aims to drive sustainable development at the community scale. The Green Star Communities rating tool is being shaped around five national best practice principles of liveability, economic prosperity, environmental responsibility, design leadership and governance.

“We want to ensure that the long-term strategic vision for Australia’s cities does not become politicised. It is critical that federal, state and local governments work together to deliver a national approach to planning and developing our cities. Australians deserve no less.”

Together with the Green Building Council of Australia, the signatories include: the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects; Council of Capital City Lord Mayors; the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC); Woodhead; Woods Bagot; The University of South Australia; University of Melbourne; QUT; RMIT; University of Tasmania; Timothy Horton, South Australian Commissioner for Integrated Design; Professor Richard Weller from the University of Western Australia; Emeritus Professor Catherin Bull AM; Adjunct Professor John Stanley from the University of Sydney’s Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies; Professor Mike Young, Executive Director, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide; Dr Sam Ridgway, Acting Head, School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture & Urban Design; The University of Adelaide; Urban Design Forum; University of Technology Sydney; Landscape Architects Australia and Architecture Australia.

Source: www.architectureanddesign.com.au

Guests Contribute to Award Winning Banyan Tree Funds

Recently named overall winner among large hotel chains in the “Doing It All” category at the Conde Nast Traveller World Savers Awards, Singapore headquartered hotel and resort company Banyan Tree encourages its customers to contribute to a fund it started in 2001 to support environmental and community projects. Banyan Tree and Angsana resorts match donations dollar for dollar.

Straits Times (11 December 2010):

Every dollar counts, so home-grown Singapore headquartered hotel and resort company Banyan Tree gets its customers to help out too.

For instance, its guests staying at its Banyan Tree and Angsana brand resorts can opt to contribute US$2 (S$2.60) and US$1 per night respectively to a fund it started in 2001 to support environmental and community projects.

It matches guest donations dollar-for-dollar.

The group, which operates hotels and resorts in 13 countries, was recently named overall winner among large hotel chains in the Doing It All category at the Conde Nast Traveller World Savers Awards.

They recognise achievements in five areas: education, environmental and/or cultural preservation, health, poverty relief and wildlife conservation.

Conde Nast Traveller is a travel magazine in the United States.

Projects that Banyan Tree is carrying out include planting 2,000 trees at each resort location yearly from 2007 to 2016; a scheme which provides mentorship, scholarships and internships to young people aged 12 to 18; and one to reduce energy and water consumption and waste production.

Its group director of corporate social responsibility operations, Mr David Campion, said conservation helps to keep its sites sustainable for tourism – which also helps its bottom line.

For example, in Bintan, about a one-hour ferry ride from Singapore, Banyan Tree has a conservation laboratory which has worked with environmental experts, including some from the National University of Singapore, to study the ecosystem in the area.

‘The idea is that they come in to explain to us what we have, how we can help, and the team supports it,’ said Mr Cameron.

The lab also offers free talks to resort guests – about 70 per cent of whom are Singaporeans.

They learn that there are 80 bird species, of which 15 are protected types, at the 200ha Laguna Bintan where Banyan Tree Bintan and other developments are located.

In 2007, a project was started to locate turtle eggs and keep them safe from predators and poachers.

Last month, 44 hawksbill turtle hatchlings were released into the sea.

The company has also worked with educational institutions, such as Pasir Ris Secondary School and Singapore Polytechnic, to arrange for them to visit schools and villages in Bintan.

Source: www.admpreview.straitstimes.com

Shipping Industry Slowly Facing Up to its Carbon Emissions

The shipping industry carries about 90% of global trade, at rates of efficiency which are already far higher than most ground and air transport, but it is also less visible to the public than the airline and smokestack industries, making it less exposed to calls for regulation. But its emissions equates to 3.9% of the global output of CO2 – or higher than the carbon footprint of the aviation industry. A Singapore company EcoSpec has come up with a solution to reduce emissions at sea.

New York Times and Straits Times (7 December 2010):

In an era when industries are competing to shrink their carbon footprint, the shipping industry has charted a slower course.

The industry carries about 90 per cent of global trade, at rates of efficiency which are already far higher than most ground and air transport, but it is also less visible to the public than the airline and smokestack industries, making it less exposed to calls for regulation.

Yet as global trade has expanded, emissions from shipping have soared in the past three decades, and that is piling the pressure on the industry to make improvements and start compensating for its annual emissions, which the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has said may be as much as 1.26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2).

That equates to 3.9 per cent of the global output of CO2 – or higher than the carbon footprint of the aviation industry.

The IMO, a United Nations agency which sets rules for the maritime industry, has publicised a much lower figure of 2.7 per cent.

But that leaves out shipping along national coastlines and a margin of error of as much as 20 per cent in its calculations.

At the start of this year, European Union commissioner for climate action Connie Hedegaard warned the 169 member countries of the IMO that they would have to ‘speed up’ to tackle their carbon footprint.

She pledged to impose regulations – possibly in the form of a trading system or a mandatory carbon levy – if the industry failed to come up with a plan to reduce its emissions by the end of next year.

Last month, a group convened by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon concluded that a levy on shipping should be one of the sources for a fund worth US$100 billion (S$130 billion) for developing nations to tackle climate change.

Sensing an increased threat of regulation, the IMO said last month it still deserved to be trusted with setting rules on the shipping industry’s environmental footprint.

One initiative which could hasten the tightening of rules in the industry is a website created by the Carbon War Room, a private group backed by Virgin Group founder Richard Branson.

The site, shippingefficiency.org, was to be inaugurated yesterday at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, and will provide efficiency details on about 60,000 vessels, including most of the world’s container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, cruise ships and ferries.

Exporters and importers, as well as holidaymakers on cruises, will be able to choose between clean and dirty ships with the site, as it gives ships a rating from A to G, in a similar fashion to fridges or washing machines.

It will also allow supermarkets, oil and mining companies, food importers, retailers and manufacturers to specify that their goods are sent from places like China or Australia only by ships which pollute the least, reported Britain’s The Guardian newspaper on Sunday.

The ratings could eventually appear on the bows of ships, if their operators choose to display them.

The site will aim to change the way that manufacturers, retailers and liner companies choose their ships.

The goal, said Mr Branson, is to help ‘the key players in the industry and their customers make better decisions for their businesses and the planet’.

Mr Branson’s spokesman Nick Fox said the Carbon War Room was also pushing for airlines, including those owned by the Virgin Group, to improve their environmental profile.

That project could eventually include a ‘plane index’ to compare the environmental footprint of commercial aircraft, according to other officials who work with Mr Branson.

Maersk, a Danish company operating about 500 container ships around the globe, said it was working with the website to help publicise what it said were its above-average environmental standards.

Mr Peter Boyd, chief operations officer of the Carbon War Room, said naming and shaming existing vessels could help solve the problem of ‘innovative shipowners finding it hard to signal they are cleaner than the rest’.

Even so, enhancing transparency is only part of the solution, he said.

‘The industry must solve the capital gap,’ he added. ‘Many shipowners will need finance to make the necessary improvements.’

‘The industry must solve the capital gap. Many shipowners will need finance to make the necessary improvements.’

Source: www.admpreview.straitstimes.com

Singapore company:

ECOSPEC Global Technology Pte Ltd is an enterprising Singapore-based research and development technological company that offers solutions to better the environment. Founded in 2001, Ecospec has since established itself as a market leader in advance emission reduction and environmental technologies with an international presence and numerous technology patents to its name.

In 2009, Ecospec introduced CSNOx, the world’s first 3-in-1 emission abatement system. CSNOx is currently the only commercially viable solution that is capable of effectively reducing harmful pollutants like sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) from vessel emissions.

More impressively, the system has achieved unparalleled removal rates of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from exhausts. Such removal rates are unrivalled by CO₂ reduced through application of energy efficient measures. 

All three gases are removed in a single process, in a single system, without any chemicals. CSNOx uses Ecospec’s proprietary Ultra-Low Frequency waves to treat seawater, freshwater or brackish water. The treated water becomes highly reactive in removing CO₂, SO₂ and NO_x.

The resultant wash water also meets and surpasses IMO standards for discharge water, and CSNOx enables vessels to meet ECA 0.1% sulphur fuel regulations and the strictest IMO NO_x Tier 3 engine requirements without engine change or distillate use. 

Ecospec has gained world recognition and awards for its pioneering CSNOx technology. These include the prestigious “Technology of the Year” global award at the Green Ship Technology Conference 2010 in Copenhagen, and the “Environment Protection Award” at the Seatrade Asia Awards 2009 for its excellence and innovation in the Asian region. 

Despite the accolades, Ecospec has not rested on its laurels but push forth to continually develop and introduce new products to the market, reinforcing its status as a research and development company that consistently presents groundbreaking green solutions for environmental problems.

Wärtsilä, a global leader in complete lifecycle power solutions for the marine and energy markets, and Ecospec Global Technology, owner of the revolutionary CSNOx emissions abatement technology, recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work together towards the common goal of improving the environment by providing the world with clean power solutions.

By combining the joint expertise of Wärtsilä and Ecospec, the carbon footprint of both marine and onshore heavy industries can be significantly reduced through the development of clean power solutions. The aim is to achieve the lowest possible CO2 emissions, near zero SOx emissions – even when using heavy residual fuel, and to attain the capability to meet future NOx emission requirements.

Under the MOU, Wärtsilä is responsible for integrating the CSNOx system into various engine applications. This includes the engineering, installation, supervision, project management, and commissioning of the system for both newbuildings and retrofits.

Ecospec, as the supplier of the CSNOx system, would be responsible for supplying the key components of the system.

 “It is Wärtsilä’s long-established strategy to assist its customers, not only in meeting current environmental legislation requirements, but to be pro-active in providing solutions that go well beyond these minimum standards. Emissions control is an area that is developing very rapidly, and this co-operation with Ecospec will help us to continue our leading role in this field. Without any question it will support our position as a total solutions provider to our customers,” says Juha Kytölä, Vice President, Product Centre Ecotech of Wärtsilä.

Tany Tay, General Manager of Ecospec, commented: “Ecospec has always been on the lookout for suitable organisations with whom we could develop strategic alliances for the various technologies we have developed. This is a fine example of optimizing the synergistic effects from two companies with the same goal of providing the world with a clean power solution.”

Source: www.ecospec.com

Last Word: Renewable Energy Resources for Sustainable Development

 We are not really developing towards an energy conserving, energy efficient and sustainably developed world! Our understanding and efforts are half – hearted: there is a lack of scientific unity and creditability, and there is neither sufficient political will nor adequate public awareness or support for mass movement.

To succeed in sustainability requires the energy and the endurance to deal with “long emergencies” like climate change, ozone depletion, acid-rain, forest depletion, overpopulation, organizational stress and under-capacity. And the entire present effort is not rooted in a consistent and coherent larger framework, sometimes called the big picture.

A grim scenario, maybe, but Professor Jose Goldemberg from the board of Washington’s Sustainable Energy Institute says: “Only renewable energy resources can solve the problem of sustainable development”. This from Ecobusiness.com. Read More

From eco-business.com  (13 December 2010):

Professor Jose Goldemberg from the board of Washington’s Sustainable Energy Institute recently responded to an Eco-Business reader’s sustainability question as part of a joint question and answer initiative with the Global Energy Prize.

Question: Overcoming current failing systems

We are not really developing towards an energy conserving, energy efficient and sustainably developed world! Our understanding and efforts are half – hearted: there is a lack of scientific unity and creditability, and there is neither sufficient political will nor adequate public awareness or support for mass movement.

To succeed in sustainability requires the energy and the endurance to deal with “long emergencies” like climate change, ozone depletion, acid-rain, forest depletion, overpopulation, organizational stress and under-capacity. And the entire present effort is not rooted in a consistent and coherent larger framework, sometimes called the big picture.

Renewable energy is the sector that gets the most attention when we talk about a sustainable economy, but it is not the only one which is likely to grow. Civil engineering, conservation and efficiency technologies, mass transit and the manufacturing technologies that support it, local agriculture, design and manufacturing for durability, and distributed health care services are a few of the sectors that could show dramatic job growth in a sustainable economy.

A sustainable, non-material-intensive, non-energy-intensive economy is a radically different model than we have, or that many of us can imagine. It would mean the loss of vast numbers of jobs, in trucking, mining, highway construction, and others that sustain the current model. For people to accept this, much less welcome it, they would have to first see offsetting the losses and increase in jobs that provide equal or better real incomes.

In other words, the positive vision and the business opportunities that a sustainable economy offers are very real, but it will be much harder to achieve and cause much more disruption by self-interest groups than most of its advocates may realize … unless organized by a pragmatic and wise scientific and political leadership!

Under the present scenario that sustains the current model of non-sustainable development and economy, how do you switch over to real sustainable development guided by balanced growth and clear vision … and what is the practical way towards the dream of energy and food security, and sustainable development and growth?

The present energy system is heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). Approximately 80% of the energy in use today comes from these sources. This is why this system is not sustainable and cannot last. Fossil fuel reserves are finite and will not last more than one generation.

They are the main source of pollutants today and some of them, oil for example, come from politically unstable regions such as the Middle East.

One can improve the efficiency of the use of fossil fuels, and this will extend the life of present reserves. However, there are limits to that strategy. Even so the energy consumption in the OECD countries would be 50% higher than it is today if serious energy efficiency measures had not been introduced since 1973.

Only renewable energy resources can solve the problem of sustainable development.

José Goldemberg, a professor of physical sciences at the University of Sao Pãulo, sits on the board of Washington’s Sustainable Energy Institute. In 2007 he was named by TIME magazine as one of its Heroes of the Environment for his pioneering work in discovering the biofuel potential in sugarcane, now a major source of energy in Brazil and the rest of the world.

About the Global Energy Prize

The Global Energy Prize was established in 2002 by a group of Russian scientists, with the support of major energy corporations. This international award is granted for outstanding scientific achievements in the field of energy which have proved of benefit to the entire human race. Since its inception, the award has been granted to 22 scientists from Great Britain, Iceland, Canada, Russia, the USA, Ukraine, France, Germany and Japan. Awarded annually, the prize fund amounts to 30 million roubles (approximately $1m USD) and is divided among the Laureates. The President of the Russian Federation participates in the awards ceremony held in St Petersburg each year, which is accompanied by a Laureates’ Week celebrating the work of the winning scientists.

Source: www.eco-business.com

Cool Heads Needed in Cancun

While Europe goes into gridlock with more snow and ice than it can cope with, Government and business leaders from the world over meet in the more tropical clime of Cancun, Mexico to battle over words and deeds to achieve an outcome of sorts to put us all on a more manageable planetary path in the face of an overheating earth. Whether we needed reminding or not – and Europeans certainly don’t – that this year will go down as one of the earth’s hottest ever, the news this week has a bias towards Cancun and climate change action. We hear from impatient business leaders at home and aboard – like Graeme Wood and Yvo de Boer – that we expect more action and less talk from our political masters. We also get the message from Singapore economist Euston Quah that taxing carbon could be the best course of action. South Korea’s leadership to green its economy might get overtaken by China, while Singapore gets a $2.5 billion dollar investment in solar panel manufacturing and Michael Richardson gives us a global view of the solar industry. Now there’s a bright idea? The UN is urging all countries to adopt energy efficient light bulbs as a means to change behaviour and cut fossil fuel usage. Jet bio fuels get a regular flight test with Lufthansa and Mercedes plants a seed to make a concept car. Japan shows that electric cars will hurt some in the motor industry and we learn that volcanic eruptions can impact on monsoons and rainfall. Check out Newsweek for its women and leadership issue, and a thoughtful article by Sharon Begley to help solve a climate whodunit. After his whirlwind tour of Australia and Singapore, Dr Martin Blake is safely back in the snow of Scotland. We’ll hear more from him and his Carbon Zero Solutions next issue. Keep a cool head and a warm body! – Ken Hickson

Cancun or can-can for climate change?

After week one of the Cancun global climate change talks in Mexico, four of the so-called six-pack of agreements appear within reach – financing, adaptation, forests, and technology – although there are still hurdles to overcome, such as whether a green fund should be managed by the UN or an outside body, reports Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator. Meanwhile, there’s a strong chance hundreds of carbon inspectors will be appointed to check countries’ claims about their greenhouse gas emissions.

Giles Parkinson for Climate Spectator (3 December 2010):

No matter where you go, you just can’t get away from the j-curve. Seasoned veterans of UN climate change talks say the first week of negotiations always represents the down curve, the challenge is to get it moving back up and beyond in the second week.

Having looked at the progress of climate change negotiations since the Kyoto Protocol was first struck in 1995, it’s hard to see many Js. More like a series of Ws. In Copenhagen they achieved a Y. Or was it a Z?

If they finish with another Z in Cancun, then the indiscreet comments uttered by an advisor to the Environment Minister of South Africa, the hosts of the next COP in Durban, might just be on the button: “The COP is considered to be as much about tourism as anything else,” he told a parliamentary committee last month.

Mexico and the UN have sought to manage expectations by not having many. Officially, and we hear this everywhere, Cancun is about creating a “balanced package” – agreement on as many of the six key issues of these talks as they can possibly muster.

Basically it’s about keeping the process alive enough to retain hope that an outcome might one day be concluded. An EU official put it more prosaically today: “It is about making a decision to start a process.” And this is as far as we have got in 15 years.

The optimistic view is that after the frustration of Copenhagen, Cancun represents a unique opportunity to push the process forward. But it is the realisation that it may be the last opportunity – a prospect rammed home by an indelicate Japan earlier this week – that is providing impetus to these talks.

Still, after a relatively uneventful first week – Mexico has been careful to avoid the we-know-best negotiating style of the Danes – it is unclear what sort of agreement will emerge. The environmental NGOs, who watch these negotiations like hawks, as do the various business lobby groups, are optimistic.

“Most Government’s have come to Cancun with a spirit of cooperation and have largely avoided fog horn diplomacy,” says Erwin Jackson, the deputy CEO of The Climate Institute.

“Solid progress has been made on issues that lack political sting. As we move into the weekend it will be up to Minister Combet and other political leaders to build on the progress made and deliver a solid package of decisions that build further momentum to limit pollution and accelerating climate change.”

Four of the so-called six-pack of agreements appear within reach – financing, adaptation, forests, and technology – although there are still hurdles to overcome, such as whether a green fund should be managed by the UN or an outside body. The two most difficult – mitigation (effectively locking in the pledges made since Copenhagen) and transparency – remain a challenge. The head of one of the key working groups told NGOs today that there remained “a big gap” on mitigation.

And therein lies the problem; the developed economies won’t agree to adaptation, forests and technology, unless one or both of the latter two are agreed to by developing economies. China won’t agree to anything unless it gets technology. The US appears to believe that it is all or nothing.

Did somebody say warming?

These talks are, it should be remembered, supposed to be responding to the science, which says that the best chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change is to limit average temperature rises to 2°C. Island states and other vulnerable nations want it capped at 1.5°C.

The World Meteorological Organisation today said 2010 is, so far, the hottest year on record, and may remain so by year end – despite the arrival of a strong La Nina (cooling) effect in mid-November.

WMO secretary general Michele Jarraud said it was certain that 2010 would be among the three hottest since instrumental climate records began in 1850, along with 1998 and 2005, although he said the differences between these three were negligible – a variation of plus 0.55°C for 2010 to date, plus 0.53°C for 1998 and plus 0.52°C for 2005.

Jarraud said the only sub region which is recording a negative anomaly this year is northern Australia, and he said Europe is still warmer than the long-term average despite the cold weather of the past two winters. Indeed, while the there had been significant warming over the Arctic (it experienced its third lowest sea ice levels), Greenland and Canada, as well as the northern part of Europe.

He noted the number of extreme weather events across the globe, such as the heat in Moscow (the mean temperature in July was 7.6°C above normal), flooding in Pakistan (caused by the same weather system), record rains in parts of Australia, flooding in African countries such as Benin and Niger (“where you would not expect flooding”), and droughts in parts of the Amazon.

“The long-term trend is of very significant warming. I guess that’s why we are in Cancun to address that.”

Acid test

The UN Environment Program meanwhile said the future impact of rising emissions on the health of seas and oceans may be far more wide-ranging and complex than was previously supposed. UNEP said ocean acidification, the process triggered by increasing concentrations of dissolved C02 which is changing the sea’s chemistry by lowering the pH of the marine environment, may make it increasingly difficult for corals and shellfish to survive, let lone thrive, and reduce the habitats for other animals such as crabs.

This would have a knock-on effect on commercial catches of crabs, mussels and other shellfish; species dependent on coral reefs and those such as salmon that feed on smaller, shell-building organisms lower down the food chain, and then have an impact on the food chain upon which billions of people depend directly or indirectly.

“Ocean acidification is yet another red flag being raised, carrying planetary health warnings about the uncontrolled growth in greenhouse gas emissions,” said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General.  “It is a new and emerging piece in the scientific jigsaw puzzle, but one that is triggering rising concern”.

Cutting to the chase

Which brings us back to the difference between what’s on the table in Cancun, and what’s required to address the science. The UN today reinforced the findings of its study which showed the world needed to cut around 12 gigatonnes of emissions from the business as usual scenario.

About 3 gigatonnes are accounted for under the Copenhagen Accord, but another 4 gigatonnes could be cut if countries presented more ambitious targets, and adopted rules the avoided a net increase in emissions from either lenient accounting of land use, land use change and forestry activities (where Australia is in the firing line), and surplus emission units. Even this would leave the gap short by 5 gigatonnes.

This was the focus of the press conference today from the EU, which says it is on target to exceed its Kyoto commitments, but was concerned about who would take the lead to drive more ambitious targets.

“It is the responsibility of developed countries to take the lead,” EU negotiator Peter Whittoeck said.  “A bigger effort is lying ahead of us. They can only be met by completing a transition to a low carbon economy. At Cancun we need to provide a formal basis for the accord … so that we can ratchet them up to bring 2°C within reach.”

Fossil of the Day

The Fossil of the Day awards have been a fun part of UN climate talks over the past few years, and a neat way for the environmental watchdog groups to call out some less than green behaviour from the 194 participating countries.

Australia’s flag was pinned to the award on Wednesday, sharing second place with 12 other countries, including Norway and New Zealand, for trying to preserve the mass of “hot air” generated by surplus credits that were created by a huge mistake in the estimate of business-as-usual scenarios for emissions in Ukraine and Russia.

The group of 13 want these credits to be carried over the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol. The EU says such actions will pretty much undermine most of the 20 per cent emission reductions it says it is one track to achieve by 2012.

The Climate Action Network, which hosts the awards, said this issue had been addressed in Australia’s own draft emissions trading scheme, ”so it is surprising that they are not working constructively to find a way to ensure that those who have deepened their emissions reductions can be rewarded for doing so in a way that does not compromise the environmental integrity of future commitments.”

First prize went to Saudi Arabia, Norway, Kuwait, Algeria, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the newly appointed COP18 and World Cup 2022 host Qatar, for continuing to block progress in negotiations by insisting on the “inappropriate” inclusion of carbon capture and storage in the Clean Development Mechanism, which is designed to foster emissions reduction projects in developing countries. The environmental NGO would much rather these investments go towards renewables, energy efficiency and the like.

Japan was the only winner from Day 2, for it’s threat to kill the Kyoto Protocol, which has alarmed many developing countries, even if most people think it is just bluster, and old bluster at that. Canada won 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places on the first day just for being Canada; and for recently killing a progressive climate change bill, cancelling support for clean energy and failing to have any plan to meet its emissions target.

Tips for weary conference-goers

The hosts have been charming, but the logistical challenges of Cancun – mostly transport and communication – are expected to be tested further in coming days with a new influx of people, ranging from ministers and about 30 heads of state and their entourages, media, late-running NGOs and a lobby of business types, descending for a series of business conferences.

Mobile phone coverage is patchy at best, and smart phones worse than useless. The local mobile network, TelCel, owned by the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, is doing brisk trade in cheap local phones. Wireless coverage is as highly valued as truffles, and the band-width is struggling to cope, with several blackouts over the last few days, some lasting a few hours. A tip for late arrivals: Bring a folding chair and a satellite phone, and one of each for me too, if you don’t mind.

Giles Parkinson is filing daily from COP16 in Cancun for the duration of the conference. To read the previous or next dispatch, go to the website.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

From eco-business.com & The Australian (3 December 2010):

Hundreds of carbon inspectors would be appointed to check countries’ claims about their greenhouse gas emissions.

This would be under a plan to prevent cheating and build confidence in national reduction targets.

The proposal is to be debated at the UN climate change conference at Cancun, Mexico, where suspicions about false claims on emissions and different reporting standards are undermining efforts to reach a global deal.

The inspectors would visit each country and hold hearings at which they would question officials about claims made in national reports on emissions.

But they are unlikely to have powers to carry out inspections of power stations and other large sources of emissions to verify claims about the type and quantity of fuel used.

The inspectors, including scientists and accountants, would be nominated by the countries involved in the negotiations and seconded to work for a subsidiary body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Jonathan Pershing, the US deputy special envoy for climate change, said a robust monitoring system was essential to build trust in any international agreement on cutting emissions.

It was important to understand what countries were doing, he said. “How can you create confidence in the process? The best way to do that is to have procedures in which that becomes transparent.”

The slow-moving negotiations in Cancun suffered a setback when Japan said it wanted to abandon the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. The protocol commits leading developed countries, with the exception of the US, to emission reduction targets. Kyoto is due to be reviewed in 2012, when countries are supposed to adopt more ambitious targets.

Friends of the Earth said Japan had thrown down an obstacle at Cancun, where the future of the protocol was part of a complex, interlinked haggle.

In an argument it has repeated for nearly a year, Japan said Kyoto’s targeted carbon constraints were unfair and ineffective in present arrangements for tackling global warming.

They applied only to rich countries, but not the US, which abandoned the treaty in 2001, nor to China, the world’s No 1 polluter, a developing country. As a result, only 30 per cent of planet-wide emissions of greenhouse gases were covered.

“With this position, Japan isolates itself from the rest of the world,” said Yuri Onodera of Friends of the Earth Japan.

Source: www.eco-business.com