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

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