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

Profile: Graeme Wood

Businessman Graeme Wood, who committed millions of his own money to the Global Change Institute and the Beyond Zero Emissions plan for 100% renewable energy by 2020, has condemned Australia’s failure to act on climate change, criticising ”scared” politicians for a lack of leadership. His comments come as the government is sticking to its target of a minimum 5% reduction in emissions by 2020, unless international agreement emerges from climate talks under way in Cancun, Mexico.

Paddy Manning

December 4, 2010 in the Sydney Morning Herald

THE businessman Graeme Wood has condemned Australia’s failure to act on climate change, criticising ”scared” politicians for a lack of leadership.

Mr Wood, one of Australia’s most successful entrepreneurs whose wealth the BRW Rich List estimates at more than $372 million, is a co-founder of Wotif.com.

He said the former prime minister Kevin Rudd was right when he called climate change ”the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation”.

”I see climate change as exactly what Kevin Rudd said it was, and see nothing happening about it. The system is in gridlock.”

Privately, Mr Wood was the biggest donor to the advocacy group Beyond Zero Emissions, which has published a costed plan to shift Australia to a 100 per cent renewable energy supply within a decade.

”It’s the only clear plan that’s been put out as an alternative to fossil fuels, which challenges all the accepted wisdom about the rate at which we could go to renewables,” Mr Wood said.

A well-known philanthropist, Mr Wood has committed another $300,000 to follow up work by Beyond Zero, including plans on land-use change and transport, and hopes to obtain more donations.

Mr Wood’s comments come as the government is sticking to its target of a minimum 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, unless international agreement emerges from climate talks sponsored by the United Nations and under way in Cancun, Mexico.

”Our two major political parties are between them the worst combination to get things going,” he said. ”You’ve got Tony Abbott and his neanderthals and Martin Ferguson still stuck in last century.

”Our politicians are scared of everything. We don’t elect them to be scared, we elect them to lead. They are like rabbits. As soon as somebody doesn’t like something, they jump back down their holes and disappear.”

Source: www.smh.com.au

We make no excuse for bringing back Graeme Wood in profile, as he is one of the true business leaders we admire, look up to and draw attention to. Not only for his success in business, which is truly mentionable, but for his usually quiet commitment to environment causes. When he does speak out, it makes so much sense and we hope more take notice. Here’s a little more about Graeme and his work, including an article from The Australian a few months’ ago, when Graeme committed A$15 million to the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. – Editor

Guy Healy in The Australian  (17 March 2010):

CORPORATIONS should consider investing in a new university think tank to preserve their profitability and avoid the fallout from global population increases, philanthropist Graeme Wood has warned.

“The problems confronting us collectively are very complex and big, and no one institution, no one university, no one department from any university can make any real impact on these on their own,” said Mr Wood, chief executive of Wotif and a University of Queensland alumnus. He said business should see new UQ think tank the Global Change Institute as an opportunity.

“If you want to make money out of changing the way the world works, come and work with the GCI,” Mr Wood said.

He made the comments after donating $15 million to kick-start the GCI, which is intended to focus the brainpower of 500 leading researchers on the most difficult problems facing the planet.

“We are going to add three billion people to the planet over the next 30 years, and we are already struggling in many parts of the world to supply food and resources to those people,” GCI director Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said. .

“We could ignore them and then have a crash somewhere down the line, but I don’t think that’s how we want to do things as a global society.” He said the GCI would tackle the problems of energy, clean coal, nuclear power and renewables.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Graeme Wood, Founder & Executive DWotif.com

 Graeme Wood revolutionised the travel industry when he created the concept for, and cofounded, Wotif.com in 2000. From his simple and innovative idea, Graeme pioneered the company’s development into what is now Wotif Group, which employs more than 450 people in offices spread across the globe.

One of Australia’s most successful and well-known online businesses, with Graeme and the company winning awards and accolades along the way, including:

                Highest citizenship honour, recognising individuals who have made a significant achievement in their chosen field and who have made a difference in their community.

                Winner of the “Most significant contribution by a large business or corporate” at the Vero Excellence in Business Support Awards 2007.

                Winner of the Inspiration iAward and the Tourism & Hospitality category AIIA iAwards 2006.

                National winner of the Technology, Communications, E-Commerce and Life Sciences category – 2005 Ernst and Young, Entrepreneur of the Year awards.

                Australian Institute of Management Medal for Management Innovation 2004 Management Excellence Awards.

                Overall Winner and Winner of Outstanding Achievement by an Organisation in the Services Sector – Premier of Queensland’s SMART Awards 2004.

In October 2007, Graeme retired from his role as CEO and Managing Director, but continues to play a key strategic role in the company as an Executive Director and also maintains a significant financial interest.

Graeme continues to pursue his interest in technology with his most recent venture being the popular Australian news search engine Wotnews.com.au.

As an environmental activist, in 2008 he launched the not-for-profit Wild Mob creating volunteering opportunities in wilderness conservation.

The philanthropic Graeme Wood Foundation supports the Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research at the University of Queensland and also supports programs developing the creative potential of young people in the performing arts.

Source: www.wotif.com

About Wild Mob

Wild Mob is a not-for-profit, non-political organisation launched in 2008 and is a registered Deductable Gift Recipient.

Founder and Chief Executive, Graeme Wood, is an Executive Director of the online accommodation website Wotif.com, which he co-founded in 2000. He supports philanthropic projects in the arts, education and the environment, and was announced the Suncorp Queenslander of the Year in June 2008.

What we do for Volunteers

Wild Mob projects provide a wilderness experience, meaningful conservation work and a practical learning environment. Projects are typically of one week duration (including travel time) for groups of up to ten people.

Educational input from local environmental researchers and Indigenous people are provided where possible. Volunteer groups are matched to projects based on age, skill level and physical capacity.

Projects are conducted on a cost-recovery basis for project management, transfers, food and accommodation. Schools with limited capacity to pay may be eligible for subsidies from Wild Mob or other sponsors.

Wild Mob offers conservation volunteer opportunities for people of all ages and nationalities. Here are some of our specialties:

• School Camps
• Volunteer Abroad Opportunities in Australia
• Gap Year Volunteering
• Grey Nomad and Senior Travel Volunteering Opportunities
• Corporate Groups

Check our project calendar to see upcoming projects

What we do for Natural Resource Managers

Wild Mob provides managed and self-sufficient volunteer groups. Each group has a team leader with
appropriate experience and qualifications in conservation, Occupational Health and Safety and First Aid.

Our goal is to minimise the need for involvement from resident rangers and property managers. Wild Mob works with both private and public natural resource managers. We do not charge any fee for our services but expect project materials to be supplied.

Source: www.wildmob.org

Global Temperatures: No Longer Cool to be Hot

Temperatures reached record levels in several regions during 2010, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says, confirming the year is likely to be among the warmest three on record, with parts of Russia, Greenland, Canada, China, North Africa and South Asia all saw the mercury soar to record levels. And a first-of-its-kind NASA study is finding nice cool lakes are heating up — even faster than air.

By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News (2 December 2010)

Temperatures reached record levels in several regions during 2010, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says, confirming the year is likely to be among the warmest three on record.

Parts of Russia, Greenland, Canada, China, North Africa and South Asia all saw the mercury soar to record levels.

The three main temperature records show 2010 as the warmest, or joint warmest, year in the instrumental record.

The UK Met Office suggests 2011 will be cooler, as La Nina conditions dominate.

This brings colder than average water to the top of the eastern Pacific Ocean, which lowers temperatures globally.

The two leading US analyses of global temperature show that up until the end of October, 2010 was the warmest year in the instrumental record going back to 1850.

The global average temperature was 0.58C above the average for 1961-90 according to Nasa, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) put the figure at 0.54 above.

The UK record, kept by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, has 2010 in joint first place with the El Nino-dominated year of 1998.

The Met Office released its own analysis last week.

But with La Nina conditions continuing, 2010 could slip back into second or third place by the time data for November and December is included, it says.

If La Nina continues into next year, as expected, that could make 2011 cooler than 2010 – though still well above the 1961-90 average.

The UK itself, meanwhile, is on course to see the coldest year since 1996, due to the state of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – a weather phenomenon that affects the distribution of heat within the northern hemisphere.

CRU’s Professor Phil Jones – one of the scientists at the centre of the “ClimateGate” issue earlier in the year – cautioned that annual temperatures were not a good indicator of the progression of global warming as driven by greenhouse gas emissions.

“Year-to-year variability is dominated by features such as the NAO and El Nino,” he told BBC News.

“But if you want to look at the underlying trend, you need to look at the decadal timescale, and that’s when you detect the anthropogenic influence.

“In terms of looking at recent years, 1998 was the most anomalous – the remaining top 10 warmest years in the series have all occurred since 2000.”

Cancun message

The WMO highlighted weather extremes in several parts of the world during 2010, which it says are consistent with the picture of man-made global warming.

In July, temperatures in Moscow soared 7.6C above normal, beating the previous record by 2C.

 Coral bleaching was observed in many parts of the tropics, similar to 1998

Some other parts of western Russia encountered summer temperatures 5C above normal.

Pakistan experienced the worst floods in its documented history, the WMO says, while parts of the Amazon saw a serious drought.

Canada as a whole experienced its warmest year in the instrumental record.

“Only limited land areas had below-normal temperatures in 2010,” the WMO concludes.

Professor James Crabbe from the UK’s University of Bedfordshire said high temperatures in the oceans had done severe damage to coral reefs.

“Coral bleaching has been observed in every ocean and major sea in which coral occurs, from the Persian Gulf to southeast Asia, the Central Pacific to the Caribbean – only the second time this has happened, the first being 1998,” he said.

“This has serious implications for the many populations – about one billion people – who live near coral reefs and rely on them for their livelihoods and nutrition.”

The WMO released the findings – as it always does – during the annual UN climate meeting, held this year in Cancun, Mexico.

Professor Mark Maslin, director of the Environment Institute at University College London, said negotiators should pay renewed attention to the data.

“Those who hoped that global warming would just go away will be disappointed by today’s announcements,” he said.

“It shows that the science underpinning the negotiations at Cancun is correct, and adds further weight to the need for a globally negotiated and accepted deal on carbon emissions.”

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

By AP / Seth Borenstein (23 November 2010):

A first-of-its-kind NASA study is finding nice cool lakes are heating up — even faster than air.

Two NASA scientists used satellite data to look at 104 large inland lakes around the world and found that on average they have warmed 2 degrees (1.1 degree Celsius) since 1985. That’s about two-and-a-half times the increase in global temperatures in the same time period. Russia’s Lake Ladoga and America’s Lake Tahoe are warming significantly and the most, said study co-author Simon Hook, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif. Tahoe has heated up by 3 degrees (1.7 degrees Celsius) since 1985, while Ladoga has been even hotter, going up by 4 degrees (2.2 degrees Celsius).

The study was published Wednesday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Hook and his colleague used several satellites and looked at thermal infrared images of the lakes in winter and summer. They also confirmed the numbers by comparing them to buoy data.

“It fits with what we see with air temperature measurements,” Hook said. “We were surprised that in some places the lakes appear to be warming more than the air temperature.”

The next question to look at is why the lakes seem to be warming faster than the air or land, Hook said. One reason could be the way lakes warm — in a more gradual manner than land but also slower to cool.

NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, who was not part of the study, said the research made sense and adds another independent measuring system to show that the world is warming up. Eleven different indicators — including air temperature, humidity, snow cover, ocean heat content — show statistically significant man-made global warming, while no environmental measurements show otherwise, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Warming lakes is No. 12 and “another brick in the wall,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

Overall, 41 lakes increased temperatures in a statistically significant way, with another 59 individually warming but not enough to be considered significant. Only four showed temperature drops, but not significantly, Hook said.

Source: www.time.com

From the sidelines: Business needs policy clarity

‘Businesses ultimately need governments to provide policy clarity and a policy framework. That’s the responsibility that governments need to take,’ says former global climate change supremo Yvo de Boer. Now in his work for KPMG he focuses on companies that are seeking to understand how the world is changing because of certain top concerns, including climate change, energy prices and security, and the scarcity of materials.

Jessica Cheam, Environment Correspondent in the Straits Times (28 November 2010):

For many years, he was at the forefront of United Nations-led climate negotiations, and one of the multilateral body’s most high- profile officials.

In his resolve to advance the talks, he took an outspoken, no-nonsense approach that generally kept government negotiators in line.

A man who is not afraid of showing emotion, he was dubbed The Crying Dutchman after famously bursting into tears in Bali in 2007 out of frustration when the talks were teetering.

Today, Mr Yvo de Boer, 56, is a voice for business, having moved from his UN bureaucrat’s role into the private sector as international audit firm KPMG’s special global adviser for climate change and sustainability.

When the next round of UN climate talks starts tomorrow in Cancun, Mexico, he will be returning to the debate – but he will no longer be in the hot seat.

I recall meeting him several times during press conferences in Copenhagen last year. He often looked glum but never wavered in his determination to see the talks through.

That is partly why the climate circuit was stunned when he announced his resignation as executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a post he had held since 2006. He stepped down on July 1 this year to make way for Costa Rica’s Christiana Figueres, who now has the task of seeing the climate deal through.

Speaking to The Sunday Times in a phone interview from Britain, Mr de Boer said he had made the decision to resign even before last year’s talks in Copenhagen.

‘I did hesitate and wonder if it was a good moment to leave or whether I should hang around longer,’ he said.

‘But I had done the job for almost four years and I felt I was ready for something new… The talks had entered a new phase.’

The highly controversial session in Copenhagen was billed as a ‘historic meeting’ as it marked the deadline set by participating nations for inking a global treaty on climate change.

The treaty is aimed at binding nations legally to wean the world from its dependence on fossil fuels and to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for climate change.

Unfortunately, the contentious talks saw developed and developing countries bickering until the very last day. The result was the weak Copenhagen Accord, which was not adopted as an official UN document.

Some pundits even dubbed it ‘Brokenhagen’, but to this, Mr de Boer says: ‘Whatever the criticisms made of the Copenhagen Accord, it did include elements that have taken us into a new era.’

The former Dutch housing official points out that the world has made a notable transition since the Kyoto Protocol – inked in 2007, it bound developed countries to certain emission targets – by moving towards a treaty with a broader approach that engages all nations.

‘There’s also a lot of emphasis on financial flows, both private and public… which has helped to make it more a debate on the economics,’ he adds.

Businesses and governments are responding ‘in their different ways’, he notes. For example, energy and manufacturing companies are realising the value of being ultra-efficient, while chemical and retail companies are increasingly demanding that their suppliers use sustainable sources.

Europe’s target is to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent come 2020, and it might increase the target to 30 per cent. China and India have set goals to reduce their energy use per GDP dollar.

‘All these moves will have an impact… Copenhagen didn’t cause everyone to sit back and relax and think nothing is happening,’ says Mr de Boer, who is married with three children.

When asked what role Singapore, a tiny country that contributes 0.2 per cent to global greenhouse emissions, could play in such international negotiations, he responds: ‘It’s the size of your brain, not the size of your country,that matters.

‘If you come from a very small country and you have good ideas, people will still listen to you.’

Singapore has been a trendsetter, he notes, adding that its delegation at the UN talks had been very active and had helped particularly with regard to the subject of financing.

He says that what has characterised Singapore is its proactive rather than defensive approach.

The Republic has a very intensive economy because of its role as a trading hub and it is limited in its ability to cut emissions because of its geography, but these factors have not prevented it from taking a proactive role, he notes.

And governments play a crucial part in advancing the climate agenda, he says.

The lack of political certainty makes it difficult to assess risks, and that is why a global treaty is important.

‘Businesses ultimately need governments to provide policy clarity and a policy framework. That’s the responsibility that governments need to take,’ he says.

In his work for KPMG during the past five months, Mr de Boer has focused on companies that are seeking to understand how the world is changing because of certain top concerns.

He lists them as climate change, energy prices and security, and the scarcity of materials.

‘Firms are asking how they need to respond and position themselves in order to deal with these global concerns, to put themselves ahead of the curve and to be first movers in the new business environment – that’s very exciting.’

In general, businesses are responding favourably, even though the policy environment does not make it easy for them to do so, he adds.

On the upcoming talks in Cancun, he says that what worries him is the absence of a clear, shared view of what the next round should deliver.

The greatest obstacle, as it was in Copenhagen, would be the wildly differing interests of different nations, he stresses.

If negotiators at Cancun can make practical decisions on technology and finance, and balance their interests, that would be of huge benefit to the process, he says.

‘If we lay the groundwork properly in Cancun, I think you could see a treaty being agreed on a year later in South Africa.’

He warns that letting the process slide would be very dangerous, as there is a flourishing carbon market stemming from the Kyoto deal that needs to see continuity.

But for now, he is enjoying doing ‘constructive work’ with companies that want to pursue green growth opportunities.

On the future, he laughs before saying: ‘I have no plans. I will work another couple of years, and then maybe take on one last, big challenge before retiring, and then I’ll have time to bug my wife.’

Whatever the future holds, he will probably always be remembered as the central architect of a highly complex set of international summits – the largest global cooperative initiative of its kind seen since World War II – and for raising their profile and bringing them into the global mainstream.

Some former colleagues such as Ms Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner for climate action, have reportedly said that he is ‘not always a perfect diplomat’ but is appreciated for ‘his engagement and his sharp tongue’.

As Greenpeace International’s climate policy director, Mr Martin Kaiser, said earlier this year: ‘Yvo de Boer was the helmsman of the climate process. Going forward, we will also need that type of person.’

MR YVO DE BOER, former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Source: www.admpreview.straitstimes.com

China Can Help Or Hinder South Korea’s Green Progress

If spending alone were enough to save the planet, South Korea would be among its chief defenders. Funding committed under the country’s national ‘green growth’ plans, unveiled last year, includes total government and private-sector investment of 107 trillion won (S$124 billion) – about 2 per cent of annual gross domestic product – in environment-related industries and 40 trillion won in renewable energy sources. But questions still loom about whether South Korea can pull off a green revolution. With China breathing down its neck.

In Straits Times. New York Times 12 November 2010

SEOUL: If spending alone were enough to save the planet, South Korea would be among its chief defenders.

Funding committed under the country’s national ‘green growth’ plans, unveiled last year, includes total government and private-sector investment of 107 trillion won (S$124 billion) – about 2 per cent of annual gross domestic product – in environment-related industries and 40 trillion won in renewable energy sources.

But questions still loom about whether South Korea can pull off a green revolution.

The country faces stiff competition from China, shortage of skilled labour and the risk that the investment could create a green bubble that might pop.

South Korean companies looking to muscle into green sectors need to adopt a global outlook ‘rather than just pumping in money’, especially given the limited size of the domestic market, said Mr Cha Chungha, managing partner at Susterra Partners.

His Seoul-based firm advises companies on clean-technology investments.

The planned cash injection is aimed at speeding the country towards a number of lofty targets by 2020, including a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a doubling of renewable energy supplies and the expansion of nature reserves nationwide from 100,000 to 150,000 hectares, according to the government.

But arguably, the most ambitious goals are saved for the business realm.

South Korean companies are gearing up to increase their share of the global ‘green tech’ market – which includes products such as solar cells and energy-saving electricity grids – to 10 per cent over the next decade from about 2 per cent currently, and are also set to double investment in environmental industry research and development, and production facilities.

The country’s corporate titans – such as Samsung, Posco, Hyundai, LG Chem, and Doosan Heavy Industry & Construction – have jumped on the green bandwagon.

But as with any sizeable, ambitious initiative, there are questions about whether South Korea’s green drive will achieve the desired results, and even worries that it could produce a few adverse ones.

Mr Randall Jones, head of the Japan/Korea desk at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, has voiced concerns that over-investment ‘might result in a bubble’, especially if money is channelled towards certain companies or projects.

He pointed to South Korea’s venture capital industry in the late 1990s which underwent a government benefit-driven boom, but had an equally spectacular crash when the authorities tightened funding criteria.

In a report earlier this year, the Samsung Economic Research Institute highlighted a series of major potential hurdles to green growth.

They included a tight labour supply – the result of a shortage of educational institutions that offer programmes relevant to the environmental industry – and domestic corporations’ relative lack of competitiveness in the green arena.

With lower-cost producers, particularly from neighbouring China, already highly competitive in areas such as solar cell production, Mr Cha said South Korean companies were better off carving out niches in industries like the construction of energy-efficient buildings.

‘The targets are ambitious; now I’m asking how they’re going to be achieved,’ he said of the government plan. ‘I think some of the goals are wishful – or at least hopeful – thinking.’

NEW YORK TIMES

Source: www.admpreview.straitstimes.com

Economist says tax is the way to save the planet

Climate change is not a completely alien phenomenon to economists. It is simply another case of negative ‘externalities’, albeit on a global scale. So when fossil fuels such as coal and oil are used, the prices we pay for these fuels currently do not capture the external costs of their use. The solution is to put a value on all such externalities. Pricing emissions, by way of carbon taxes, which give businesses clear incentives to cut emissions, is the answer, says Singapore economist Euston Quah.

Euston Quah, For The Straits Times 27 Nov 10;

THE United Nations climate summit in Cancun has taken on fresh urgency. New information shows that, alarmingly, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions last year was less than expected and emissions are set to rise this year and the next.

There is a clear need to move to low-carbon economies. Yet there is little consensus as to how this can be achieved, as the disappointing Copenhagen climate talks demonstrated.

But there is a ray of hope. Climate change is not a completely alien phenomenon to economists. It is simply another case of negative ‘externalities’, albeit on a global scale.

Economists speak of negative externalities when they refer to a cost item that has not been captured in the price of something in everyday legal transactions. The noise from constructing infrastructure, the stench from landfills, and air pollution from industrial activity are some examples of externalities.

So when fossil fuels such as coal and oil are used, the externality is the carbon emissions they produce, which lead to global warming and climate change. The prices we pay for these fuels do not capture the external costs of their use.

The solution is to put a value on all such externalities. For example, putting a price tag on noise and the destruction of scenic views, cultural heritage and environmental features such as mangroves, would be key to using resources more wisely. Pricing emissions would have a similar effect.

Where public projects involving society’s well-being are concerned, it is incumbent on the authorities to gather information from the public as to what kinds of externalities could arise and follow up with monetary valuations of costs and benefits. The government must take the initiative to act as a coordinator and solicitor of economic values. This will allow all externalities to be appropriately priced.

But it is not enough for any government to take the price of carbon into account in public projects. Producers and consumers must price carbon in their production and consumption decisions as well. The role of consumers is often obscured by that of industries in emission reduction discussions. But consumption activities also contribute to emissions, vehicular transport being a good example.

How then can the price of carbon be introduced into production and consumption decisions? The two most touted methods are to tax carbon or introduce a cap-and-trade system.

Carbon taxes fix the price of emissions but leave the amount of emissions variable. Cap-and-trade fixes the amount of emissions but allows the price to vary. Theoretically, assuming the authorities compute the optimal price and amount of emissions accurately, the two methods will yield the same outcome.

Unfortunately, reality seldom mirrors theory. The complexity of the cap-and-trade system means that the administrative cost incurred may be significant – a fact often overlooked in theory. The price variability of emission permits may also discourage investment in green technology as businesses cannot determine if the payoff from selling the permits freed up by adopting emissions-reducing technologies is worth it. This is a serious problem as any long-run solution to global warming must involve greater use of green technology.

Carbon taxes, in contrast, give businesses clear incentives to cut emissions. The taxes will encourage a switch in the fuel mix of the industrial and electricity sector as well as the household sector and lead to overall energy conservation. The taxes will also provide revenue that governments may use to fund green research.

Much of the criticism levelled at carbon taxes revolves around the issue of how much to charge. But this has to do with a lack of accurate information – a problem that can be fixed.

The idea of making both producers and consumers pay for activities that generate carbon emissions by levying a straightforward tax remains an appealing one. Starting with a small tax on carbon and gradually moving it up over time would be the best way forward. The fact that Finland, Norway and a number of other countries have successfully implemented carbon taxes shows that they may not be that unpalatable after all.

Given that a low-carbon world must involve pricing carbon, is the UN’s attempt to impose carbon quotas too simplistic, and is Cancun doomed to failure? Yes, for the main reason that countries are at different stages of economic development and have different priorities.

Yet, however essential carbon pricing may be, it alone is not enough. There must also be investment in green technology, the widespread use of cost-benefit analysis and externality pricing. The Cancun talks, with its focus on secondary issues such as climate financial aid and deforestation, may help to move these other areas forward.

The writer is a professor of environmental economics at Nanyang Technological University.

Source: www.wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com