Welcome to the placid year of the rabbit

Pulling a rabbit out of a hat, breeding like rabbits, white rabbits – all rabbit images from the West – but to the Chinese followers of fashion and custom the world over, as they welcome in the Year of the Rabbit (commencing 3 February), the humble, playful and very edible rabbit is seen somewhat differently. Here’s one view on the year ahead:  

“A placid year, very much welcomed and needed after the ferocious year of the Tiger. We should go off to some quiet spot to lick our wounds and get some rest after all the battles of the previous year.
Good taste and refinement will shine on everything and people will acknowledge that persuasion is better than force. A congenial time in which diplomacy, international relations and politics will be given a front seat again. We will act with discretion and make reasonable concessions without too much difficulty. A time to watch out that we do not become too indulgent. The influence of the Rabbit tends to spoil those who like too much comfort and thus impair their effectiveness and sense of duty.”

And as the year has started for many with very wet feet – even in Singapore – an umbrella will come in handy! So we go very international in this issue, with reports from Washington and Davos, with John Elkington looking kindly on Singapore and water as a ongoing issue. Water conservation is in the news in China, while Australia’s flood tax is creating a storm of a different sort. Wellington will host this year climate change and business conference, while Australians of the Year get the attention they deserve. Coral bleaching gets in National Geographic’s focus and News Limited attains carbon neutral status.  Find out what’s meant by “Green Ops for PE” and look again at bamboo for its sustainability in a material world. Pandas and rabbits unite! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Lester Brown

Lester Brown is worried. In his new book “World on the Edge,” the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute says mankind has pushed civilisation to the brink of collapse by bleeding aquifers dry and over-ploughing land to feed an ever-growing population, while overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. If we continue to sap Earth’s natural resources, “civilisational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when”.  

WASHINGTON (AFP) – – Like many environmentalists, Lester Brown is worried. In his new book “World on the Edge,” released this week, Brown says mankind has pushed civilization to the brink of collapse by bleeding aquifers dry and overplowing land to feed an ever-growing population, while overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

If we continue to sap Earth’s natural resources, “civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when,” Brown, the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute, which both seek to create a sustainable society, told AFP.

What distinguishes “World on the Edge” from his dozens of other books is “the sense of urgency,” Brown told AFP. “Things could start unraveling at any time now and it’s likely to start on the food front.

“We’ve got to get our act together quickly. We don’t have generations or even decades — we’re one poor harvest away from chaos,” he said.

“We have been talking for decades about saving the planet, but the question now is, can we save civilization?”

In “World on the Edge”, Brown points to warning signs and lays out arguments for why he believes the cause of the chaos will be the unsustainable way that mankind is going about producing more and more food.

Resources are already beginning to be depleted, and that could cause a global “food bubble” created by overusing land and water to meet the exponential growth in demand for food — grain, in particular — to burst.

Two huge dustbowls have formed in the world, one in Africa and the other in China and Mongolia, because of soil erosion caused by overplowing.

In Lesotho, the grain harvest has dropped by more than half over the last decade or two because of soil erosion, Brown said.

In Saudi Arabia, grain supplies are shrinking as a fossil aquifer drilled in in the 1970s to sustain domestic grain production is running dry after years of “overpumping” to meet the needs of a population that wants to consume more meat and poultry.

Global warming is also impacting the global supply of grain, which Brown calls the foundation of the world food economy.

Every one-degree-Celsius rise above the normal temperature results in a 10 percent fall in grain yields, something that was painfully visible in Russia last year, where a seven-week heatwave killed tens of thousands and caused the grain harvest to shrink by 40 percent.

Food prices soared in Russia as a result of the poor harvest, and Russia — which is one of the top wheat exporters in the world — cut off grain exports.

Different grains are staple foods in most of the world, and foods like meat and dairy products are “grain-intensive.”

It takes seven pounds (3.2 kilograms) of grain fed to a cow to produce a pound of beef, and around four pounds (1.8 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of cheese, Brown told AFP.

In “World on the Edge”, Brown paints a grim picture of how a failed harvest could spark a grain shortage that would send food prices sky-rocketing, cause hunger to spread, governments to collapse and states to fail.

Food riots would erupt in low-income countries and “with confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could start to unravel,” Brown warned.

But Brown still believes civilizational collapse can be averted, if there is a mass effort to confront threats such as global warming, soil erosion and falling water tables, not military superpowers.

Source: www.forum.channelnewsasia.com/

Biography of Lester Brown

The Washington Post called Lester Brown “one of the world’s most influential thinkers.” The Telegraph of Calcutta refers to him as “the guru of the environmental movement.” In 1986, the Library of Congress requested his personal papers noting that his writings “have already strongly affected thinking about problems of world population and resources.”

Brown started his career as a farmer, growing tomatoes in southern New Jersey with his younger brother during high school and college. Shortly after earning a degree in agricultural science from Rutgers University in 1955, he spent six months living in rural India where he became intimately familiar with the food/population issue. In 1959 Brown joined the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service as an international agricultural analyst.

Brown earned masters degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Maryland and in public administration from Harvard. In 1964, he became an adviser to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman on foreign agricultural policy. In 1966, the Secretary appointed him Administrator of the department’s International Agricultural Development Service. In early 1969, he left government to help establish the Overseas Development Council.

In 1974, with support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Lester Brown founded the Worldwatch Institute, the first research institute devoted to the analysis of global environmental issues. While there he launched the Worldwatch Papers, the annual State of the World reports, World Watch magazine, a second annual entitled Vital Signs: The Trends That are Shaping Our Future, and the Environmental Alert book series.

Brown has authored or coauthored 50 books. One of the world’s most widely published authors, his books have appeared in some 40 languages. Among his earlier books are Man, Land and Food, World Without Borders, and Building a Sustainable Society. His 1995 book Who Will Feed China? challenged the official view of China’s food prospect, spawning hundreds of conferences and seminars.

In May 2001, he founded the Earth Policy Institute to provide a vision and a road map for achieving an environmentally sustainable economy. In November 2001, he published Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth, which was hailed by E.O. Wilson as “an instant classic.” His most recent book is World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse.

He is the recipient of many prizes and awards, including 25 honorary degrees, a MacArthur Fellowship, the 1987 United Nations’ Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize for his “exceptional contributions to solving global environmental problems.” More recently, he was awarded the the Borgström Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, received an honorary doctorate from the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine in Romania, and was selected one of Foreign Policy’s Top Global Thinkers of 2010.

Source: www.earth-policy.org

A Sputnik Moment for a Green Energy Future

US President Barack Obama has vowed to eliminate billions of dollars of oil subsidies in order to invest in a drive towards a clean energy future. ‘I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own,’ he said in his State of the Union address.’Instead of subsidising yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s”.  He vowed government support for research that could lead to breakthroughs in green energy, comparing such efforts to the Cold War race to the moon. Meanwhile, Carol Browner’s departure as the White House’s top adviser on climate change reflects the President’s limited ability to push his clean-energy agenda

Sky News January 26, 2011

US President Barack Obama has vowed to eliminate billions of dollars of oil subsidies in order to invest in a drive towards a clean energy future.

‘I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own,’ he said in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

‘Instead of subsidising yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,’ he added in the annual speech outlining his main policy goals.

Obama vowed government support for research that could lead to breakthroughs in green energy, comparing such efforts to the Cold War race to the moon.

‘We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time,’ Obama said.

‘With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.’

Obama challenged the country to scale back its dependence on fossil fuels, setting the goal of producing 80 per cent of US electricity from ‘clean energy sources’ by 2035.

‘Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all, and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen,’ Obama said.

Last year Obama championed a clean energy bill that would have set up a ‘cap-and-trade’ program to reduce emissions in the world’s second largest polluter, only to see it die in the Senate.

He faces an even steeper climb now that resurgent Republicans – who oppose carbon regulations they say would hamper a desperately-needed economic recovery – control the House of Representatives.

The 21-page ‘Pledge to America’ released by Republicans in September calls for increased access to domestic energy sources and opposition to what they describe as a national ‘cap-and-trade’ energy tax.

Republicans have often derided Obama’s clean energy policies as ‘job killers,’ and support offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Arctic, nuclear power plants, and coal-to-liquid technology

Source: www.skynews.com.au

By Kim Chipman and Jim Snyder - Jan 26, 2011 12:52 AM GMT+0800

Carol Browner’s departure as the White House’s top adviser on climate change reflects President Barack Obama’s limited ability to push his clean-energy agenda through Congress, former Obama aide John Podesta said.

“It’s a recognition of a certain reality,” Podesta, who managed Obama’s transition team and pushed for Browner’s appointment, said in an interview today. Browner realized the chance to pass legislation curbing carbon emissions was “in the last Congress,” he said.

Browner’s plan to leave was confirmed today by Nancy Sutley, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. While Browner, 55, won the auto industry’s acceptance of tighter tailpipe emissions standards, legislation to impose cap-and-trade restrictions on carbon emissions failed in the Senate after passing the House.

“There was a feeling it was time to move on,” Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, said in an interview today. “It’s a loss. I hate to see her go.”

The administration hasn’t decided whether Browner will be replaced or her job eliminated, Sutley told reporters at an energy conference in Washington today.

“Carol has been a tremendous colleague” Sutley said. “She’s very valued at the White House.”

Browner’s critics said her resignation may signal the administration’s intention to scale back environmental regulations such as the EPA’s new greenhouse-gas regulations. The rules, which took effect Jan. 2, are opposed by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say the limits will burden businesses and hurt the economy.

Job-Creation Obstacles

“Her departure may be part of a legitimate effort to pay careful attention to addressing some of the real regulatory obstacles in the way of job creation in the U.S.,” Scott Segal, a lawyer in the Washington office of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP who lobbies for utilities such as Southern Co., said in a e- mailed statement yesterday.

Browner’s departure doesn’t lessen the administration’s commitment on the environment, Podesta said.

“Polluters see this as an opening,” said Podesta, president of the Washington-based Center for American Progress, a public policy group that advises Democrats. “There’s no opening.”

Obama ran for president on a pledge to push for cap-and- trade, a carbon emissions-trading system that would let companies buy and sell a shrinking pool of permits to pollute. In November, a day after the midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives and increased their number in the Senate, Obama said cap-and-trade legislation probably wouldn’t be possible until at least 2013.

‘Just One Way’

Obama said cap-and-trade was “just one way of skinning the cat” and he would be “looking for other means to address this problem.” The president has yet to spell out such a new approach.

Browner is the latest senior administration member to depart two years into Obama’s presidency. Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address to Congress tonight.

Source: www.bloomberg.com/news/

Flood Levy: Government Robs Green “Peter” to Pay Wet “Paul”

The federal government should fund flood recovery by cutting subsidies and tax breaks that promote fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution, not by slashing funding to climate action programmes, the Australian Conservation Foundation says, while  Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator writes:  “Surely, not in their wildest dreams would they have imagined that the Gillard government would decide, without a hint of irony, that it should be the clean tech and clean energy industries who should pay for the Queensland clean up, along with a bunch of unfortunates who cannot afford to pay their own rent?”

Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator 28 January 2011

Senator Bob Brown received a right old bollocking when he suggested earlier this month that the fossil fuel industry should pick up the tab for flood relief, arguing that since fossil fuels were the major contributor to global warming, and that the intensity and frequency of natural disasters were likely to increase because of it, then the industry should be held to account.

It wasn’t just a matter of bad timing or unsightly finger pointing, although it was most certainly both of those. When disaster and tragedy strike, politicians and civil leaders are expected to show statesmanship and empathy with those who are suffering, which is why Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has earned such admiration.

Brown made many wince, including in his own party, but he was not the only one to cross the line. Catholic leader Cardinal George Pell, who influences an even greater congregation, wrote a week earlier of his delight at the extraordinary freeze that had hit Europe in late December – an event that just so happened to have killed dozens and ruined the travel plans of millions – because he thought it disproved the theory of man-made global warming.

“Nothing so delicious has happened,” he wrote, since President Obama’s aircraft was snowed in at the global warming summit in Copenhagen in 2009. The coolest Cardinal’s hopes were dashed a week later when data came in confirming that 2010 was, indeed, the hottest year on record – even despite the European deep freeze. 

The mining industry, predictably, made a big hullabaloo about Brown’s comments, claiming a levy would destroy their industry and invoking, yet again, the it’s-not-us-it’s-them defence – that Australian coal really doesn’t contribute that much to global warming. It certainly shouldn’t be them who paid, they said, ignoring for the moment that the exact function of a carbon price is to recognise the environmental impacts, or externalities, of burning fossil fuels.

So who, then, should pay? Surely not in their wildest dreams would they have imagined that the Gillard government would decide, without a hint of irony, that it should be the clean tech and clean energy industries who should pay for the Queensland clean up, along with a bunch of unfortunates who cannot afford to pay their own rent?

Gillard’s obsession with producing a surplus in 2012/13 is one thing, but the symbolism of slashing $675 million from climate change policies to pay for a natural disaster in the hope that it is a “one-off” is quite another. Climate change programs are suddenly luxury goods. What happens if there is another disaster?

The $430 million ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme is axed, along with Green Start, but so is the remaining $234 million in the Green Car Innovation Fund. Funding programs for utility-scale solar and carbon capture and storage are cut and deferred, and solar cities and solar hot water schemes are brought to an early end. That’s half a billion dollars out of solar.

The closing of some of these programs will not be lamented. Clunkers was a dumb idea and was destined to be cut anyway, and Green Start had already been canned. Many wondered why the coal industry couldn’t throw a bit more of its own money to develop technology that could supposedly save its future, and there were doubts about whether the money in either flagships program would ever be spent.

But was there really nothing imperfect about the subsidies that fossil fuels enjoy – the FBT scheme that sends drivers out on endless road trips so they can qualify for a tax break; the diesel fuel rebate; the petroleum exploration rebate – that they couldn’t be touched for these purposes?

So what is that government up to? Does it know? Is this just Penny’s pay back? Penny Wong, the former federal climate change minister, now in finance and vested with the responsibility of identifying sacrificial lambs, was never a fan of these schemes. Most were constructs from the offices of energy minister Martin Ferguson and industry minister Kim Carr, and she didn’t like them.

Could the ALP simply be giving itself some negotiating room? A program restated is easier agreed than a program added. Or is it simply trying to differentiate itself from the Greens; sowing the seeds for a carbon policy that might rely more on support from the Coalition than it does from the cross-benches?

One thing appears clear – Labor is being progressively seduced by industry groups and lobbyists who argue that complementary measures are not needed with a carbon price. This seemed to be the thrust of Gillard’s argument at the National Press Club on Thursday: The green schemes were cut because they did not deliver a low enough cost of abatement. In the case of clunkers, certainly not, but the other schemes were designed to support the early stages of development of technologies that can and – like solar – will defray costs elsewhere and, in the words of US President Barack Obama just a day earlier, underwrite the industries of the future.

This does not look good for the development of the cleantech industry in Australia. The motor industry is in uproar, and the solar industry is mortified that it has been subject to $500 million of funding cuts and deferrals. Flagships was not particularly loved because it required a panel to pick four winning technologies from a cast of 52, when markets tend to do a better job at that. Now two of those winners will not even be chosen till after 2015.

But the clean energy industry did not want to can government support, it simply wanted it replaced with ideas that have proved effective overseas, such as feed-in tariffs and loan guarantees. That now seems unlikely, and investors will look elsewhere, and Australian developers will continue to look for backers and markets overseas.

As Obama said on Wednesday, nascent industries need support. Gillard seems to be intent on following a different drumbeat. If Australia does ditch the idea of complementary measures, it will most certainly be ‘going it alone’. No other country has forged a similar path, but then they don’t have quite as much coal and minerals to export.

The economic rationalist argument might be valid, but as Professor Ross Garnaut notes, it would require a carbon price with real bite – somewhere between $50 and $100 a tonne to generate the technologies that are needed in the future. It’s doubtful that industry groups charged with protecting the status quo have that in mind. And you’d imagine that this government would not have the stomach to go there.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Australian Conservation Foundation release

28 January 2011

Cut fossil fuel subsidies to pay for flood recovery

The federal government should fund flood recovery by cutting subsidies and tax breaks that promote fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution, not by slashing funding to climate action programs, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday announced cuts to the Green Car Innovation Fund, the Cleaner Car Rebate scheme, the Solar Flagships program, the Solar Hot Water Rebate scheme and the Green Start program to help pay for flood reconstruction.

“It’s right for the government to help people rebuild after these devastating floods, but it should use fossil fuel subsidies to fund the work,” said ACF’s executive director Don Henry.

“There are a number of tax breaks and concessions that drain the Federal Budget, while promoting fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution.

“The largest of these fossil fuel subsidies is the Fuel Tax Credits program, which costs taxpayers more than $5 billion a year, the vast majority of which goes to mining companies as credits for use of diesel fuel.

“Another is the Fringe Benefits Tax concession for personal use of company cars, which is set up so that if you drive a company car, the benefits increase the more you drive it and the more you pollute the atmosphere.

“US President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address this week, made a commitment to fund the development of clean technology by ending $4 billion a year of tax subsidies to oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers.

“Australia should take a leaf out of Obama’s book.

“While no single extreme weather event can be directly attributed to climate change, this summer’s floods are entirely consistent with what climate scientists have been warning about for decades.

“By cutting greenhouse pollution we can reduce the severity of extreme weather events and help protect our people and our economy.”

Source: www.acfonline.org.au

Time is the Scarcest Resource: Business Must Act on Climate Change

The world economy may be steering itself cautiously out of the doldrums, but leaders have struggled to agree remedies to the key threats on the agenda at the annual World Economic Forum’s Davos event. “Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all: time,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He was specifically talking about the battle to halt climate change, but he could just have easily be addressing stalled world trade talks, Europe’s debt crisis, Chinese asset-price inflation or soaring world food prices. Victor Anderson, who is ‘One Planet Economy’ leader at WWF, doesn’t think those assembled at Davos really appreciated the significance of the ecology crisis and why it posed a threat to both business and politics as usual.

Jean-Louis de la Vaissiere for AFP in The Age (30 January 2011):

Global business leaders headed home from Davos on Sunday after a week in which were courted by politicians seeking plans to deal with debt, food scarcity, climate change and revolt on the Arab street.

The world economy may be steering itself cautiously out of the doldrums, but leaders have struggled to agree remedies to the key threats on the agenda at the annual World Economic Forum’s elite annual networking event.

“Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all: time,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, as dozens of senior international figures swung by to lobby some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet.

Ban was specifically talking about the battle to halt climate change, but he could just have easily be addressing stalled world trade talks, Europe’s debt crisis, Chinese asset-price inflation or soaring world food prices.

There was no lack of good will in Davos, the self-selecting group that makes the annual pilgrimage up the mountain to this snowbound resort is largely sold on the virtues of a globalised economy and multilateral cooperation.

But many of the debates at this year’s event were pessimistic in tone, and the political guests sometimes appeared caught flat-footed by shock events far beyond the Davos Congress Centre.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev put on a credible show of defiance to the terrorists who bombed a Moscow airport shortly before he was due in Davos, but his arrival was delayed and his visit cut short.

His opening day speech was preceded by a minute of silence, and worries about extremist violence took the shine off the Russia delegation’s unveiling of a billion-dollar oil exploration deal with US giant ExxonMobil.

Meanwhile, Forum organisers were scrambling to address the number one topic of anxious discussion in the venue’s corridors — the popular revolts in North Africa and the risk of their spreading throughout the Arab world.

Davos managed to produce a trio of newly-minted ministers from the Tunisian interim regime, and they were warmly welcomed to the fold as champions of the fight for freedom, but between sessions delegates sought news from Egypt.

Western leaders fear Egypt’s revolution will trigger bloodshed and boost Islamism, but don’t want to be seen to be backing an autocrat like strongman Hosni Mubarak, and Davos never really managed to address the issue.

Meanwhile, topics debated with great elan at Davos 2010 have scarcely moved on: post-earthquake reconstruction in Haiti has stalled, the Middle East peace process is in ruins and Iran clings doggedly to its nuclear plants.

Since then the Lebanese government has fallen and Ivory Coast has found itself divided between two would-be presidents and on the brink of war.

With the political and environmental crises proving intractable, the Forum spent a lot of time listening to rival economic recovery plans, but here again Western leaders were on the defensive.

Russia and fast-growing India duelled to see which could plaster the resort city with more triumphant posters, and Chinese executives and officials made placatory noises about global trade imbalances without making concessions.

But a string of European leaders concentrated on defending the stability of the euro and their deficit reduction plans, while the United States insisted they had got it all wrong and that now was not the time to cut spending.

Source: www.news.theage.com.au

Victor Anderson for the Guardian Professional Network Wednesday 26 January 2011 

This week the world’s business and political elite gather in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the planet’s future. Although economic rivalries are always at the top of the agenda, in recent years the Davos meetings of the World Economic Forum have found a little time to discuss climate change. However, there is as yet no sign that most of those who attend really appreciate the significance of the ecology crisis and why it poses a threat to both business and politics as usual.

The conventional view of the world is that there is a choice to be made between the risk of systemic change and the relative safety of sticking with what we have now. However if we take the idea of sustainability seriously, we can see it is not like that. Current unsustainability means that the situation we are in cannot be continued, and will change. The choice is therefore not between what we have and making a risky transition to something different. The choice is between two different forms of transition.

The signs of both forms are all around us, good and bad. We need to recognise that indications of the unintended and unplanned “bad transition” are not just to be found in climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental deterioration generally, or in environmental and social problems put together.

There is also a distinctively economic component to the process. Some of it is to be found in the economic impact of climate change. Increased flooding, for example, has put enormous costs on agriculture and other economic activity, and of course raised insurance premiums paid by business and households.

More of the bad transition is to be seen in the way ecological deterioration, such as reductions in soil quality and water availability, undermines production, most obviously in the case of food.

However there is also a basic economic shift taking place at the moment which is as pervasive as the worldwide changes in climate and ecosystems. This phenomenon is structural inflation caused by unsustainable economics. Prices are, above all, a response to supply and demand. If demand is rising – and demand is rising fast across the world now for fuel, food, metals, and many other commodities – and supply is relatively fixed, prices will go up.

This is exactly what is happening, returning to the circumstances which preceded the financial crisis in 2008: “Global food prices have reached a nominal all-time high, surpassing the peak seen in 2007-08 – when bread riots rocked poor countries.” (Financial Times, 11 January 2011) “The price of steel has risen more than a third in two months” (FT, 17 January 2011). “Copper prices rose 33% in 2010“. (Wall Street Journal Europe, 4 January 2011). “Morgan Stanley analysts predicted recently that crude oil would go ‘above $100 per barrel’ in 2011.” (WSJE 4 January 2011)

As the world economy moves closer and closer to the limits of its resources, we get nearer to the points where various commodities are fixed in supply, or are increasingly risky to supply (as with oil extraction in places like the Gulf of Mexico), or where their output can only be expanded by limiting the production of other commodities. Climate change and ecosystem deterioration then restrict supply still further.

The outcome is bound to be inflation. Not just a temporary and localised form of inflation, but inflation structurally built in to the world economy.

In the UK, rising inflation now threatens the ability of the Bank of England to use monetary policy to counteract the deflationary effects of the government’s spending cuts. The next move for interest rates is likely to be upwards.

The general outcome of this form of inflation is stagflation: stagnation in output produced by inflation in input prices. When input prices rise, firms cannot afford to buy as many of the materials they use, and unless they can find a way to use those materials more efficiently, firms’ output will fall.

A no-growth economy does not depend on radical green campaigners persuading people that growth is undesirable, nor on the overturning of current values and priorities which that would require. It can be the simple outcome of unintended stagflation. A no-growth economy may be closer than we think.

Victor Anderson is ‘One Planet Economy’ leader at WWF

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

A Sustainable Future with Water Self-Sufficiency is Singapore’s Aim

Global sustainability leader and creator of the ‘triple bottom line’, John Elkington makes these Singapore observations: “One reason why the city-state is so keen on water recycling and desalination, for example, is that Malaysia has periodically threatened to cut off the critical water it supplies. As a result Singapore plans to be self-sufficient in water by 2061, when their agreement to draw water from Malaysia ends.” World Water Day, which coincides with World Storytelling Day, will be held in Singapore on 20 March, while Government and the private sector are committed to Singapore International Water Week 4 – 8 July.

For more information on World Water Day/World Storytelling Day in Singapore 20 March, go to: www.rogerjenins.com.sg and for more on Singapore International Water Week, go to : www.siww.com.sg

‘You drop it, you break it, it’s finished’, by John Elkington in The Guardian and eco-businss.com

Singapore: Sometimes today’s abnormal holds useful clues to tomorrow’s normal. Singapore is very far from normal, something that Lee Kuan Yew, the city-state’s prime minister from 1959 to 1990, is at pains to point out in his new book, Hard Truths. It’s one of the most gripping and personal accounts of the thrills and spills of politics that I have read.

Surrounded by countries that do not wish it well, and in competition with rising neighbours in Asia, Singapore’s future is far from guaranteed. One reason why the city-state is so keen on water recycling and desalination, for example, is that Malaysia has periodically threatened to cut off the critical water it supplies. As a result Singapore plans to be self-sufficient in water by 2061, when their agreement to draw water from Malaysia ends.

This propensity to think long is shot through Lee’s book. In one memorable section – and there are many – he recalls a visit to Boston in 1968, where he had an eco-epiphany. Like Sherlock Holmes and the dog that didn’t bark, he noticed that the trees and other vegetation in the city centre were a rich, verdant green. He asked why they weren’t as dusty and diseased as in Singapore? The answer: vehicle emissions were tightly controlled – something Lee promptly put into force back home.

Dismissed as “Disneyland with the death penalty” and as “an antiseptic island peopled by a passive citizenry and governed by paranoia,” Singapore demonstrates the power of triple bottom line strategy at the country level: economic competitiveness, social inclusion (up to a point) and a cleaner environment for all. It remains to be seen whether the People’s Action party (PAP), that has held power for over 50 years, survives Lee’s eventual death (he is still a cabinet member), but he aims to ensure his successors – perhaps seduced by consumerist lifestyles – do not forget how fragile the city-state’s success is.

While in the city last week, I spoke to hundreds of people in government, business and civil society, and found a growing interest in corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Although Lee is pessimistic about the likelihood of nation states getting a grip on the climate disaster he sees threatening the region, he is determined that Singapore adapts to climate change and develops new industrial clusters in areas like clean technology.

Their tiny country, Lee warns the rising generations of Singaporeans, “is like a chronometer. You drop it, you break it, it’s finished. Some countries, you get a second chance, you buy spare parts, you put it back again. I’m not sure we’ll ever get a second chance.”

And I’m not sure, if he’s right about climate change, whether by 2061 a huge number of Asians won’t find themselves more than inconvenienced in a Humpty Dumpty future. Our best hope: to win over cities, city-states and countries to the “one planet” way, before we lose our grip.

John Elkington is the executive chairman of Volans, co-founder of SustainAbility, blogs at Johnelkington.com, tweets at @volandia and is a member of The Guardian’s Sustainable Business Advisory Panel.

Source: www.eco-business.com

China Spends Big on Low Carbon Energy & Water Conservation

“China is going to leave all of us in the dust,” Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “They’re committed to winning the green economy race”. Last year, China boosted spending on low-carbon energy by 30% to US$51.1 billion, ‘‘by far the largest figure for any country’’. And China’s central government spent 365.5 billion yuan (US$55.38 billion) on water conservancy during the past five years, more than double the amount spent during the 2001-2005 period.

By Alex Morales in Bloomberg (28 January 2011):

China is pushing ahead of the U.S. and Europe in developing clean- and low-carbon energy as a way to spur the nation’s economy, the diplomat leading United Nations Climate talks said.

“China is going to leave all of us in the dust,” Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at a panel discussion today at the World Economic Forum today in Davos, Switzerland. “They’re committed to winning the green economy race.

China last year boosted spending on low-carbon energy by 30 percent to $51.1 billion, ‘‘by far the largest figure for any country,’’ Bloomberg New Energy Finance said Jan. 11. Global accounting firm Ernst & Young said in September that China for the first time overtook the U.S. in its quarterly index of the most attractive countries for renewable energy projects.

‘‘You can leapfrog — you don’t have to follow the model of the north,’’ Figueres said. ‘‘China is showing this.’’

Chinese officials including lead climate negotiator Su Wei have said the country will push energy efficiency in its next five-year plan to be detailed this year.

At today’s panel, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the world is waiting for action from the U.S. in fighting climate change, while European Union Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard said that U.S. businesses stand to lose out by stalling in taking action.

‘‘American business should be aware that we’re up here saying this is a race,” Hedegaard said. “It’s bad economics, it’s bad business not to be among the front runners but to be hesitating. I hope that even more American business people would understand that they need to put the pressure on their politicians.”

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com

BEIJING, Jan. 31 (Xinhua) — China’s central government spent 365.5 billion yuan (55.38 billion U.S. dollars) on water conservancy during the past five years, more than double the amount spent during the 2001-2005 period, the Ministry of Finance announced Monday.

The government spent 231.5 billion yuan on water conservation projects during the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-2010) to fund the construction of the South-North Water Diversion Project, reinforce aging reservoirs and harness inland waterways, said a statement on the ministry’s website.

The country also allocated 34.97 billion yuan during the past five years to build irrigation facilities and other farmland irrigation projects nationwide, said the statement.

The increased spending on water conservation played a significant role in managing water flows China’s major rivers and seven consecutive years of good harvests, the statement said.

The government plans to invest 4 trillion yuan in water conservation over the next 10 years as many cities face water shortages and irrigation facilities are badly in need of overhaul, the Communist Party of China Central Committee’s Leading Group on Rural Work has announced.

The government Saturday issued a document that makes water conservancy construction a priority task.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com

Reduce Emissions by 50% or 5%? Tale of two cities/countries

New Zealand’s Climate Change Issues Minister Dr Nick Smith believes a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, or in short “minus 50 by 50”, is a realistic but credible target for the country, which has already introduced an emissions trading scheme, unlike Tasman neighbour Australia with a lowly 5% – repeat 5% – emissions reduction target and no sign yet of a scheme or carbon tax. Wellington will host this year’s Climate Change and Business Conference 1-2 August.

27 January

Wellington City Council is bringing the pre-eminent climate change and business conference in the Asia-Pacific region to the city in 2011.

The city will host the 7th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference on 1 – 2 August 2011 with the Council as Foundation Sponsor.

The 2010 conference in Sydney was the most important conference of its type, attracting delegates from throughout the region. It saw participation by key business leaders, politicians, academics and industry experts and presentations from the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, national and state politicians, and a wide range of industry sectors including banking, farming, forestry, investment, management, technology, transport, and energy.

Announcing the decision, Wellington City Mayor Celia Wade-Brown said that after the success of the 2009 (Melbourne) and 2010 (Sydney) events, she was very pleased that the conference was being held in Wellington.

“Our city has taken a lead in preparing to adapt to likely impacts from climate change and we have been proactive in seeking to reduce Wellington’s emissions in partnership with business,” said Mayor Wade-Brown.

“We have combined infrastructure planning with natural planning. We will profile some of these actions at the conference and invite other innovators to do the same.

She said Wellington’s compact form and abundance of renewable energy-generating potential through wind, tide and sun made it a highly appropriate venue for the conference.

“The Climate Change and Business Conference is a great opportunity to share experiences across the Asia-Pacific region. We expect senior leaders from Australasian business and politics and international and local experts to contribute to an outstanding conference program,” Mayor Wade-Brown said.

The conference is a not-for-profit event. Its purpose is to provide business with the latest information and analysis to enable best-practice responses to climate change.  A key theme for this year’s conference will be business opportunities arising from the emergence of clean technologies.

Conference convenor Elizabeth Edmonds, speaking from Sydney, said that there will be plenty of new content to share at this year’s conference.

“Given the extreme weather events in Australia, we will be exploring whether these events can be linked to anthropogenic climate change and whether we can expect more of them. We will take a close look at how Australia and New Zealand will need to adapt to a changing environment during the 21st century and what that investment will mean for business.

“The primary focus will however be on emerging policy settings.

“We have an emissions trading scheme up and running in New Zealand which is being reviewed, with findings expected mid-year. Australia, after some false starts, is now well on the road to developing its own market instruments and progress there will be reported in full.

“Additional sessions will explain developments in international policy and will explore the full range of current and emerging complementary policies in both countries.

“The business sector wants to understand what these changes mean and how it should respond, both in managing new risks and in seeking new opportunities. The conference will provide that input in a high quality, packed two-day program and associated exhibition,” Ms Edmonds concluded.

The 7th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference is organised by the Climate Change and Business Centre (Sydney) and Point Carbon (Norway), a world-leading provider of independent news and analysis of carbon markets. 

The conference is supported by an extensive range of business groups, NGOs and governments across five countries

Source: www.wellington.govt.nz and  www.climateandbusiness.com

Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for Climate Change Issues

50 by 50 emissions reduction target proposed

The Government is proposing to gazette under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 a 50% reduction in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“We acknowledge it is difficult to look 40 years forward but the nature of the climate change problem requires we think and plan for the long term,” Dr Smith said. “We believe a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, or in short -50 by 50, is a realistic but credible target for New Zealand.

 “This target will require New Zealand to reduce net emissions by 31 million tonnes a year. This is a very big ask when nearly half our emissions come from agriculture and when we already produce 70% of our electricity from renewables. It will only be achievable with major technological innovations in areas like agriculture and transport, which are quite possible over this timeframe.

“This proposed New Zealand 2050 target is quite compatible with similar targets set in Australia (-50%), Canada (-50 to 65%), Japan (-55 to 80%) and the United States (-80%). It is consistent with the Government’s policy of ensuring New Zealand does its fair share in the global effort to limit the negative impacts of climate change while recognising the unique emissions profile New Zealand has with the dominance of agriculture.

“This long-term emissions reduction target cannot be set in stone and will need to be regularly reviewed taking into account the latest scientific advice on climate change, progress made by other nations, and progress made in the development of new technologies that would enable New Zealand to reduce emissions.”

Submissions on the proposed -50 by 50 target can be made to the Ministry for the Environment at 2050target@mfe.govt.nz and close on 28 February 2011.

Source: www.climatechange.govt.nz

Leading Businesses on the Line for Environment and Sustainability

Environmental Leader reports that BMW and Johnson & Johnson are among the members of a new US initiative promoting sustainable business practices. The Stewardship Action Council (SAC) aims to develop a performance-based sustainability index, and stimulate collaboration between business, government, non-profits and academia. Meanwhile, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and consultants Ernst & Young are creating a tool to help private equity (PE) firms improve the environmental performance of their portfolios. Under a pilot program called Green Ops for PE, participants will get assessments of the environmental opportunities within their portfolios, and suggestions for ways to maximize environmental and financial value.

Environmental Leader announces 31 January 2011:

Pfizer, BMW and Johnson & Johnson are among the members of a new initiative promoting sustainable business practices.

The Stewardship Action Council (SAC) aims to develop a performance-based sustainability index, and stimulate collaboration between business, government, non-profits and academia.

The SAC says that many existing corporate sustainability organizations limit those who may join, are cost-prohibitive, do not include performance standards and only focus on a particular topic, such as reporting or green building.

In contract, the SAC says, its initiative lays out a path for members to meet a specific sustainability standard and to improve their performance over time. Dues are up to $1,500 for an individual facility and up to $7,500 for a corporate membership.

Membership falls into two categories. Participating Members set improvement goals and report progress against those goals. Alliance Members, made up mainly of non-profits, government and academic institutions, do not set improvement goals.

SAC has not yet published any of the goals set by individual members.

But it does say that participating members must set goals beyond what is required by regulation. Participating membership is divided into four levels: members in Level 1 must set one goal, those in level 2 must set two goals (or one if they are a small business). At Level 2, one of the goals has to be for carbon reduction, if that is material to the business.

Members in level 3 must set four goals to improve their operational footprint (or two for small businesses). Two of the goals must be related to material aspects of operation.

Level 3 members must have an environmental management system in place and verified by a third party, with independent audits conducted every three years, and self-assessments in interim years. Level 2 members must commit to implementing environmental management systems.

Members at Level 3 must also have had no criminal violations in the past five years, no civil violations in the past three years, and no more than three notices of violation in any three-year period.

SAC has yet to determine the standards for level 4.

The founding members include:

• American University
• Audubon International
• BMW
• Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc.
• Campbell Institute of the National Safety Council
• CLF Ventures
• Covanta Energy Corporation
• DM Petroleum Operations Company
• Forever Resorts
• Georgia Department of Natural Resources
• Indiana Department of Environmental Management
• Matt Potoski, Iowa State University
• Johnson & Johnson
• Lockheed Martin Manassas
• Michelin North America, Inc.
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Pfizer
• PRIZIM, Inc.
• Rockwell Collins
• Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
• Washington State Department of Ecology
• West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
• Wildlife Habitat Council
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource

Source: www.environmentalleader.com

January 25, 2011 Environmental Leader

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and consultants Ernst & Young are creating a tool to help private equity (PE) firms improve the environmental performance of their portfolios.

Under a pilot program called Green Ops for PE, participants will get assessments of the environmental opportunities within their portfolios, and suggestions for ways to maximize environmental and financial value.

The pilot will build on practices developed through EDF’s Green Returns program for the PE sector. EDF has used that process with private equity investors the Carlyle Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR).

In March 2010, EDF helped Carlyle launch EcoValuScreen, a due diligence tool to identify value creation opportunities through improved environmental management practices. Carlyle is applying the process to new transactions in the U.S. – including the recent acquisition of nutritional supplement company NBTY, Inc.

KKR’s Green Portfolio Program was developed in 2008, and now includes 16 portfolio companies. KKR and the EDF say the program has yielded $160 million in savings over two years, saving 345,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions, 8,500 tons of paper, and 1.2 million tons of waste.

The new joint initiative will involve advisers from Ernst & Young’s private equity and sustainability teams. Boutique consulting firm Quantis will also help with data and life cycle assessments.

“We have seen many companies recognize significant ROI from assessing and investing in environmentally sustainable business initiatives,” said Steve Starbuck, Ernst & Young’s Americas leader for climate change and sustainability services. “Green Ops for PE could make these business opportunities more accessible across the PE sector.”

Ernst & Young announced in September that it had achieved a 15 percent reduction in the overall carbon footprint of its member firms in the Americas from the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year

Source: www.environmentalleader.com

Abundant Fish Help Bring Coral Back to Life after Bleaching

“As oceans continue to absorb the impacts of human activities and of climate change, we’ll need more large protected areas like PIPA to help ecosystems survive. The oceans are our life-support system. There’s never been a more important time to take care of them.” Geoffrey Stone reports for National Geographic on the incredible coral recovery operation in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA), the world’s largest marine protected area, at 157,000 square miles, in the South Pacific.

Photo by Brian Skerry

By Gregory Stone in National Geographic Magazine  January 2011

Photograph by Brian Skerry

The heavy iron anchor and chain tumbled noisily into the water. We lowered two red skiffs from our research vessel, loaded our diving gear, and sped off toward the lagoon. After a five-day sail from Fiji to Kanton island, we were anxious to see if reefs here had survived a rare ocean disaster—a lethal spike in the temperature of local seawater.

During the El Niño of 2002-03, a body of water more than 1°C (1.8°F) warmer than usual had stalled for six months around the Phoenix Islands, a tiny archipelago in the central Pacific. We’d heard that the hot spot had severely bleached the region’s corals. As I descended toward the lagoon floor, I was hoping things weren’t as bad as we’d been told.

Settling down beside the reef, I saw dead coral everywhere. What had been flourishing, overlapping, overflowing brown and auburn plates of corals were now ghostly, broken reminders of their former beauty. When I’d first visited the Phoenix Islands a decade ago, these reefs had supported numerous species of hard corals, as well as giant clams, sea anemones, nudibranchs, and great populations of fish, from blacktip reef sharks to parrotfish to bohar snappers. Because the islands have remained undisturbed for so long, they’d largely avoided overfishing, pollution, and other harmful impacts of modern civilization. But they hadn’t been able to avoid climate change, which most scientists believe amplifies El Niños.

Not ready to accept this setback, I was heartened to see lots of reef fish and vibrant corals growing up through the rubble—early signs of recovery. Was it possible that the reefs of the Phoenix Islands, like their mythical namesake, were rising from the ashes of a terrible warming?

Ten years ago, I’d flown to Tarawa, capital of the Micronesian country of Kiribati, which includes the Phoenix Islands, to meet with government officials. At the time, the airport terminal was no bigger than a house, open-air with a thatched roof. I was met at the fisheries ministry by David Obura and Sangeeta Mangubhai of CORDIO, an Indian Ocean conservation orga­nization, who had helped me carry out the first systematic underwater surveys of the Phoenix Islands. An ancient air conditioner rattled away in the meeting room as we presented a slide show to the ministers of fisheries and environment, showing them scenes of sharks, flourishing coral, and dense clouds of colorful fish. Accustomed to the degraded reefs closer to their towns and villages, the ministers and their staff were as amazed as we had been at the “like new” reefs of the Phoenix Islands.

“Do you realize, Greg, that you’re the first scientists who ever bothered to come tell us what they learned in our waters?” said Tetebo Nakara, then minister of fisheries.

During our subsequent talks with government officials, we found out that a fourth of Kiribati’s income ($17 million in 2000) came from selling access to their reef fish, sharks, tunas, and other wild marine resources to nations such as Japan, South Korea, and the United States. In return for a commercial fishing license, a foreign company paid about 5 percent of the wholesale value of anything they took out of Kiribati waters.

I asked Nakara if Kiribati might consider receiving a payment in lieu of the access fees to leave the fish in the water. That way, it would receive badly needed income, but its underwater haven would be preserved. Without living reefs, these islands could rapidly erode. He smiled and said, “This could be good for Kiribati”—as long as his nation could keep receiving income from the “reverse fishing license.” Anote Tong, Kiribati’s president, enthusiastically backed the project and has since led it to fruition.

Formally declared a reserve at the 2006 Convention on Biological Diversity in Brazil, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) was expanded two years later to become what was then the world’s largest marine protected area. At 157,000 square miles, it was nearly as big as California. But many questions remained: How could Kiribati put a fair price on its marine life? Where would the money come from? Who would police such a vast reserve?

To address such questions, I enlisted the help of Conservation International (CI), which in 2001 had created the Global Conservation Fund to protect rain forest and other habitats through a similar strategy. Receptive to the idea, the Kiribati Parliament created the PIPA Conservation Trust with trustees from the New England Aquarium (NEA), CI, and the government of Kiribati, and fund-raising began for a $25-million endowment.

Now I’d returned to Kanton with David Obura and Randi Rotjan, a coral expert from NEA, and other scientists to assess the impact of the El Niño event. The bleaching had killed all the coral on the lagoon floor, but almost half appeared to be growing back—the fastest recovery any of us had ever seen. The reason seemed clear: abundant fish. When coral bleaches, seaweed can grow out of control, stifling reef recovery. But fish eat the algae, keeping it from smothering the coral. Because fish populations had been protected here, the reefs remained surprisingly resilient even after suffering one of the worst bleaching events ever recorded.

As oceans continue to absorb the impacts of human activities and of climate change, we’ll need more large protected areas like PIPA to help ecosystems survive. The oceans are our life-support system. There’s never been a more important time to take care of them.

Gregory S. Stone is chief scientist for oceans at Conservation International. Brian Skerry’s photos of Japan’s ocean wilderness appeared in November.

Source: www.ngm.nationalgeographic.com/