Where’s the sense of urgency?

After four weeks of meeting and talking,
and a year after the “progressive” meeting at Cancun, Mexico, we wonder whether
the Durban Climate Change conference has achieved anything more than confirming
that a decision will be made in the future, to decide on a future course of
action! A harsh questionable conclusion, but probably fair. No business facing
a monumental issue of the scale and scope of climate change, could keep putting
off the inevitable. Where’s the sense of urgency? What’s needed is a much more
business like basis for getting things done. Don’t call in the troops, but call
in some business advisors to help get things done. How about the bosses of Virgin,
GE, Walmart, Unilever and Marks & Spencers. They have all taken positive
action to address climate change, a low carbon future, clean energy and
sustainability. A business advisory panel for the future of the planet. But don’t
wait another year to get something done. There is plenty more to read this
issue and hear wise words from people and organisations. It is left for me to
wish all readers Season’s Greetings for Christmas and the New Year, wherever you
maybe be. Expect the next issue the first week of 2012. Take time to recharge
your batteries (clean energy, of course) ready for a stimulating, energetic and
sustainable year ahead. Cheers! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Jennifer Lauber Patterson

Frontier Carbon’s new Executive
Director Jennifer Lauber Patterson is heartened by the Durban outcome as for
the first time every county in the world is committed to cutting carbon. But
the “roadmap” is still too weak to stop temperatures rising above the
“danger point” of 2 degrees C because it does not set tough targets
for emissions cuts or a quick enough timetable.

We asked Jennifer Lauber Paterson
for her reaction to the Durban event which she has been attending. She is one
of Australia’s most informed carbon experts and climate change action advocates.
The former Head of Environmental Treasury Solutions at Australia’s National
Australia Bank (NAB), she has just joined Frontier Carbon as Executive
Director, Asia Pacific where she will be building the Advisory Services for rapidly
expanding global business.

Ken Hickson asked her a few
topical questions, which she responded to rapidly:

Question 1: Your observation of
the Durban event – how it was run and how did people feel about it?

The COP was an extremely well
organised event and we were well looked after.
Security was tight, but the five policeman on every corner ensured the
event ran very smoothly! The atmosphere had a feeling of goodwill and
cooperation and is a wonderful opportunity to network with leading experts in
the world in an open environment.

Question 2: What are your views
of the outcome…do you feel it could have achieved more? What’s missing? Was it
a waste of time?

Given the international political
and economic environment, the conference achieved a reasonable outcome.

The key highlights of the
“Durban Road map” include the extension of the Kyoto Protocol, the
commitment of all countries to commit to cutting carbon and the progress
towards the establishment of a Green Climate Fund.

Agreement to a second commitment
period of Kyoto was achieved. I see that the Kyoto Protocol and the associated
flexibility mechanism such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are
critical in gaining practical experience in green project development that
leads to positive environmental, social and economic outcomes in developing
countries.

Traditionally, most of the CDM
projects have been based in Asia or South America. We are now starting to see
some momentum in CDM projects being developed in Africa where there are many
people need assistance to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Frontier
Carbon is developing a project that will replace kerosene lamps with solar
lights that will provide significant social, economic and health benefits to
the community. I am hoping that CDM will continue so important projects such as
this can continue beyond 2012.

The agreement in Durban now also
means that for the first time every county in the world is committed to cutting
carbon – although the legal wording remains vague and the treaty will not come
into force until 2020.  However, this is
a significant outcome as it will mean that
the world’s three biggest polluters – the US, China and India – who
account for almost half the world’s emissions, are now committed to cutting
carbon.

There was also the progress in the
establishment of the Green Climate Fund that is designed to raise US $100 billion
of funding per year by 2020 to assist developing nations to move to reduce
emissions. This has received strong support and will be important to mobilise
the technology, finance and resources to achieve the level of emission
reduction that is needed in developing countries.

One of the weaknesses of the
outcome is that it did not progress the immediate need to set tougher targets
by countries. The “Durban road map” is still too weak to stop
temperatures rising above the “danger point” of 2C because it does
not set tough targets for emissions cuts or a quick enough timetable.

Question 3:         Do you feel some countries will go away
from it determined to do more or less?

At the conference, I saw
countries determined to do more.  Whilst
the developing countries have not yet committed to a binding target, they are
moving down the path of a low carbon economy irrespective of whether there are binding
agreements. A key driver, for China, India and Brazil, is the economic
opportunity and strategic advantage for reducing emissions.

China has made it very clear,
that they see the Green Revolution as enabling them to achieve significant
prosperity and enable them to become the economic super power of the world. At
the conference, they discussed their plans for seven regional emissions trading
schemes as a precursor for a national scheme.
China already has the largest wind capacity in the world and are the
largest exporters of solar technology.
China may still be building coal fired plants but they are building the
most energy efficient power stations globally.

Question 4: Were there any
outstanding leaders – countries, NGOs, individuals you could point to?

When you are at a COP you meet
many thought leaders in business leaders, NGO’s, government etc. California’s
perseverance in establishing a carbon trading mechanism was applauded but
Australia received significant attention with the establishment of the Clean
Energy Package.

One of the countries that
motivated me most was the State of Lesotho, in Africa, although, there are many
countries in Africa starting to demonstrating significant leadership.  Lesotho, is a Least Developed Country that
has been significantly affected by climate change as weather patterns have not
only rendered farming hopeless, but also impacted negatively on the environment
in the area. Large tracts of land lie bare.
Lesotho aims to use green growth as the means for improving its economic
position and have a commitment to become a carbon neutral country.  To gear towards a Green Economy, the
government has established an incentive package which is encouraging Foreign
Direct Investment, joint ventures and local investment.  They have already established a micro-finance
cook stove initiative, significant wind and hydro power and are exploring
innovative technologies such as ocean wave electricity generation.

There are many great initiatives
happening and I left the conference inspired!

Australian Global Sustainability
Leader takes Director role at rapidly expanding UK Frontier Carbon

Announcement (29 November 2011)

Jennifer Lauber Patterson former
Head of Environmental Treasury Solutions at Australia’s National Australia Bank
(NAB), has commenced as Executive Director, Asia Pacific where she will be
building the Advisory Services at rapidly expanding Frontier Carbon.

One of Australia’s foremost
carbon market experts, Jennifer was named one of the most influential people in
sustainability by ABC carbon 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders. With over 20
years of Carbon and Energy Trading experience, Jennifer set up both ANZ’s and
NAB’s environmental trading capabilities.

Jennifer Lauber Patterson held a
non Executive Director role at Frontier Carbon, advising the business on Carbon
Trading, Carbon Risk exposure, the development on Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) projects.

Frontier Carbon an innovative
green asset developing business is transforming the business community and the
developing world. Standard Bank and Frontier Carbon recently joined forces to
benefit clean development through a financial platform with the single aim of
putting the carbon market in the hands of entrepreneurs, non-governmental
organisations and companies in Africa and Asia.

Through the distribution of low
cost solar lamps, Frontier Carbon is minimising the use of high carbon emitting
kerosene lamps. Not only do kerosene lamps have a high carbon footprint, they
are also unhealthy, potential fire hazards and are a high cost to fuel for the
world’s poorest people in Africa and Asia.

In her new role at Frontier
Carbon, as Executive Director, Jennifer will be developing Carbon Market
Advisory Services.  Jennifer will be assisting
carbon exposed businesses and governments in developing their carbon strategy,
managing their risk exposure, developing their trading capabilities and
identifying opportunities. Jennifer will also advise green asset businesses and
companies involved in the Carbon Farming Initiative and the UN’s Clean
Development Mechanism.

“With the rapid transition to a
carbon price economy in Australia, it is imperative that companies clearly
understand their risks and put in place management systems that assist in first
clarifying and then mitigating their carbon exposure”, advises Jennifer.

For the last decade, Jennifer has
been developing financial and risk management solutions around carbon reduction
in Australia and abroad; identifying opportunities that existed with a global
move towards a lower carbon economy. Passionate about creating sustainable
outcomes, Jennifer is also a non-executive director of Yarra Energy Foundation.

Sebastian Foot, Managing
Director, advised that “the carbon advisory services will complement
Frontier Carbon’s green asset management business and we are thrilled to have
Jennifer on board”

This week Jennifer heads to
Durban for the COP17/CMP7 United Nations Climate Change Conference and will
present on the Australian Carbon Market at the International Emissions Trading
Association (IETA) Event.  Jennifer will
also be providing summaries of proceeding and outcomes to clients.  Jennifer will also be speaking at a side
event at the conference on  “Next
Generation Low-Carbon Financial Instruments”.

Participation at COP 17 and CMP 7
is restricted to appropriately nominated representatives of Parties, observer
States, accredited observer organisations and accredited media.

Source: www.frontier-carbon.net

Did Durban Deliver Done Deal or Dud Deal?

Countries have agreed a deal in
Durban to push for a new climate treaty, delivering a global, overarching legal
agreement to cut emissions – salvaging the latest round of United Nations
climate talks from the brink of collapse. But did it go far enough? Reactions
from around the world. Pictured is an exhibit at Durban where lights on a Christmas
tree are powered by people cycling and generating electricity.

John Vidal and Fiona Harvey for
The Observer (11 December 2011):

Countries have agreed a deal in
Durban to push for a new climate treaty, salvaging the latest round of United
Nations climate talks from the brink of collapse.

The UK’s climate change
secretary, Chris Huhne, hailed the deal, finally struck in the early hours of
Sunday after talks had overrun by a day and a half, as a “significant step
forward” that would deliver a global, overarching legal agreement to cut
emissions. He said it sent a strong signal to businesses and investors about moving
to a low-carbon economy.

But environmental groups said
negotiators had failed to show the ambition necessary to cut emissions by
levels that would limit global temperature rises to no more than 2C and avoid
“dangerous” climate change.

The EU had come to the talks in
Durban, South Africa, calling for a mandate to negotiate a new legally binding
treaty on global warming by 2015, covering all major emitters, in return for
the bloc signing up to a second period of emissions cuts under the existing
Kyoto climate deal.

But talks were plunged into
disarray after the EU clashed with India and China in a series of passionate
exchanges over the legal status of a potential new agreement, putting more than
a year of talks between 194 countries in jeopardy.

In the third consecutive
all-night session, exhausted ministers had more or less agreed on a series of
measures aimed at protecting forests, widening global markets and establishing
by 2020 a $100bn fund to help poorer countries move to a green economy and cope
with the effects of climate change. But the crucial issue at the talks was
whether a new agreement on protecting the climate should have full legal force.

Connie Hedegarrd, the EU climate
change commissioner, said she was prepared to offer developing countries the
prize they had sought for many years – a continuation of the Kyoto protocol,
the only treaty that commits rich countries to cut greenhouse gases. But the
price of the offer was for all nations to agree to be “legally bound”
to a new agreement by 2020. There were cheers as she said: “We need
clarity. We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost
ready to be alone in a second commitment period [to the Kyoto protocol] We
don’t ask too much of the world that after this second period all countries
will be legally bound.”

But the Indian environment
minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, responded fiercely: “Am I to write a blank
cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians,
without even knowing what the EU ‘roadmap’ contains? I wonder if this an agenda
to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible [for climate change].
I am told that India will be blamed. Please do not hold us hostage.” As
countries clashed in the early hours of the morning, scenes in the conference
hall resembled a theatre, with wild applause bursting out sporadically.

China’s minister Xie Zhenhua made
an impassioned speech backing India and accusing developed countries.
“What qualifies you to tell us what to do? We are taking action. We want
to see your action,” he said.

The fate of the talks were, by
2am, hanging on a knife edge, with no resolution likely for many hours. The
talks had already overrun by 36 hours.

A deal was reached after the
South African president of the talks urged the EU and India to go “into a
huddle” in the middle of the conference hall in the early hours of this
morning, in a bid to work out language both sides were happy with.

A compromise, suggested by the
Brazilian delegation, saw the EU and Indians agree to a road map which commits
countries to negotiating a protocol, another legal instrument or an “agreed
outcome with legal force”.

The treaty will be negotiated by
2015 and coming into force from 2020.

The deal also paves the way for
action to address the “emissions gap” between the voluntary emissions
cuts countries have already pledged and the reductions experts say are needed
to effectively tackle climate change.

Earlier Venezuela’s ambassador,
Claudia Salerno, had stood on a chair and banged her nameplate as she accused
the UN chair of the session of ignoring the views of some developing countries.
Referring to the money promised by rich countries to help developing countries
to adapt to climate change, she said: “This agreement will kill off
everyone. It is a farce. It is immoral to ask developing countries to sell
ourselves for $100bn.”

The row over the legal status of
a new agreement has dogged climate talks for over a decade. Rich countries have
wanted rapidly emerging economies such as like China – the world’s largest
emitter – and India to be equally legally bound as developed countries, though
taking on softer targets on emission curbs.

However, developing countries
argue that they were not responsible for the bulk of climate change emissions
in the atmosphere and argue that they have pledged to rein in their emissions
more than the developed countries.

Despite the broad backing of more
than 120 countries, including major developing economies such as Brazil, plus
the US and Japan, the EU had found it hard to push through its ambitious
“roadmap”, which would establish a new over-arching agreement that would
commit all countries to emission cuts.

China, India and some developing
countries had raised a series of objections throughout the talks about the
dates that the new treaty would become operational, and argued that the Kyoto
protocol would effectively be killed off before a replacement could be put in
its place. With Japan, Canada and Russia saying that they were unwilling to
sign up to a second period, the EU had become almost alone among developed
countries in committing to continue the protocol in some form.

Several countries said they
feared the deal on offer would suit the US most because it had always insisted
that all other countries should cut emissions and has resisted a
legally-binding agreement.

Several developing countries
spoke out strongly in favour of the EU proposals, including Brazil and
Colombia, rejecting calls to downgrade the legal status of any agreement.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Australian Conservation
Foundation announcement (11 December 2011):

Momentum builds in Durban: smart
countries take climate action

The agreements reached at the
climate negotiations just concluded in Durban will advance action on climate
but require strengthening over time, according to the Australian Conservation
Foundation.

Durban has succeeded in
establishing a Green Climate Fund with commitments of $100 billion and a
pathway for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It has also taken
steps to establishing a 2015 timeline for a new global climate agreement, to include
the US, China and all major emitters.

‘While Durban has moved global
climate action forward, the world is in a race against time to avoid dangerous
climate change and all countries need to be more ambitious in cutting
emissions, and this needs to be a focus of the international effort now,’ said
Don Henry, CEO of ACF from Durban.

‘All countries agree that
pollution has to be cut to keep warming below 2 degrees, however countries’
commitments to cut pollution don’t achieve this and need urgent attention.’

‘In Durban many countries have
reiterated their national commitments to act to cut emissions with 33 countries
now introducing a price on pollution, just as our Parliament has recently
passed.’

‘It demonstrates how smart
Australia has been in catching up with the growing number of nations that are
developing low carbon economies.’

‘The implementation of the Green
Climate Fund, which was a key element of last year’s successful Cancun
negotiations, will help developing nations foster low-carbon economies and
adapt to the impacts of climate change.’

‘The $243 billion invested in
clean technology in 2010 globally demonstrates that momentum is building,
however stronger action is needed.’

‘Australia also reached
agreements with the EU to link our carbon trading with their scheme, which will
greatly improve the effectiveness of our price on pollution.’

Source: www.acfonline.org.au

Is IEA Really Expecting the Sun to Electrify Half the World?

The International Energy Agency
has outlined its vision of how solar energy technologies could form the
backbone of the world’s electricity network, providing half its electricity
needs by 2060.The scenario, outlined in the IEA’s Solar Energy Perspectives,
looks at the options available to the world if it took decisive, but belated
action, on climate change, and alternative technologies such as nuclear and
carbon capture and storage failed to deliver as promised. Read More

Giles Parkinson in Climate
Spectator (6 December 2011):

The International Energy Agency
has outlined, in detail, its vision of how solar energy technologies could form
the backbone of the world’s electricity network, providing half its electricity
needs by 2060.

The scenario, outlined in the
IEA’s Solar Energy Perspectives, released last week, was first canvassed in
late August. Essentially, it looks at the options available to the world if it
took decisive, but belated action, on climate change, and alternative
technologies such as nuclear and carbon capture and storage failed to deliver
as promised.

And, for the first time, it also
recognises a future where baseload power may no longer provide the bedrock of
the world’s energy needs, as it has done for a century or more, but is replaced
by a system of flexible and inflexible energy sources, where intermittent
sources such as wind and solar PV are complemented by “dispatchable” and
flexible sources such as solar thermal with storage, hydro, and gas.

The IEA has been canvassing a
range of scenarios over how the energy systems of the future may look under
various climate and energy policy responses. Under its 450 scenario, where the
world holds true to its political target of limiting global warming to an
average 2°C by capping greenhouse gas emissions at 450 parts per million, solar
accounts for less than 20 per cent of total generation by 2050, rising to 25
per cent of generation in its “high renewable” scenario, where renewables need
to account for 75 per cent of the world’s generation to make up for the lack of
nuclear or CCS.

However, in its “Testing the
Limits” scenario, the IEA considers what would happen if the world made a
belated but sharper change in its energy policy – whether for security,
economic or climate reasons, as seems increasingly likely given the nature of
the international climate talks – and if many countries decided to abandon
nuclear power and carbon capture and storage was found to be costlier, more
limited or not as safe as hoped, which it concedes is quite possible.

In this scenario, the IEA says,
solar energy could become the backbone of a largely renewable energy system
worldwide. The make-up of energy sources varies from region to region, thanks
to climate variations, but most of the estimated nine billion people will live
in warmer climates, and areas with strong solar radiation (such as north Africa
and the Middle East to Europe, and Australia to Indonesia), and become net
exporters of solar energy. In colder climates such as Europe, wind and solar PV
match the seasonal demand peaks.

Globally, the IEA scenario has
solar thermal accounting for 28 per cent of total electricity generation by
2060, with some 6,000GW of capacity with storage (it has around 1GW now). Solar
PV accounts for 20 per cent of generation, with 12,000GW of installed capacity
(about 40GW now), and solar fuels add a further 2 per cent of generation.

Of the other technologies, wind
power also makes up 28 per cent of generation, with 10,000GW of capacity,
hydropower provides 10 per cent, and baseload – a mixture of geothermal,
nuclear and biomass with CCS – provides 11 per cent of generation with around
1,200GW of capacity. Natural gas has capacity of around 3000GW, but is used
sparingly as a balancing fuel and accounts for just 1 per cent of total
generation.

The IEA does not break down the
energy contributions in individual regions, but it should be noted that in its
“high renewable” 450 scenario, the IEA says 40 per cent of the energy in
regions such as Australia, central Asia, parts of India and south-western US,
and the Middle East, could come from solar thermal alone.

As for costs, the IEA says, it is
simply a matter of planning ahead. “Renewables in general, and solar energy in
particular, may not always offer the lowest cost options to meet our energy
needs, nor even the cheapest way of doing so while reducing global carbon
emissions,” it notes. But because of the risk that other options may fall
short, solar technologies offering “indigenous, inexhaustible resources”, are
more secure, less likely to experience price volatility once the technologies
are mature, are environmentally sustainable, and “the cheapest known antidote
to catastrophic climate change, even if they are or appear to be higher-cost
options in other ways.”

It says that by 2060, the world
is four times richer, but only consuming 50 per cent more energy because of
energy efficiency measures. “Even if the cost of one energy unit were twice as
much as today, the total energy expenditure would be proportionally smaller
than today. It is thus conceivable to prefer an energy future that provides
security, economic stability and preserves the sustainability of ecosystems and
the environment, even if it is not the least-cost option when such
considerations are ignored.”

But it may not be that expensive.
The IEA notes that solar PV is already competitive with “bulk power” in many
areas, particularly islands, off-grid locations, and where PV is competing with
oil. Solar thermal is also likely to fall substantially – a recent tender for a
50MW solar thermal plant in Mongolia was bid at $140/MWh. It says that solar
thermal will be competitive with intermediate and peaking plant by 2020, and by
2030, solar costs will range from $50/MWh in the best solar regions, to
$150/MWh in the worst. Other technologies will be grouped north or south of
$100/MWh. It notes that, in the case of building integrated solar PV, where
solar will be crucial to the value, “the cost of PV would almost vanish in the
market segment where it currently costs the most.”

Even though solar electricity is
already competitive in some markets, and will soon be in much larger ones, it
will still require efficient policy support, whether feed-in tariffs or power
purchase agreement rooted in renewable portfolio standards. “Only a small
proportion should be considered subsidies or, rather, learning investments
required to bring solar technologies to competitiveness,” it writes. “Their
success would provide broad access to an inexhaustible source of energy and
help give more than a billion people around the world greater opportunity and
economic freedom. By contrast, fossil fuel subsidies only serve to perpetuate a
system that is ultimately not sustainable and distributes energy production and
its benefits by chance.”

The IEA says several enablers
will need to occur, including a greater focus on energy efficiency, demand
response and smart grids, as well as the electrification of transport, where
one kW/h of electricity in electric vehicles and hybrids replaces the
equivalent of 3kWh in liquid fuels. It notes that “contrary to common
belief,” intermittent renewables do not need ME for MW backup. Indeed, it
says while significant current capacity of
flexible gas will remain online in the coming decades, notably in
industrialised countries, their capacity factor will decrease, and there will
be no, or little, need to build greenfield fossil-fuelled plants for backup.

As mentioned earlier, the IEA
also picks up on the principal of flexible and inlflexible generations, and how
this might replace the concept of baseload energy, as foreshadowed by Australian
solar expert David Mills, and more recently by a UNSW team. The IEA says solar
thermal with storage are are expected to be able to deliver competitive
electricity by about 2030, depending on the costs of fossil fuels and the price
attributed to CO2 emissions, by 2030. It says the distinction between peak
power and baseload would become less relevant, as flexible solar thermal
electricity could, at all times, complement inflexible variable renewables.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Blame an Ancient Greek Philosopher for Starting the Climate Change Ball Rolling

As we know, the UN climate talks
in Durban aimed at agreeing new measures to stem rising emissions of planet-warming
greenhouse gases. So we can afford to contemplate how did this all begin.
Arguably, around 300 BC with Theophrastus, a student of Greek philosopher
Aristotle, who documented that human activity affects climate, observing that
drainage of marshes cools an area around Thessaly and that clearing of forests
near Philippi warms the climate. Reuters decided to look at the climate change
timeline. Read More

How the world discovered global
warming: a timeline

Alister Doyle & David Fogarty
& David Cutler for Reuters (2 December 2011):

(Reuters) – UN climate talks in
Durban, South Africa, from November 28 – December 9 are aimed at agreeing new
measures to stem rising emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Following is a look at how the
world discovered global warming and international steps to try to address it:

300 BC: Theophrastus, a student
of Greek philosopher Aristotle, documents that human activity can affect
climate. He observes that drainage of marshes cools an area around Thessaly and
that clearing of forests near Philippi warms the climate.

17th century: Flemish scientist
Jan Baptista van Helmont discovers that carbon dioxide is given off by burning
charcoal.

18th century: The Industrial
Revolution starts, bringing rising use of fossil fuels.

1820s: French mathematician
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier suggests something in the atmosphere is keeping
the world warmer than it would otherwise be, a hint at the greenhouse effect.

1830s: Swiss naturalist Louis
Agassiz presents evidence of past changes in Alpine glaciers, pointing to
ancient Ice Ages and showing that the climate has not always been stable.

1860s: Irish scientist John
Tyndall shows that molecules of gases such as water vapour and carbon dioxide
trap heat. He wrote that changes “could have produced all the mutations of
climate which the researches of geologists reveal”.

1896: Swedish chemist Svante
Arrhenius becomes the first to quantify carbon dioxide’s role in keeping the
planet warm. He later concluded that burning of coal could cause a
“noticeable increase” in carbon levels over centuries.

1950s: US scientist Charles
Keeling sets up stations to measure carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere at the South Pole and at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The measurements have
shown a steady rise.

1965: US President Lyndon Johnson
tells Congress, “This generation has altered the composition of the
atmosphere on a global scale through … a steady increase in carbon dioxide
from the burning of fossil fuels.”

1988: British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher tells the United Nations, “The problem of global climate
change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is
taken at the international level. It is no good squabbling over who is
responsible or who should pay.”

1988: The United Nations sets up
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the scientific
evidence.

1992: World leaders agree the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets a non-binding goal of
stabilising greenhouse gas emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels, a target not met
overall.

1995: The IPCC concludes for the
first time that humans are causing global warming, saying: “The balance of
evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

1997: The Kyoto Protocol is
agreed in Japan; developed nations agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions
on average by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. The United
States stays out of the deal.

2001: The IPCC concludes it is
“likely”, or at least 66 percent probable, that human activities are
the main cause of recent warming.

2001: President George W. Bush
notes the US National Academy of Sciences says greenhouse gases are rising
“in large part due to human activity”. He adds, “Yet, the
Academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural
fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our
climate could, or will change in the future.”

2006: Added by Ken Hickson. A significant year in the history of things.
Al Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth” came out in book form and followed by an
Academy Award winning film. In the UK, Nicholas Stern produced his landmark “Climate
Change Review”.

2007: The IPCC says it is
“very likely”, at least 90 per cent certain, that humans are to blame
for most of the observed warming trend of the past 50 years. It also said
warming of the planet was “unequivocal”.

2009: A conference of 193
countries agree in December to “take note” of a new Copenhagen Accord
to fight climate change, after UN talks in Denmark. The accord is not legally
binding and does not commit countries to agree a binding successor to the Kyoto
Protocol when its first stage ends in 2012. The conference did recognise
“the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be
below 2 degrees Celsius” and “deep cuts in global emissions are
required”.

2010: A deal among 190 nations to
slow climate change throws a lifeline to UN-led talks.

2011: More than 190 nations meet
in Durban, South Africa, to try to agree what to do after the first stage of
the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and on a Green Climate Fund to channel
billions of dollars to poorer nations to green their economies and help them
protect against the effects of climate change.

Source: www.reuters.com

How Much Clean Energy Does a Trillion US Dollars Produce?

It might have been a biomass co-generation
plant in Brazil, or a wind farm in Mexico. 

Or perhaps that solar
thermal plant in Morocco. Whatever it was, somewhere around the world late last
month (November 2011) the trillionth dollar was invested in clean energy since
Bloomberg New Energy Finance began tracking the lucrative industry in 2004.
Read More

Clean energy hauls in $1 trillion
since ’04

By Pete Danko in EarthTechling (9
December 2011):

It might have been a biomass
cogeneration plant in Brazil, or a wind farm in Mexico. 

Or
perhaps that solar thermal plant in Morocco.

Whatever it was, somewhere around
the world late last month (November 2011) the trillionth dollar was invested in
clean energy since Bloomberg New Energy Finance began tracking the lucrative
industry in 2004.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance
chief executive Michael Liebreich noted that 2004 was the year oil prices began
to climb from $20 or so a barrel toward triple figures, where they hover now.

“It was also the year,”
Liebreich said, “in which Germany introduced its groundbreaking feed-in
tariff rules, which have been widely copied around the world.”

Liebreich said those factors and
other incentives and initiatives have driven sharp increases in clean-energy
investing – from $52 billion in 2004 to a record $243 billion last year.

Proof enough, Liebreich asserted,
that whether the U.N. climate conference in Durban, South Africa, results in a
deal on carbon emissions is pretty much a moot point.

“The
trillionth-dollar milestone shows that the world is not waiting for a deal on
climate in order to start turning the super-tanker away from fossil
fuels,” Liebreich explained.

“It should serve as a
message to the U.N. and all those in Durban to stop obsessing about a binding
deal to cap carbon emissions, and to think much harder about how to speed up
investment in the solutions. Another five years of investment growth at the
same compound rates, and the world will have broken the back of emissions
growth.”

Source:  www.tgdaily.com

Could Some Pacific Islands & People “Be Lost Without Trace”?

Australia, New Zealand and other
countries in the region face growing pressure to accept potential ‘climate
refugees’ from Pacific islands facing the risk of wipe-out from global warming.
Many Pacific islands are poor and undeveloped, meaning that worsening floods
and rising sea levels could severely damage housing and infrastructure. For
some, the changes are already being felt: ‘Our biggest concern is that one fine
day, a king tide will simply sweep over the islands and most or all people will
be washed away without any trace.’ Read More

By Jonathan Pearlman, For the
Straits Times (5 December 2011):

SYDNEY: Australia, New Zealand
and other countries in the region face growing pressure to accept potential
‘climate refugees’ from Pacific islands facing the risk of wipe-out from global
warming.

The extent of the threat across
the Pacific has emerged from a new report which found that the island-states
face higher sea levels and worsening natural disasters. Temperatures in the
region are set to rise by half to one degree Celsius in the next 20 years.

Many Pacific islands are poor and
undeveloped, meaning that worsening floods and rising sea levels could severely
damage housing and infrastructure. For some, the changes are already being
felt.

•Tuvalu (Population: 10,500)

Consists of nine coral atolls,
about half-way between Australia and Hawaii. Less than 5m above sea level and
experiences regular flooding. Officials have expressed concerns about rising
sea levels for more than a decade. The sea level has risen by about 5mm per
year since 1993, compared with a global average of 2.8mm to 3.6mm.

•Kiribati (Population: 101,000)

Consists of 33 atolls. Droughts
can be very severe and are usually associated with La Nina. Drought from April
2007 to early 2009 severely affected water supplies. Faces growing threat of
floods, storm surges and shoreline erosion and losses of subsistence crops and
coastal fisheries.

•Vanuatu (Population: 225,000)

A group of islands in the south
Pacific Ocean. Faces growing threat to crops from prolonged drought and water
shortages. Rising sea levels are damaging shorelines and underground drinking
water sources.

•Marshall Islands (Population:
67,000)

Consists of 29 atolls and five
isolated islands. Typhoons, droughts and storm waves are the main extreme
events impacting the islands. There will be fewer typhoons, but there is likely
to be a rise in the average maximum wind speed of typhoons by between 2 per
cent and 11 per cent.

A community leader on Papua New
Guinea’s Carteret islands, Ms Ursula Rakova, said changing weather patterns had
already significantly reduced the amount of usable farm land. Recently, she
said, rising waters had divided one of the islands in half.

‘High tides are frequent and
continue to wash away our shorelines,’ she said.

‘Our biggest concern is that one
fine day, a king tide will simply sweep over the islands and most or all people
will be washed away without any trace.’

A new 500-page report, released
by the Australian government, marks the first comprehensive analysis of some of
the countries likely to be the worst affected by climate change. It provides
separate studies on likely impacts on East Timor and 14 Pacific nations, some
of which are facing potential wipe-out.

The Pacific states have sent
envoys to climate talks in Durban, South Africa, and have been urging the
international community to reduce carbon emissions and agree to resettlement
plans.

Several countries such as
Kiribati and Tuvalu have approached governments across the region directly to
try to urge them to agree to take so-called climate refugees. It is believed
that refugees could begin leaving these countries due to climate change within
20 years.

Tuvalu, one of the world’s lowest-lying
countries, has lobbied the Australian government for several years to try to
set up a migration plan.

Under the plan, the South Pacific
nation of over 10,000 people would be able to settle migrants in Australia but
would retain its maritime territory. It would retain its status under
international law and continue to be represented in the United Nations.

Kiribati has also discussed with
Australian officials plans to resettle climate refugees. Meanwhile, the
Maldives has been planning to relocate residents to higher ground and may buy
land for resettlement in other countries.

While New Zealand has shown a
willingness to settle small numbers of Pacific refugees, successive Australian
governments have tended to downplay the issue, or focus on providing aid to try
to improve conditions on the islands.

But experts say the Australian
government should begin making plans to resettle migrants now rather than wait
until they are forced to flee. This could include special work programmes and
seasonal labour schemes that would both help Australian farmers fill temporary
job needs during picking season and also boost ties between Pacific islanders
and Australia.

Professor Jane McAdam, director
of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New
South Wales, said Australia should develop a 10- to 20-year migration plan to
assist the worst-affected countries.

‘These people don’t want to be
seen as refugees. They want to be seen as active, valued participants in a new
country, not recipients of aid,’ she said.

Prof McAdam said that while it
would be hard for many island inhabitants to leave, many younger residents
believe it ‘is going to be inevitable’.

The report on climate change in
the Pacific, involving 100 researchers and published by the Australian
government’s Pacific Climate Change Science Programme, says the past decade has
been the warmest on record and ocean acidity has been rising. It predicts
widespread rises in extreme rainfall, more hot days and warm nights, and
increases in the intensity of tropical cyclones.

But there was some good news:
fewer cyclones and less drought are likely.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

Flooding Events, Fires & Extreme Droughts will Increase with Warming Climate

The United States had a dozen
weather disasters that each caused at least US$1 billion in damages in 2011,
the greatest frequency of severe weather that caused costly losses in more than
30 years of federal government tracking. The disasters in 2011 caused more than
600 deaths. The Groundhog Day blizzard, Hurricane Irene, many tornadoes and
drought-fueled wildfires in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona crossed the
$1-billion threshold.

By Mara Lee in Los Angeles Times
(8 December 2011):

The United States had a dozen weather
disasters that each caused at least $1 billion in damages in 2011, the greatest
frequency of severe weather that caused costly losses in more than 30 years of
federal government tracking.

However, even with the number of
events, the total losses this year from the storms, flooding and droughts is
$52 billion, not even close to the most expensive year on record, according to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina alone
cost $145 billion in today’s dollars. It was the most expensive natural
disaster in U.S. history and, with more than 1,800 deaths, the highest fatality
toll since a 1928 hurricane in south Florida.

The disasters in 2011 caused more
than 600 deaths, the agency said. The Groundhog Day blizzard, Hurricane Irene,
many tornadoes and drought-fueled wildfires in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona crossed
the $1-billion threshold.

The increase in losses from
hurricanes has more to do with population growth and increased home building
near beaches than it does with climate change, scientists from NOAA say.

But, they added, “there is
evidence that climate change may affect the frequency of certain extreme
weather events. An increase in population and development in flood plains,
along with an increase in heavy rain events in the U.S. during the past 50
years, have gradually increased the economic losses due to flooding. If the
climate continues to warm, the increase in heavy rain events is likely to
continue. There are projections that the incidence of extreme droughts will
increase if the climate warms throughout the 21st century.”

About 343 tornadoes in 13 states
in late April was the most costly disaster, with total losses greater than
$10.2 billion and insured losses of $7.3 billion. Tuscaloosa, Ala., was badly
hit, and 240 of the 321 deaths were in Alabama.

Close behind was a drought and
heat wave across Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, southern Kansas and
western Louisiana. The total direct losses to crops, livestock and timber have
approached $10 billion; both direct and total economic losses will rise as the
drought continues.

The weather fueled wildfires
across Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, with losses over $1 billion from just the
fires.

Hurricane Irene cost more than
$7.3 billion in damages and resulted in 45 deaths.

The Joplin tornado in Missouri
was the deadliest single tornado in 61 years, with 160 deaths. That tornado,
along with 179 others across 15 states in late May, cost $9.1 billion, with
$6.5 billion in insured losses.

Source: www.latimes.com

Save Energy and Money: Award Winning Green Buildings & Master Plans

Singapore’s Building and
Construction Authority (BCA) has won the inaugural Regional Leadership Award -
one of the six in the world presented at Durban – for its exceptional Green
Building Masterplan and efforts in steering the construction industry towards
sustainable development. Meanwhile, a new Singapore school campus is winning
plaudits: The newly opened United World College of South East Asia in Tampines
now relies on a solar thermal system for all of its hot water and a third of
its air-conditioning. Saving energy and money, says director of operations and
facilities Simon Thomas.

UWC’s ‘green’ new campus

By  Kezia Toh in The Straits Times (9 December
2011):

A school here is enjoying hot
water and air-conditioning, courtesy of the sun’s rays.

The newly opened United World
College of South East Asia in Tampines now relies on a solar thermal system for
all of its hot water and a third of its air-conditioning.

The system, installed by Austrian
solar engineering company Solid Asia, cost nearly €5 million (S$8.6 million)
and was funded by the Economic Development Board (EDB) and two Austrian banks –
Raiffeisen-Landesbank Steiermark and Oesterreichische Kontrollbank.

Mr Julian Peter Whiteley, head of the college,
said: ‘It’s been crucial because we’ve been able to teach the students about
how you can genuinely achieve sustainability, and not just talk about it.’

Solid Asia approached the college
to set up the system, and it agreed. The company, which has an office in
Singapore, had applied for EDB’s Solar Capability Scheme, which grooms the
solar industry here by encouraging design and integration of solar panels into
green buildings.

The system was installed on top
of the campus building and shelter at the school field in the middle of last
year.

It began operating in August this
year and was officially launched on Wednesday.

Besides being a clean and
renewable energy source, solar energy will also guarantee stable electricity
bills.

With this system and other
energy-saving features, the campus will likely consume 25 to 30 per cent less
electricity than conventional buildings of similar size and function.

Dr Christian Holter, chief
executive of Solid Group, the parent company of Solid Asia, said: ‘Electricity
costs will rise and go even higher, but the cost of this system will remain the
same because the sun shines for free.’

The system absorbs the sun’s heat
to warm up water that runs through it.

Some of the hot water is used
mainly for the college’s boarding house, which can take up to 150 students.

The remaining hot water powers a
chiller that cools water for the college’s air-con system.

This project was one of six
awarded the Solar Pioneer Award last year by the inter-agency Energy Innovation
Programme Office, which plans and executes strategies to develop the energy
sector here. The office is led by EDB and the Energy Market Authority.

Dr Holter said: ‘The only thing
is that we need to invest upfront, but this technology at the college is
expected to last for the next 25 to 30 years. It is a long-term investment.’

The campus won a Platinum Green
Mark for Buildings Award for its eco-friendly design.

For example, the college boasts
green walls to reduce ambient temperature, and a rain garden to collect rainwater
for landscape irrigation.

Minister for the Environment and
Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan congratulated the college for the project
in a post on his ministry’s Facebook page yesterday.

He said: ‘Much of our energy
demand in buildings relate to cooling due to our tropical climate. It is
fitting that we should see such a tangible demonstration of innovation in a
place of learning.’

Source:  www.eco-business.com

By Esther Ng in Today

SINGAPORE – Setting cooling pipes
at 45-degree angles instead of conventional right angles. Using fresh air and
ceiling fans to cool the classrooms. Installing pipes before the walls were
erected.

These were among the measures
taken by the United World College South East Asia (UWCSEA) to make its new
Tampines campus “green”.

“We had a S$6 million Green
Mark budget, but we didn’t have to touch it,” said UWCSEA director of
operations and facilities Simon Thomas.

Such green features helped the
UWCSEA’s Tampines campus to clinch the Building and Construction Authority’s
(BCA) Green Mark Platinum award in September.

The BCA Green Mark is a
green-building rating system that evaluates a building for its environmental
impact and performance.

The UWCSEA yesterday shared its
experience in developing a green campus with members of the National Climate
Change Secretariat’s (NCCS) focus group on building efficiency.

The campus also has
air-conditioning chillers which are two times more efficient than typical
commercial chillers, leading to savings of S$70,000 a month in its electricity
bill, Mr Thomas said.

The monthly bill is the same as
that of the UWCSEA’s Dover Road campus, which is around S$140,000, but the
Tampines campus is bigger, at 76,000 sq m, compared to Dover Road’s 50,000 sq
m.

Other green features at the
Tampines campus include having fresh air, channelled through the air-handling
unit, blowing onto a cooled coil before making its way into the classrooms.

Two 15-watt ceiling fans spin the
cooled air in the classrooms, some of which overflows into the corridor,
thereby reducing the need for air-conditioning and the use of ducts in the
corridor.

Source: www.todayonline.com

International Recognition for BCA
Singapore and its Green Building Masterplan

Singapore, 6 December 2011 – The
Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has been conferred the inaugural
Regional Leadership Award, one of the six World Green Building Council Government
Leadership Awards, for its exceptional Green Building Masterplan and efforts in
steering the construction industry towards sustainable development in
Singapore, and leadership in the green building movement in Asia Pacific.

The annual World Green Building
Council Government Leadership Awards highlights world-leading government
policies that maximise the opportunity of buildings to mitigate carbon
emissions in the environment. WorldGBC’s Chief Executive Officer, Jane Henley
said, “The WorldGBC’s ‘Regional Leadership Award’ recognises the
outstanding vision and commitment of Singapore’s Building and Construction
Authority. We congratulate the Singapore Government for developing a Masterplan
that sets minimum environmental standards for building codes, provides
incentives for the private sector and promotes research, development and
capacity building. Singapore’s achievements clearly demonstrate that green
building is not only achievable, but also affordable and practical.”

The Singapore Green Building
Council, one of the 80 over Green Building Councils from around the world,
nominated BCA for this award. Mr Tai Lee Siang, President, Singapore Green
Building Council commented that this is a recognition for the significant
efforts by BCA in showing the industry the way forward by not just
understanding the private sector conditions but also taking on the leadership
role to get the public sector to go green.

BCA’s flagship Green Mark scheme
was launched in 2005, setting minimum standards for buildings on environmental
factors such as energy efficiency, environmental impacts, waste management and
water efficiency. It is the first green building rating system developed to
suit the tropical climate. However, in its first year, only 17 buildings made
the cut for the certification. To accelerate the growth of green buildings, BCA
formulated a Green Building Masterplan that sets out specific initiatives to
achieve the national target of greening at least 80% of the buildings in
Singapore by 2030. Its current focus is on greening existing buildings.
To-date, there are more than 940 green building projects, translating to a
gross floor area of about 28 million m2 or 300 million ft2, or 12% of the nation’s
total gross floor area.

Having led the construction
industry forward in developing green buildings in Singapore, BCA has began to
share Singapore’s green building expertise in the region by exporting its Green
Mark scheme and profiling its construction industry’s expertise
internationally.

Dr John Keung, Chief Executive Officer
of BCA, the leader behind the BCA Green Building Masterplan, was honoured and
delighted by the new award. He said, “While BCA is championing the green
building movement, this would not have been possible without the strong support
from the Singapore Green Building Council, and all stakeholders in the building
and construction industry for their unceasing support of the BCA Green Mark
Scheme to propel Singapore towards environmental sustainability.

“I would also like to thank
the World Green Building Council and look forward to closer collaboration in
events and projects such as the Singapore Green Building Week, International
Green Building Conference and the BCA Centre of Sustainable Buildings, in
igniting and sustaining the green building movement in our region”, he
added.

Lately, Singapore’s greening
efforts and policies are gaining international recognition. In 2010, BCA became
the first government agency outside North America to be conferred the
prestigious Aspen Institute’s Energy and Environment Award (Government) for its
comprehensive policies and programmes in steering the industry towards the
development of green buildings and sustainable construction in Singapore.
Earlier this year in 2011, in a study conducted by a private consultancy firm
on Asia-Pacific cities, Singapore was also ranked first in green building
policies, before advanced cities like Tokyo, Sydney and Seoul. The United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also chosen BCA to form a
collaborating centre, which will be the first in Asia and one of the few
centres in the world to collaborate with UNEP to drive greater adoption of
sustainable buildings.

Source: www.bca.gov.sg

A clean energy centre has
recently been launched in New Zealand to facilitate the growth of renewable
energy use across the country. Situated in a region that produces 75% more
clean energy than it uses, the centre is perfectly located to achieve this
goal. The Taupo region produces 1,500 megawatts (MW) of clean energy annually,
from a combination of geothermal and hydro resources. The region, however, only
uses a total of 20 MW of energy annually, and all of it clean energy.

Launch: New Zealand Clean Energy
Centre

EcoGeneration — November/December
2011 issue:

A clean energy centre has
recently been launched in New Zealand to facilitate the growth of renewable
energy use across the country. Situated in a region that produces 75 per cent
more clean energy than it uses, the centre is perfectly located to achieve this
goal.

The New Zealand Clean Energy
Centre (NZ CEC), opened in May 2011, is located at Lake Taupo on New Zealand’s
North Island. The Centre is a source of funds, advice, technology and services
designed to accelerate the path-to-implementation for renewable energy
projects, with an initial focus on geothermal and biomass projects. The
building also acts as a host for offices, and as an exhibit and events centre –
the latter of which were put to the test in October when the New Zealand Clean
Energy Expo was held the Centre.

The NZ CEC, a non-commercial
institution, received a NZ$2 million grant for its development, from the New
Zealand Trade and Enterprise agency.

Accelerating renewables in NZ

The NZ CEC has been established
to help accelerate the adoption of clean energy solutions in New Zealand, and
plans to implement these in a number of ways, including:

Clustering clean energy companies
in a collaborative environment. Stage 1 of the of NZ CEC building has office
space for nine companies, while Stage 2 will double that capacity •The building
features three solar hot water systems, three micro wind turbines, two solar
electric systems, a geothermal heating system, a short rotation energy crop
irrigated with waste water from the building, and an electric vehicle charging
station. Plans to add more demonstration technologies over the years ahead are
also in place

•Providing a focal point for clean energy
events, such as the New Zealand Clean Energy Expo, and acting as a public venue
for conferences in a clean energy environment

•Conceiving and facilitating projects aimed at
converting industrial and institutional users of fossil fuels to either biomass
or geothermal energy for process heat

•Facilitating the transfer of innovative clean
energy technology solutions from overseas markets into the New Zealand
marketplace

•Connecting New Zealand clean energy
innovators with partners, markets and funding sources

•Offering public tours, education services and
independent advice on renewable energy.

NZ CEC goals for the 21st century

Primary goals for the NZ CEC
include seeing more geothermal heat being used for direct use applications and
more biomass being used to displace coal or gas in industrial boilers, since
biomass is renewable and carbon neutral.

The NZ CEC also hopes to awaken
students of all ages to the world of clean energy, hopefully inspiring them to
either pursue a career in the field, to adopt clean energy solutions as part of
their future lifestyles and to encourage their parents to explore clean energy
solutions.

Other goals include accelerating
the adoption of electric vehicles in New Zealand and attracting existing clean
energy companies, as well as innovative start-up companies to establish
themselves in the Taupo region.

Outstanding energy efficiency in
Taupo

The Taupo region produces 1,500
megawatts (MW) of clean energy annually, from a combination of geothermal and
hydro resources. The region, however, only uses a total of 20 MW of energy
annually, and all of it clean energy.

Therefore, the NZ CEC believes
they are the only region in the world that can claim that all of the energy
produced in the region is clean, and that they produce 75 times more clean
energy than they use. By establishing the NZ CEC in Taupo, the NZ CEC aims to
allow Taupo to benefit from the fastest-growing market of this century, which
will therefore contribute to the economic wellbeing of the region.

Upcoming NZ CEC projects

The NZ CEC is involved in a
number of projects in the near future, including:

•The launch of the Association
for the Promotion of Electric Vehicles

•Exploring the potential for establishing an
off-grid housing community in Taupo

•Facilitating the conversion of a meat
processing plant from gas to biomass for their boiler fuel, and in the process
helping them dispose of their own waste streams in an environmentally-friendly
way

•Facilitating geothermal direct use projects

•Advising owners or tenants of new industrial
developments that will maximise their green credentials.

Source: www.ecogeneration.com.au