Isramart news:
Australia’s parliament votes next week on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s plan for a sweeping carbon trade scheme with hopes it will finally win approval after two years of divisive debate.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Isramart : EcoAid LLC sees green in carbon offsets
Isramart news:
A growing movement toward more sustainable business practices and the pending federal cap-and-trade legislation have resulted in a new business model, and one Scottsdale startup is at the forefront.
EcoAid LLC is among those companies born out of changing dynamics in the business community. It’s working to help companies understand how they affect the environment and what they can do about it, from buying renewable power to funding reforestation projects.
Founded about 18 months ago, EcoAid has been building a client base of companies that see green as a good foundation for future operations. It recently moved from Phoenix to new offices at ASU SkySong in Scottsdale. It already has 20-plus business clients in the Valley, including Bar-S Foods, Local First Arizona and the Frys.com Open.
Baron Bruno, the company’s business development director, said going green is a good business decision.
“At some point down the road, we won’t have a second chance to say we should have done this earlier,” he said.
Cap-and-trade regulations in the U.S., like those already implemented in some European countries, would require businesses to track their greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed legislation would allow companies that exceed a specified limit to offset those emissions by buying credits on the open market from companies that kept their emissions under the cap.
Such a system already is in place in the U.S. through several regional climate boards and the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary carbon-trading program.
EcoAid doesn’t trade credits between companies. Instead, it buys carbon offsets in the form of tree reforestation projects or stakes in renewable energy power generation, then brokers them to companies seeking to lower their carbon use, according to Chief Operating Officer George Gebran.
The company also offers businesses a carbon-emissions analysis to determine how they can reduce their emissions before purchasing offsets on the open market.
“What we want to do is pre-empt the legislation, miscommunication and greenwashing,” said Bruno.
“Greenwashing” is used to describe the pitching of products, services or business practices that might not truly be as environmentally friendly as they are made out to be.
The Chicago exchange, known as the CCX, was founded in 2003. About 450 companies — including the likes of Ford Motor Co., Intel Corp. and Motorola Inc. — along with an array of specialized brokers make it easier for businesses to access carbon credits, said Brookly McLaughlin, director of communications for the exchange.
“There are companies that want to do this to further their sustainable goals,” she said. “There are companies that do this because they want to get hands-on experience before it becomes law. There are a lot of different reasons.”
EcoAid has had some success as more businesses look to become environmentally sustainable. The company helped the Frys.com Open become the first carbon-neutral golf event in the Valley, and it recently unveiled a carbon professional school to train people on carbon trading and other positions in sustainability.
A lot of its clients are early adopters. Park Howell, president of Park&Co., a Phoenix agency that specializes in marketing for sustainable companies, sees services such as EcoAid’s as a way for businesses to examine green technologies and decide how much they’re willing to do.
Howell contracted with EcoAid to get more information beyond changing out light bulbs and encouraging recycling. He wanted to make green principles as integral to his business as they are to clients. As a result, the agency purchased offsets that pay for a reforestation project in Michigan, making it carbon-neutral.
“I don’t know if carbon offsets and cap and trade are the answers to global warming, but at least they’re something,” Howell said. “The way I see it, purchasing carbon credits is basically a self-imposed tax to help somewhat offset our impact on the environment.”
EcoAid helps businesses develop strategies at a time when consumers are looking at companies’ green claims with a skeptical eye, said Mara DeFilippis, founder and CEO of the Arizona Green Chamber of Commerce.
For the early adopters, the services are easy to subscribe to, whether it’s through EcoAid or another company. The majority of the business community, however, still has a lot to learn, DeFilippis said.
“I think there’s such a process of education, and there’s a disconnect for businesses that really don’t know where to go,” she said.
EcoAid is a member of three exchanges: CCX, the Voluntary Carbon Standard and the Climate Action Reserve.
The company would not disclose its financial information, but Gebran said EcoAid is close to finalizing its first round of funding from a San Francisco-area venture capital firm. He would not share details of that deal either, as it is still pending.
A growing movement toward more sustainable business practices and the pending federal cap-and-trade legislation have resulted in a new business model, and one Scottsdale startup is at the forefront.
EcoAid LLC is among those companies born out of changing dynamics in the business community. It’s working to help companies understand how they affect the environment and what they can do about it, from buying renewable power to funding reforestation projects.
Founded about 18 months ago, EcoAid has been building a client base of companies that see green as a good foundation for future operations. It recently moved from Phoenix to new offices at ASU SkySong in Scottsdale. It already has 20-plus business clients in the Valley, including Bar-S Foods, Local First Arizona and the Frys.com Open.
Baron Bruno, the company’s business development director, said going green is a good business decision.
“At some point down the road, we won’t have a second chance to say we should have done this earlier,” he said.
Cap-and-trade regulations in the U.S., like those already implemented in some European countries, would require businesses to track their greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed legislation would allow companies that exceed a specified limit to offset those emissions by buying credits on the open market from companies that kept their emissions under the cap.
Such a system already is in place in the U.S. through several regional climate boards and the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary carbon-trading program.
EcoAid doesn’t trade credits between companies. Instead, it buys carbon offsets in the form of tree reforestation projects or stakes in renewable energy power generation, then brokers them to companies seeking to lower their carbon use, according to Chief Operating Officer George Gebran.
The company also offers businesses a carbon-emissions analysis to determine how they can reduce their emissions before purchasing offsets on the open market.
“What we want to do is pre-empt the legislation, miscommunication and greenwashing,” said Bruno.
“Greenwashing” is used to describe the pitching of products, services or business practices that might not truly be as environmentally friendly as they are made out to be.
The Chicago exchange, known as the CCX, was founded in 2003. About 450 companies — including the likes of Ford Motor Co., Intel Corp. and Motorola Inc. — along with an array of specialized brokers make it easier for businesses to access carbon credits, said Brookly McLaughlin, director of communications for the exchange.
“There are companies that want to do this to further their sustainable goals,” she said. “There are companies that do this because they want to get hands-on experience before it becomes law. There are a lot of different reasons.”
EcoAid has had some success as more businesses look to become environmentally sustainable. The company helped the Frys.com Open become the first carbon-neutral golf event in the Valley, and it recently unveiled a carbon professional school to train people on carbon trading and other positions in sustainability.
A lot of its clients are early adopters. Park Howell, president of Park&Co., a Phoenix agency that specializes in marketing for sustainable companies, sees services such as EcoAid’s as a way for businesses to examine green technologies and decide how much they’re willing to do.
Howell contracted with EcoAid to get more information beyond changing out light bulbs and encouraging recycling. He wanted to make green principles as integral to his business as they are to clients. As a result, the agency purchased offsets that pay for a reforestation project in Michigan, making it carbon-neutral.
“I don’t know if carbon offsets and cap and trade are the answers to global warming, but at least they’re something,” Howell said. “The way I see it, purchasing carbon credits is basically a self-imposed tax to help somewhat offset our impact on the environment.”
EcoAid helps businesses develop strategies at a time when consumers are looking at companies’ green claims with a skeptical eye, said Mara DeFilippis, founder and CEO of the Arizona Green Chamber of Commerce.
For the early adopters, the services are easy to subscribe to, whether it’s through EcoAid or another company. The majority of the business community, however, still has a lot to learn, DeFilippis said.
“I think there’s such a process of education, and there’s a disconnect for businesses that really don’t know where to go,” she said.
EcoAid is a member of three exchanges: CCX, the Voluntary Carbon Standard and the Climate Action Reserve.
The company would not disclose its financial information, but Gebran said EcoAid is close to finalizing its first round of funding from a San Francisco-area venture capital firm. He would not share details of that deal either, as it is still pending.
Isramart : Carbon credits spell new future for forests
Isramart news:
Driving through the verdant timberlands of Oregon’s Coast Range, Matt Fehrenbacher pointed out a mountainside where every tree had been clearcut.
“That’s business as usual,” said Fehrenbacher, a forester with The Pacific Forest Trust, a conservation group that manages private forest both to produce lumber and to store carbon as a hedge against global warming.
Later Fehrenbacher walked through the forest he manages for the Van Eck Forest Foundation, showing off tall Douglas firs that are breaking into a new growth spurt after trees around them were cut to let in more sun, dead logs with mushrooms sprouting from them left behind on the forest floor, and hemlock seedlings planted next to stumps left from logs sold for lumber.
“There’s a sweetspot where a landowner can potentially balance your timber value with your carbon values,” said Fehrenbacher. “As this market emerges it’s becoming more of a reality. Landowner’s interest is very high right now.”
The Van Eck Oregon Forest that Fehrenbacher manages is not yet getting paid for the carbon it stores, but it is positioning itself for the day when it will be, either under an emerging voluntary market for carbon credits, or if climate legislation — one of President Obama’s top priorities — is enacted in the U.S. Senate.
Trees naturally absorb carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis, and store it in their leaves and wood. When trees burn, rot, or are cut down, they return carbon to the atmosphere. The trick is to maximize the amount that gets stored.
While the climate bill has drawn strong opposition from conservatives wary of creating a cap and trade system that charges carbon producers, like coal-fired power plants, it has united two longtime adversaries.
Timberland owners and environmental groups both want to see the bill pass. For timberland owners, it means new sources of revenue immune to the boom and bust of the housing industry. One comes from the cap and trade market paying for leaving trees standing. Another comes from promoting the sale of biomass — small trees cut to reduce fire danger and make room for other trees to grow — that can be mixed with coal in power plants, or turned into pellets for wood-fired furnaces.
For conservation groups, it is a way to stop millions of acres of forest land from falling to development, leaving it standing for fish and wildlife habitat.
“A lot of people in the Senate want to get the whole thing through without cap and trade,” said Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C. “Some are starting to realize … that if you don’t get cap and trade, you don’t get all the great forestry stuff, which is bringing together a lot of strange bedfellows.”
As yet, the bill does not address national forests, or the desire of wood products manufacturers to get credit for lumber and plywood that will store carbon in buildings for a century or more.
The “forestry stuff” it does have has timberland owners very interested.
“We’re taking it on the chin right now,” said Dave Tenny, a former Bush administration timber official now heading the National Alliance of Forest Owners. “Markets are down. The economics pressures are real for every class of landowner. Now here comes an opportunity for new incentives or markets for these forests to make a contribution, not only to the environment, but to landowners as well.”
Landowners are already starting to reap the benefits of leaving trees standing as companies look for ways to voluntarily offset their carbon footprint.
The Walt Disney Co. recently pledged $7 million to protect or restore tens of thousands of acres of forest in the Congo basin, the Amazon basin, California’s North Coast and the lower Mississippi Valley.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is paying the city of Arcata, Calif., $400,000 to manage part of its city forest to store carbon for the next 100 years.
Brian C. Murray, director for economic analysis at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said carbon credits could move tens of millions of acres of cropland into forest, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest, where they have moved back and forth since the Civil War.
Driving through the verdant timberlands of Oregon’s Coast Range, Matt Fehrenbacher pointed out a mountainside where every tree had been clearcut.
“That’s business as usual,” said Fehrenbacher, a forester with The Pacific Forest Trust, a conservation group that manages private forest both to produce lumber and to store carbon as a hedge against global warming.
Later Fehrenbacher walked through the forest he manages for the Van Eck Forest Foundation, showing off tall Douglas firs that are breaking into a new growth spurt after trees around them were cut to let in more sun, dead logs with mushrooms sprouting from them left behind on the forest floor, and hemlock seedlings planted next to stumps left from logs sold for lumber.
“There’s a sweetspot where a landowner can potentially balance your timber value with your carbon values,” said Fehrenbacher. “As this market emerges it’s becoming more of a reality. Landowner’s interest is very high right now.”
The Van Eck Oregon Forest that Fehrenbacher manages is not yet getting paid for the carbon it stores, but it is positioning itself for the day when it will be, either under an emerging voluntary market for carbon credits, or if climate legislation — one of President Obama’s top priorities — is enacted in the U.S. Senate.
Trees naturally absorb carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis, and store it in their leaves and wood. When trees burn, rot, or are cut down, they return carbon to the atmosphere. The trick is to maximize the amount that gets stored.
While the climate bill has drawn strong opposition from conservatives wary of creating a cap and trade system that charges carbon producers, like coal-fired power plants, it has united two longtime adversaries.
Timberland owners and environmental groups both want to see the bill pass. For timberland owners, it means new sources of revenue immune to the boom and bust of the housing industry. One comes from the cap and trade market paying for leaving trees standing. Another comes from promoting the sale of biomass — small trees cut to reduce fire danger and make room for other trees to grow — that can be mixed with coal in power plants, or turned into pellets for wood-fired furnaces.
For conservation groups, it is a way to stop millions of acres of forest land from falling to development, leaving it standing for fish and wildlife habitat.
“A lot of people in the Senate want to get the whole thing through without cap and trade,” said Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C. “Some are starting to realize … that if you don’t get cap and trade, you don’t get all the great forestry stuff, which is bringing together a lot of strange bedfellows.”
As yet, the bill does not address national forests, or the desire of wood products manufacturers to get credit for lumber and plywood that will store carbon in buildings for a century or more.
The “forestry stuff” it does have has timberland owners very interested.
“We’re taking it on the chin right now,” said Dave Tenny, a former Bush administration timber official now heading the National Alliance of Forest Owners. “Markets are down. The economics pressures are real for every class of landowner. Now here comes an opportunity for new incentives or markets for these forests to make a contribution, not only to the environment, but to landowners as well.”
Landowners are already starting to reap the benefits of leaving trees standing as companies look for ways to voluntarily offset their carbon footprint.
The Walt Disney Co. recently pledged $7 million to protect or restore tens of thousands of acres of forest in the Congo basin, the Amazon basin, California’s North Coast and the lower Mississippi Valley.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is paying the city of Arcata, Calif., $400,000 to manage part of its city forest to store carbon for the next 100 years.
Brian C. Murray, director for economic analysis at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said carbon credits could move tens of millions of acres of cropland into forest, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest, where they have moved back and forth since the Civil War.
Isramart : Liberals ditch carbon tax in favour of cap-and-trade climate policy
Isramart news:
Michael Ignatieff is abandoning Stéphane Dion’s consumer-focused carbon-tax for an industrial cap-and-trade system to tackle climate change.
He vowed, too that if he becomes Prime Minister he won’t wait for Washington to act first – as the Tories are doing – to put it into place.
The Liberal Leader made his remarks today in a major speech at Laval University in Quebec City. It comes amid the criticism that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend next month’s major climate change summit in Copenhagen – this, after U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he would be going to Denmark.
He did not directly criticize Mr. Harper for reluctance to attend. Rather he outlined what he would have done as a leader in Copenhagen.
“I would have hoped to see Canada accept our own responsibility to reduce carbon pollution, in line with other developed countries,” he said.
And he congratulated Quebec Premier Jean Charest for leading North America in the climate change battle. Mr. Charest said Quebec is going its own way on the issue, breaking with the federal government. It will reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, a goal similar to the target adopted by the European Union.
Mr. Ignatieff said today his Liberals would set their greenhouse-gas reduction targets at 1990 levels as opposed to Harper government policy to set them at 2006 levels.
Still, Mr. Ignatieff did not name a specific target. Rather, he says in his speech that “a Liberal government will fight for ambitious targets to reduce carbon pollution.”
This week, however, the Liberals supported a Bloc motion calling for a target of 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Since becoming leader almost a year ago, Mr. Ignatieff has been widely criticized for not offering any substantive policy. In part, this speech is an effort to start addressing that criticism.
As well, environmentalists have criticized the Liberals for voting with the Tories against an NDP bill that would have set deep greenhouse-gas emission targets for Canada in advance of the Copenhagen summit.
The Liberals lost badly in the last election, partly as a result of Mr. Dion’s complicated Green Shift plan that would put a tax on carbon. It was not communicated well; Canadians did not understand it.
It appears now that the Liberals have totally abandoned a carbon tax.
This speech outlines specific programs the Liberals would develop if they formed government, including a new Clean Energy Act, a national freshwater strategy, which would begin with cleaning up the “Great Lakes down the St. Lawrence” and also Lake Winnipeg.
He also outlined a Northern strategy that would include helping Inuit adapt to climate change and a vigorous defence of Canada’s sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.
Michael Ignatieff is abandoning Stéphane Dion’s consumer-focused carbon-tax for an industrial cap-and-trade system to tackle climate change.
He vowed, too that if he becomes Prime Minister he won’t wait for Washington to act first – as the Tories are doing – to put it into place.
The Liberal Leader made his remarks today in a major speech at Laval University in Quebec City. It comes amid the criticism that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend next month’s major climate change summit in Copenhagen – this, after U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he would be going to Denmark.
He did not directly criticize Mr. Harper for reluctance to attend. Rather he outlined what he would have done as a leader in Copenhagen.
“I would have hoped to see Canada accept our own responsibility to reduce carbon pollution, in line with other developed countries,” he said.
And he congratulated Quebec Premier Jean Charest for leading North America in the climate change battle. Mr. Charest said Quebec is going its own way on the issue, breaking with the federal government. It will reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, a goal similar to the target adopted by the European Union.
Mr. Ignatieff said today his Liberals would set their greenhouse-gas reduction targets at 1990 levels as opposed to Harper government policy to set them at 2006 levels.
Still, Mr. Ignatieff did not name a specific target. Rather, he says in his speech that “a Liberal government will fight for ambitious targets to reduce carbon pollution.”
This week, however, the Liberals supported a Bloc motion calling for a target of 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Since becoming leader almost a year ago, Mr. Ignatieff has been widely criticized for not offering any substantive policy. In part, this speech is an effort to start addressing that criticism.
As well, environmentalists have criticized the Liberals for voting with the Tories against an NDP bill that would have set deep greenhouse-gas emission targets for Canada in advance of the Copenhagen summit.
The Liberals lost badly in the last election, partly as a result of Mr. Dion’s complicated Green Shift plan that would put a tax on carbon. It was not communicated well; Canadians did not understand it.
It appears now that the Liberals have totally abandoned a carbon tax.
This speech outlines specific programs the Liberals would develop if they formed government, including a new Clean Energy Act, a national freshwater strategy, which would begin with cleaning up the “Great Lakes down the St. Lawrence” and also Lake Winnipeg.
He also outlined a Northern strategy that would include helping Inuit adapt to climate change and a vigorous defence of Canada’s sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.
Isramart : Taiwan states case for UNFCCC participation
Isramart news:
Taiwan’s participation in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change would represent a win-win outcome for the organization and the island’s 23 million people, according to Alice Wang, deputy minister for the Government Information Office.
“We urge the UNFCCC to heed the needs of our people, recognize the contributions we can make, and find the appropriate means to accept our participation as early as possible,” Wang said during a GIO-organized Taiwan-Denmark video conference on Taiwan’s UNFCCC involvement Nov. 27.
“Taiwan is especially vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, rising temperatures, unpredictable storms and loss of biodiversity,” she said. “Climate change is an issue that cannot be ignored and must be confronted swiftly.”
Anne Grete Holmsgaard, member of the Danish parliament and opposition spokeswoman for climate and energy, said it is of great importance for Taiwan to participate in the UNFCCC. “We hope the country can repeat its success in attaining observer status in the World Health Organization’s governing body and look forward to seeing the Taiwan delegation in Copenhagen.”
Stephen Shu-hung Shen, minister of the Cabinet-level Environmental Protection Administration, said Taiwan planned to use the World Health Assembly model to secure participation in the UNFCCC.”
“As a member of the global village, the ROC government has adopted strong measures to fight climate change,” he said. “Taiwan’s participation in the UNFCCC would help the public and private sectors further upgrade efforts to manage this pressing environmental challenge.”
Hsu Fang-min, deputy director of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., said Taiwan’s UNFCCC participation would help his firm reduce its global carbon footprint and cement its position as the world’s top chip-maker.
“Our firm is taking the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and already exceeding benchmarks set in Japan and South Korea,” Hsu said “Being involved in the UNFCCC will allow the company to share its landmark green building standards with the world.”
TSMC initiated a green building program in 2006 to strengthen environmental protection and energy conservation. The program covers design and construction of new fabs, enhancement of existing fabs, internal training, and encouraging subcontractors to gain green building certification.
According to Robert Yang, a senior advisor with Industrial Technology Research Institute—the largest nonprofit R&D organization in Taiwan—UNFCCC involvement is key to combating the effects of climate change and sharing Taiwan’s technical expertise with the world.
“Of course, we can rely on ourselves for assistance in dealing with natural disasters such as Typhoon Morakot, but we need to be able to work with the international community to garner their support, like all other economies of the world. In this way, we can also share our experiences with developing and developed nations.”
Yang said Taiwan has always been enlightened when it came to enacting environmental laws and can make a valuable contribution to the global targets for mitigating climate change and advancing clean technology. “We stand ready to play very useful role in fighting climate change.”
Taiwan’s participation in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change would represent a win-win outcome for the organization and the island’s 23 million people, according to Alice Wang, deputy minister for the Government Information Office.
“We urge the UNFCCC to heed the needs of our people, recognize the contributions we can make, and find the appropriate means to accept our participation as early as possible,” Wang said during a GIO-organized Taiwan-Denmark video conference on Taiwan’s UNFCCC involvement Nov. 27.
“Taiwan is especially vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, rising temperatures, unpredictable storms and loss of biodiversity,” she said. “Climate change is an issue that cannot be ignored and must be confronted swiftly.”
Anne Grete Holmsgaard, member of the Danish parliament and opposition spokeswoman for climate and energy, said it is of great importance for Taiwan to participate in the UNFCCC. “We hope the country can repeat its success in attaining observer status in the World Health Organization’s governing body and look forward to seeing the Taiwan delegation in Copenhagen.”
Stephen Shu-hung Shen, minister of the Cabinet-level Environmental Protection Administration, said Taiwan planned to use the World Health Assembly model to secure participation in the UNFCCC.”
“As a member of the global village, the ROC government has adopted strong measures to fight climate change,” he said. “Taiwan’s participation in the UNFCCC would help the public and private sectors further upgrade efforts to manage this pressing environmental challenge.”
Hsu Fang-min, deputy director of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., said Taiwan’s UNFCCC participation would help his firm reduce its global carbon footprint and cement its position as the world’s top chip-maker.
“Our firm is taking the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and already exceeding benchmarks set in Japan and South Korea,” Hsu said “Being involved in the UNFCCC will allow the company to share its landmark green building standards with the world.”
TSMC initiated a green building program in 2006 to strengthen environmental protection and energy conservation. The program covers design and construction of new fabs, enhancement of existing fabs, internal training, and encouraging subcontractors to gain green building certification.
According to Robert Yang, a senior advisor with Industrial Technology Research Institute—the largest nonprofit R&D organization in Taiwan—UNFCCC involvement is key to combating the effects of climate change and sharing Taiwan’s technical expertise with the world.
“Of course, we can rely on ourselves for assistance in dealing with natural disasters such as Typhoon Morakot, but we need to be able to work with the international community to garner their support, like all other economies of the world. In this way, we can also share our experiences with developing and developed nations.”
Yang said Taiwan has always been enlightened when it came to enacting environmental laws and can make a valuable contribution to the global targets for mitigating climate change and advancing clean technology. “We stand ready to play very useful role in fighting climate change.”
Isramart : Beyond Copenhagen there’s more than just cutting CO2
Isramart news:
Imagine for a minute that global warming is not changing our planet’s biosphere and the ecosystems that sustain life on Earth.
Imagine that climate change abetted by rising human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases does not threaten freshwater supplies, agriculture, marine ecosystems, human health, coastal settlements and the very existence of small island states.
Imagine climate changes are not likely to trigger mass migrations and state conflicts, as growing populations of landless, hungry and thirsty people scramble to grab portions of the shrinking global pie.
If this were true, would there still be any reason for our leaders to gather in Copenhagen next month and agree on concrete plans for reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, such as of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons?
The short but emphatic answer is “Yes.”
According to recent research, climate is just one of at least nine critical biophysical parameters that are essential for Earth to maintain its capacity for self-regulation, and for humans to remain within these limits will require the very best international cooperation we can muster.
Which is why getting it right in Copenhagen is so important.
Substantial progress in December will give us a blueprint for dealing with climate and for dealing with each of the other biophysical limits we are going to bump up against in coming decades.
Yet, with the conference in Denmark just weeks away, some commentators have already chosen to declare the talks a failure. This knee-jerk pessimism is unfortunate, because it encourages low expectations at a time when policymakers and negotiators should be redoubling their efforts to craft a comprehensive and effective treaty.
There is no denying that complex and very real obstacles stand in the way of international cooperation on climate change: Opinions among developing and developed countries differ greatly on who should take responsibility for the phonomenon, and how; there are fears that efforts to reduce GHGs will trip up already limping economies; and, there is considerable disagreement over how best to measure and reduce emissions.
Nevertheless, international cooperation remains key for dealing successfully with global environmental challenges, and Copenhagen offers a chance to step boldly beyond 1997’s Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was finally ratified in November 2004.
Critics of global climate negotiations predictably argue that the Kyoto Protocol did not successfully curb GHG emissions, with few countries achieving their reductions and many, including Japan, allowing emissions to climb.
But despite its shortcomings, Kyoto did succeed in galvanizing global awareness, creating various mechanisms for nations to cooperate in reducing GHGs, and building international momentum toward the Copenhagen talks.
Copenhagen, too, can already be considered a success in some respects.
“In a short span, many nations have pledged to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by considerable amounts, well beyond any commitments they had made before,” notes a commentary appearing last month in Nature magazine (Oct. 22). “Norway, for example, offered this month to reduce its own emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Indonesia said it would curb its emissions over that same time by 26 percent below the levels expected under a business-as-usual scenario, with even stronger cuts possible under an international agreement. The European Union has committed to a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels and would increase that to 30 percent with a global pact. And, for the first time,” the commentary continues, “the U.S. Congress is moving towards establishing laws that mandate emissions cuts.”
As Nature points out, though, promises are not achievements. Nevertheless, “they at least show that countries have started to analyse their own emissions seriously and to develop domestic agendas that would set them on course to meet their commitments. Such unilateral decisions are an essential starting point for an international agreement, and they suggest that countries are now ready to back up their rhetoric in a way that was not true 12 years ago, when they signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is real progress, and it would not have happened without the pressure to produce a treaty,” states Nature.
Which is good news, because human society is going to need all the cooperation and commitment it can muster in coming decades as human populations undermine other biophysical thresholds and threaten Earth’s ability to provide for human life.
In Sweden, a team of Earth-system and environmental scientists led by Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Centre has already begun research “to define the boundaries of the biophysical processes that determine the Earth’s capacity for self-regulation,” a feature article in the September issue of Nature reported.
The scientists there are attempting to take a holistic look at planetary systems and how human demands on these systems are putting stress on the entire planet, states the article, titled “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”
“We have tried to identify the Earth-system processes and associated thresholds which, if crossed, could generate unacceptable environmental change. We have found nine such processes for which we believe it is necessary to define planetary boundaries: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading,” explain the authors.
The boundaries for three systems — climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and human interference with the nitrogen cycle — have already been overstepped with unknown consequences for the environment and human society, warn the scientists.
For the past 10,000 years, Earth’s environment has remained remarkably stable, with regular temperatures, freshwater availability, and biogeochemical flows fluctuating within narrow ranges. This period, known as the Holocene, has now been replaced by the Anthropocene, during which human activities have become primary sources of global environmental change.
“Now, largely because of a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture, human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state,” explain the authors. “The result could be irreversible and, in some cases, cause abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to human development.”
Not surprisingly, this process of identifying systems and thresholds requires many qualifications. The values chosen as boundaries by Rockstrom’s team are for the most part arbitrary, the boundaries do not always apply globally as local circumstances often differ, and “assigning ‘acceptable’ limits to processes that ultimately determine our own survival is risky as some of the suggested limits may be easier to balance with ethical and economic issues than others,” note Nature’s editors.
Nevertheless, the challenge is an essential one in much the same way carbon footprinting is: It helps to calculate, and respond to, the demands that production, consumption and wastes put on local, regional and global ecosystems.
With a better understanding of how Earth’s biophysical systems work, we can better craft land use, resource use, agriculture and emissions policies, both nationally and internationally.
“The evidence so far suggests that, as long as the thresholds are not crossed, humanity has the freedom to pursue long-term social and economic development,” conclude the authors.
The danger, of course, is that in our eagerness to grow our economies and exploit Earth’s bounty, we will push our planet beyond these thresholds — compromising the life quality of our children and grandchildren.
For better and worse, risk-taking is in our genes. We often push to the limit and when we do we win or lose big. So far we have taken the big payouts, leaving the losses to future generations.
The very least those generations now deserve is a push to the limit in Copenhagen.
Imagine for a minute that global warming is not changing our planet’s biosphere and the ecosystems that sustain life on Earth.
Imagine that climate change abetted by rising human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases does not threaten freshwater supplies, agriculture, marine ecosystems, human health, coastal settlements and the very existence of small island states.
Imagine climate changes are not likely to trigger mass migrations and state conflicts, as growing populations of landless, hungry and thirsty people scramble to grab portions of the shrinking global pie.
If this were true, would there still be any reason for our leaders to gather in Copenhagen next month and agree on concrete plans for reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, such as of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons?
The short but emphatic answer is “Yes.”
According to recent research, climate is just one of at least nine critical biophysical parameters that are essential for Earth to maintain its capacity for self-regulation, and for humans to remain within these limits will require the very best international cooperation we can muster.
Which is why getting it right in Copenhagen is so important.
Substantial progress in December will give us a blueprint for dealing with climate and for dealing with each of the other biophysical limits we are going to bump up against in coming decades.
Yet, with the conference in Denmark just weeks away, some commentators have already chosen to declare the talks a failure. This knee-jerk pessimism is unfortunate, because it encourages low expectations at a time when policymakers and negotiators should be redoubling their efforts to craft a comprehensive and effective treaty.
There is no denying that complex and very real obstacles stand in the way of international cooperation on climate change: Opinions among developing and developed countries differ greatly on who should take responsibility for the phonomenon, and how; there are fears that efforts to reduce GHGs will trip up already limping economies; and, there is considerable disagreement over how best to measure and reduce emissions.
Nevertheless, international cooperation remains key for dealing successfully with global environmental challenges, and Copenhagen offers a chance to step boldly beyond 1997’s Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was finally ratified in November 2004.
Critics of global climate negotiations predictably argue that the Kyoto Protocol did not successfully curb GHG emissions, with few countries achieving their reductions and many, including Japan, allowing emissions to climb.
But despite its shortcomings, Kyoto did succeed in galvanizing global awareness, creating various mechanisms for nations to cooperate in reducing GHGs, and building international momentum toward the Copenhagen talks.
Copenhagen, too, can already be considered a success in some respects.
“In a short span, many nations have pledged to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by considerable amounts, well beyond any commitments they had made before,” notes a commentary appearing last month in Nature magazine (Oct. 22). “Norway, for example, offered this month to reduce its own emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Indonesia said it would curb its emissions over that same time by 26 percent below the levels expected under a business-as-usual scenario, with even stronger cuts possible under an international agreement. The European Union has committed to a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels and would increase that to 30 percent with a global pact. And, for the first time,” the commentary continues, “the U.S. Congress is moving towards establishing laws that mandate emissions cuts.”
As Nature points out, though, promises are not achievements. Nevertheless, “they at least show that countries have started to analyse their own emissions seriously and to develop domestic agendas that would set them on course to meet their commitments. Such unilateral decisions are an essential starting point for an international agreement, and they suggest that countries are now ready to back up their rhetoric in a way that was not true 12 years ago, when they signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is real progress, and it would not have happened without the pressure to produce a treaty,” states Nature.
Which is good news, because human society is going to need all the cooperation and commitment it can muster in coming decades as human populations undermine other biophysical thresholds and threaten Earth’s ability to provide for human life.
In Sweden, a team of Earth-system and environmental scientists led by Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Centre has already begun research “to define the boundaries of the biophysical processes that determine the Earth’s capacity for self-regulation,” a feature article in the September issue of Nature reported.
The scientists there are attempting to take a holistic look at planetary systems and how human demands on these systems are putting stress on the entire planet, states the article, titled “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”
“We have tried to identify the Earth-system processes and associated thresholds which, if crossed, could generate unacceptable environmental change. We have found nine such processes for which we believe it is necessary to define planetary boundaries: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading,” explain the authors.
The boundaries for three systems — climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and human interference with the nitrogen cycle — have already been overstepped with unknown consequences for the environment and human society, warn the scientists.
For the past 10,000 years, Earth’s environment has remained remarkably stable, with regular temperatures, freshwater availability, and biogeochemical flows fluctuating within narrow ranges. This period, known as the Holocene, has now been replaced by the Anthropocene, during which human activities have become primary sources of global environmental change.
“Now, largely because of a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture, human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state,” explain the authors. “The result could be irreversible and, in some cases, cause abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to human development.”
Not surprisingly, this process of identifying systems and thresholds requires many qualifications. The values chosen as boundaries by Rockstrom’s team are for the most part arbitrary, the boundaries do not always apply globally as local circumstances often differ, and “assigning ‘acceptable’ limits to processes that ultimately determine our own survival is risky as some of the suggested limits may be easier to balance with ethical and economic issues than others,” note Nature’s editors.
Nevertheless, the challenge is an essential one in much the same way carbon footprinting is: It helps to calculate, and respond to, the demands that production, consumption and wastes put on local, regional and global ecosystems.
With a better understanding of how Earth’s biophysical systems work, we can better craft land use, resource use, agriculture and emissions policies, both nationally and internationally.
“The evidence so far suggests that, as long as the thresholds are not crossed, humanity has the freedom to pursue long-term social and economic development,” conclude the authors.
The danger, of course, is that in our eagerness to grow our economies and exploit Earth’s bounty, we will push our planet beyond these thresholds — compromising the life quality of our children and grandchildren.
For better and worse, risk-taking is in our genes. We often push to the limit and when we do we win or lose big. So far we have taken the big payouts, leaving the losses to future generations.
The very least those generations now deserve is a push to the limit in Copenhagen.
Isramart : Van Rompuy wants the EU to run on CO2
Isramart news:
No doubt as we contemplate the figure who has rocketed from obscurity to became “the President of Europe”, we have all made silly little jokes about “Mr Rumpy”. After the eight tortuous years it has taken to get the “Constitution for Europe” into place, with all the talk of how vital it was for the EU to have a figurehead to represent Europe on the world stage as the equivalent of the President of the United States, some may now think of the poet Horace’s famous line, parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus (”the mountains are in labour, and will give birth to a ridiculous mouse”).
But it would be wrong to underestimate Herman Van Rompuy, the first permament president of the European Council. This Belgian economist is a clever and ruthless political operator. Once, to win a political battle, he changed the locks to prevent his opponents entering a crucial meeting. (For details of his character, see the Brussels Journal blog by one of his former colleagues, Paul Belien.) And the reason why he was very much the preferred candidate of the European Commission is that the one thing for which President Van Rompuy can be relied on is a determination to use all his crafty skills to further the power of our new government in Brussels.
At the heart of the “European project”, there has always been one core goal in all it does – to absorb ever more of the powers of national governments into the centre. And almost the only thing we know about Mr Van Rompuy’s ambitions in his new office is that he wants “more Europe”.
Much of his wish list may have been drearily familiar ever since the Addenino report of 1985: more flying of the “ring of stars” flag, more singing of the “European anthem”, EU number plates on cars, EU identity cards. But the one thing the EU has needed to make its powers complete, and which not even its Constitution could give, was the power to levy its own direct taxes. It is no accident that this is now at the top of Mr Van Rompouy’s list – nor that the way in which he plans to raise those taxes is by levying new charges on every kind of activity that emits CO2.
Way back in1991, Brussels first proclaimed its intention to give a “moral lead” to the world in “combating climate change”. The following year it published plans for an EU-wide “carbon tax”. Ever since, saving the planet has risen steadily higher on the EU’s agenda, as the perfect idealistic cause to justify more new laws – from the landfill directive that has reduced our rubbish collection to chaos, to the legislation that forces us to encumber our countryside with useless wind turbines, and to use nasty, inefficient, mercury-filled light bulbs.
Still the one thing lacking, despite that 1992 proposal for a carbon tax, has been some way to harness this noble cause to provide an almost limitless source of money for the EU itself. How appropriate then that the coming into force of the EU’s constitution should bring to power a man who wishes to see the EU funded entirely from taxes designed to save the world from global warming.
Unfortunately for the President, this has come to pass at just the moment when the scare over global warming is beginning to run out of steam. The science behind it looks increasingly shaky as the world heads for a Copenhagen conference which, as even its organisers admit, is unlikely to produce anything resembling the much tougher successor to Kyoto that they have striven for so long.
In other words, just when little Mr Rumpy imagines that he has found the Holy Grail of Brussels – an income source that will give the EU more money than it could ever have dreamed of – the cause he is relying on to provide the unlimited bonanza is itself beginning to disintegrate. As many might think, how neat it would be if both of these great edifices founded on wishful thinking should collapse together, leaving our new Mr President gazing forlornly from the bridge of his slowly sinking ship.
No doubt as we contemplate the figure who has rocketed from obscurity to became “the President of Europe”, we have all made silly little jokes about “Mr Rumpy”. After the eight tortuous years it has taken to get the “Constitution for Europe” into place, with all the talk of how vital it was for the EU to have a figurehead to represent Europe on the world stage as the equivalent of the President of the United States, some may now think of the poet Horace’s famous line, parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus (”the mountains are in labour, and will give birth to a ridiculous mouse”).
But it would be wrong to underestimate Herman Van Rompuy, the first permament president of the European Council. This Belgian economist is a clever and ruthless political operator. Once, to win a political battle, he changed the locks to prevent his opponents entering a crucial meeting. (For details of his character, see the Brussels Journal blog by one of his former colleagues, Paul Belien.) And the reason why he was very much the preferred candidate of the European Commission is that the one thing for which President Van Rompuy can be relied on is a determination to use all his crafty skills to further the power of our new government in Brussels.
At the heart of the “European project”, there has always been one core goal in all it does – to absorb ever more of the powers of national governments into the centre. And almost the only thing we know about Mr Van Rompuy’s ambitions in his new office is that he wants “more Europe”.
Much of his wish list may have been drearily familiar ever since the Addenino report of 1985: more flying of the “ring of stars” flag, more singing of the “European anthem”, EU number plates on cars, EU identity cards. But the one thing the EU has needed to make its powers complete, and which not even its Constitution could give, was the power to levy its own direct taxes. It is no accident that this is now at the top of Mr Van Rompouy’s list – nor that the way in which he plans to raise those taxes is by levying new charges on every kind of activity that emits CO2.
Way back in1991, Brussels first proclaimed its intention to give a “moral lead” to the world in “combating climate change”. The following year it published plans for an EU-wide “carbon tax”. Ever since, saving the planet has risen steadily higher on the EU’s agenda, as the perfect idealistic cause to justify more new laws – from the landfill directive that has reduced our rubbish collection to chaos, to the legislation that forces us to encumber our countryside with useless wind turbines, and to use nasty, inefficient, mercury-filled light bulbs.
Still the one thing lacking, despite that 1992 proposal for a carbon tax, has been some way to harness this noble cause to provide an almost limitless source of money for the EU itself. How appropriate then that the coming into force of the EU’s constitution should bring to power a man who wishes to see the EU funded entirely from taxes designed to save the world from global warming.
Unfortunately for the President, this has come to pass at just the moment when the scare over global warming is beginning to run out of steam. The science behind it looks increasingly shaky as the world heads for a Copenhagen conference which, as even its organisers admit, is unlikely to produce anything resembling the much tougher successor to Kyoto that they have striven for so long.
In other words, just when little Mr Rumpy imagines that he has found the Holy Grail of Brussels – an income source that will give the EU more money than it could ever have dreamed of – the cause he is relying on to provide the unlimited bonanza is itself beginning to disintegrate. As many might think, how neat it would be if both of these great edifices founded on wishful thinking should collapse together, leaving our new Mr President gazing forlornly from the bridge of his slowly sinking ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
