Green or Greenwash?

Today's Sydney Morning Herald had a front page story on how two of LG Electronics fridges were found to be not as energy efficient as they claimed. In fact the story suggested that they had installed a devices that activates an energy saving mode when the fridge detects room conditions similiar to those of a test laboratory.

Green fridge labelled a fraud

LG Electronics has agreed to compensate potentially thousands of consumers after two of its fridges - models L197NFS and P197WFS - were found to contain an illegal device that activates an energy-saving mode when it detects room conditions similar to those in a test laboratory.

It is the third time LG Electronics has been caught making false claims about the environmental credentials of its products. In 2008, it had to repay $3 million after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ruled it had inflated the energy-efficiency star rating of five models of air-conditioner. Source (SMH)

I wondered what other greenwash had been 'discovered' in Australia. After a very quick google search, I found the following:

GreenPower retailer led investors astray: ACCC

Global Green Plan Ltd, using the name GreenSwitch, was deregistered from the national GreenPower program in September 2008 for failing to buy enough renewable energy certificates, but it continued to trade through its website until November. The company will now have to buy 4000 renewable energy certificates to make up the shortfall. ''The ACCC investigated the GreenSwitch activities and found the numbers didn't match up,'' the acting chairman of the ACCC, Michael Schaper, said. ''To take money from customers and not use it as it was intended is simply unacceptable.''    Source (SMH)

          Greenwash: company guilty of misleading claims

A carbon credits company, Prime Carbon, has been found guilty by the Federal Court of Australia of making misleading green claims. Prime Carbon is a private company that produces and trades carbon credits created through soil enhancement and carbon sequestration programs.  Source (SMH)

Regulator demands muscle on 'green' ads

Graeme Samuel, the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, said a sharp rise in complaints about green advertising claims - from almost none two years ago to about 500 since early 2008 - was ''very unusual''.

''Five hundred suggests there's more than a moderate problem,'' Mr Samuel said. ''It's a new area and in some cases marketers don't understand - but in most cases marketers do understand and they are overselling.''   Source (SMH)

ACCC warns about 'green' marketing
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said as companies push to appear greener, it's becoming difficult to find products that do not promise some kind of environmental benefit. "Companies risk breaching the Trade Practices Act if they give an overall impression to consumers their product is environmentally friendly when it isn't," ACCC deputy chair Louise Sylvan said in a statement.   Source (SMH)

.

I also found this:

The Six Sins of Greenwash

In December 2007, TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company in North America , released the findings of a study titled 'The Six Sins of Greenwashing'. The company, a leader in green marketing, found that 99% of the 1018 common 'environmentally friendly' consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. The findings of the report were alarming and from it the company created the six sins of greenwashing, which it believes will help equip consumers with the tools to figure out the truth about environmentally friendly products. They define the six sins as:

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: eg, 'Energy-efficient' electronics that contain hazardous materials.

Sin of No Proof: eg, Shampoos claiming to be 'certified organic', but with no verifiable certification.

Sin of Vagueness: eg, Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde.

Sin of Irrelevance: eg, Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago.

Sin of Fibbing: eg, Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognised environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal.

Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: eg, Organic cigarettes or 'environmentally friendly' pesticides.

Source (www.Sustainabilitymatters.net.au)

So the message is very clear.

Beware of making 'greenwashed' claims for your products or you may end up on the front page of a major newspaper!!

That would not make good business sense.

If anyone finds any more examples of this type of thing, please let me know and I will add the company to the list of shameful behaviour. It is great to see people are making complaints when they see this type of thing ("from almost none two years ago to 500 complaints since 2008").

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

ACCC probing more 'green' ad claims

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.

So please, tell us what you think.

Changing finance - Financing change

I recently came across this wonderful image of a butterfly used on the poster for the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) 2009 Global Roundtable in Cape Town, South Africa (held 22-23 October 2009). The purpose of the meeting was "to explore ways towards achieving sustainable financial markets and economies".

Interesting image:

Reminds me of a couple of things:

First, ecological modernisation - the ugly Caterpillar changes into a beautiful butterfly - but have unsustainable financial markets and rationalist accounting systems really begun to 'change' into butterflies? Or are there simply planning more beautiful caterpillars which will continue to 'eat us out of house and home'? After all, the old 'ugly caterpillars' of 'progress' have already caused a lot of damage to the ecosystems of Earth.

Given that there is much being done by many businesses to become 'green' and much still to be done, the question remains 'is enough really being done?' or are we fooling ourselves that we are on the right track?


Second, the image reminds economists that biodiversity (esp. butterflies) and the environment are as important as having a healthy economy. Or will people simply want to continue to spray it with some (often hideous) chemical, already on sale for just such a purpose. Current thinking often suggests a narrow and technocratic 'solution' to 'cure' the increasing level of nasty 'bugs' we face. This global round table suggests that at least some economists are starting to rethink the basic assumptions of economics. Changing economics itself is definitely needed if we are ever going to build a sustainable society, but we also need to change the way we think about 'nature' itself. This is going to be difficult, given that many now live in unsustainable cities that are (often) far removed from 'nature' and its complex ecosystems. But we all need clean air to breath and clean water to drink and a climate that can support the ecosystems that humans depend upon. So really, we need to make some progress in the way way we think about the world around us all.

Third, the butterfly effect. This reminds me of the Ray Bradbury science-fiction story on the effects that follow from the actions of one butterfly (among others such as HG Wells "The Time Machine"). The effects of changing the way finance is regulated will have many profound effects indeed, but without proper levels of finance and technical support for the developing world to take up renewable energy technology, for example, there will never be a solution that is acceptable to the developing world in the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference in December. Not long to go now to get things in place.

Anyway, it is good to see some high level discussion of including social and environmental concerns into finance. I also like the 'financing change - changing finance' dualism, but wonder if perhaps this is a large part of the problem. Many people (including many economists and many governments) still see the choice as one of jobs versus the trees or economy versus the environment.

See my post on topic here.

What is needed is a wider (more holistic) worldview that considers the many things that cannot be measured using rationalistic methods (or worse done poorly) and are therefore given less importance in the 'grand scheme of things'.


** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

How to save the planet?

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

New Green Jobs ??

Top 10 Environmental Posts

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

The New Green Economy

The new green economy will ensure economic prosperity and create new green jobs.

The new green economy will ensure energy independence and self-sufficiency.

The new green economy will use clean, safe, natural sources of energy that will never run out.


The new green economy will get pollution under control.

The new green economy will make polluters pay for their own mess, so we protect our health and the health of our children.

The new green economy will preserve the majesty of our land (and the Great Barrier Reef).



The new green economy will reverse the deterioration of our atmosphere.

The new green economy will harness (Australian) ingenuity.

The new green economy will protect the future for our children.

The idea for this post came from reading "Speaking to Americans about climate change" and "Six Americans - which one are you?". I do realise that Americans and Australians are relatively different (socially), but they do also share many similarities (e.g. just think of Gridiron versus AFL). I decided to put the words "new green economy" with the main messages coming out of the 'Speaking to Americans' report. I have also throw in some "powerful images", although I realise that I should have more people in the images (more relevent to most people - look at magazine covers - they almost always have a face or person on them). Anyway, it was only a quick post idea.

I also understand that the message needs to be localised to be effective, but I have tried to get the core message without losing too much of the flavour of the message (i.e. using plain, values orientated language that resonates with the audiences underlying values and beliefs) so that it can be broadly understood (hopefully).

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Six Americas - which one are you?

Americans and climate change

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'.

New Green Jobs ??.

Top 10 Environmental Posts

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Clive Hamilton "Nordhaus' Carbon Tax: An excuse for more delay?"

This email came through today on the climate-l listserve. Clive Hamilton explains why a carbon tax is not the solution to climate change. Originally from the Australia Institute, he has written a number of books that critique capitalism and consumerism (see list below). Well worth a read.

Anyway, here is the email:

William Nordhaus is perhaps the most influential US economist in the global warming debate. While climate scientists are calling for urgent and strong action, he has been urging a cautious response, stressing the high costs of cutting emissions and the uncertainties associated with climate change. This paper argues that his latest proposal for a carbon tax, based squarely on neoclassical economic assumptions, contravenes agreed international principles, exposes the environment to risk, accords unwarranted privilege to private over public decisions and would result in more years of delay before the world responds.

To read the paper please go to

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=articles

Clive Hamilton
Senior Visiting Fellow
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University

List of books by Australian author Clive Hamilton (source Wiki):

• Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough (2005)
• Capitalist Industrialization in Korea
• Growth, Efficiency and Fixed Capital in Linkage Analysis
• Growth Fetish (2003)
• Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for an Ecologically Sustainable Future (1997)
• Running from the Storm: The Development of Climate Change Policy in Australia
• Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change (2007)
• Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate (2007)
• The Economic Dynamics of Australian Industry (1992)
• The ESD Process: Evaluating a Policy Experiment
• The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics (2008)
• The Mystic Economist (1994)
• What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy (2006)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Top 10 Environmental Posts

Americans and climate change

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'.

New Green Jobs ??.

Bill McKibben

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time

Here is a new report, "Tackling Climate Change, Reducing Poverty" put out by a new coalition of leading UK environmental and social justice groups, convened by Oxfam and the New Economics Foundation and including Friends of the Earth and the Royal College of Nursing.

.

It shows that tackling climate change actually offers a huge opportunity to boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time.

.

The report suggests:

• Improving household energy efficiency, reducing both emissions and fuel poverty.
• Planning for an equitable transition to a low carbon economy; paving the way for the UK to capitalise on the opportunities and reap the benefits of the new low-carbon economy including the creation of new 'green collar' jobs.
• Promoting sustainable public service provision, including low-carbon food procurement for hospitals and schools.
• Improving the existing housing stock; moving towards low carbon design in housing and urban development.
• Investing in a public transport system, which is better for the environment and more equitable.

.

More information here

.

Full Report here

.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
New Green Jobs ??
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.
Americans and climate change

.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

New Green Jobs ??

For the first post of 2009, I thought I would put up two articles about the the creation of new green jobs as part of efforts to reduce the impact of the economic crisis.

.

The first is Gordon Brown's programme to create 100,000 jobs in the UK and the second is about Barack Obama's pledge to create 5 million green jobs in the United States by Kathleen Rogers (the president of Earth Day Network).

.

More green jobs sounds good in practice, but what type of green jobs are they going to create and will the new green infrastructure be sufficient to ensure that the US and UK move quickly towards sustainability. As always, the devil is in the details of the plans. I will have to see if I can read a bit more commentary on the initiatives (from all sides) to see if I can find out more about the programs.

.

Building a new green economy will be complex and difficult. It is important to realise that although many people and businesses want their government to get policy on important issues 'right' there are differing views on what should be done. Just consider the different responses (and their critiques) to the economic crises faced by many countries. There are also widely differing views on what a new greener economy should look like. Nuclear versus clean coal, for example, or issues arising from which industries should get financial aid (and create new jobs) and which ones miss out (and possible face a bleak future).

.

Here is the intro to the first article from the BBC news:
.
(UK) PM 'to create 100,000 new jobs'

Sunday, 4 January 2009

.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has revealed details of a programme to create 100,000 jobs as part of a new initiative to curb rising unemployment. Mr Brown told The Observer of a programme of investment in new technologies and green projects. He said improving the environment was part of the solution to the recession. The government plans to bring forward £10bn of spending on public works, digital technology and environmental projects to create new jobs. Investments will be made in eco-friendly projects such as electric cars and wind and wave power, which will create jobs.

.
More here
.
Here is the second:
.
(US) Pursuing a 'green' economic stimulus
.
By Kathleen Rogers
American Forum
January 04, 2009

.
A massive stimulus package of nearly $600 billion holds promise for the economy, and could mean more federal spending on infrastructure and energy efficiency projects. An estimated $400 billion in that bill will repair lots of bridges and roads, but what will they all lead to? Nothing — unless we first start building bridges and roads between our economic, climate and education concerns, and start appreciating the way they're all connected.Few other national topics are as timely as a discussion of how to build a new green economy nationwide. During his campaign Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. It is this way of thinking that should shape our country's future.

.
More here
.
Update:
.

Japan, South Korea to Create New Pro-Environment Jobs

Japan and South Korea have announced plans to create tens of thousands of new jobs aimed at boosting the economy while protecting the environment.The Japanese environment ministry says it is preparing a so-called "Green New Deal Plan" to create at least one million new jobs in energy-saving and other environment-friendly technologies.
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies
.
Van Jones to advise Obama
.
Gambling with climate change

Press Conference by Executive Director of United Nations Global Compact Office

17th December 2008

.

Businesses around the world were increasingly warming to the idea that social, environmental, human rights and governance issues were essential components for long-range corporate profitability, the Executive Director of the United Nations Global Compact Office said this afternoon.

.
As the global financial meltdown wreaked havoc worldwide, companies were realizing that short-term profits would not necessarily sustain them over the long-term -- a message that the Compact hoped to build on. “What we used to preach -- that non-financial issues are important to manage risks and opportunities in an interdependent world -- because of the crisis is now much better understood,” George Kell said during a Headquarters press conference.

.
“We are convinced -- as we have been for many years -- that engagement on non-financial issues is a way to restore and rebuild trust, and we do believe that the Compact can be at least a part of the answer by challenging companies, now in particular, to demonstrate responsibility.”

.
Through the Compact, more than 5,000 chief executives worldwide had pledged to align business operations and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles in human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. Many of those leaders, according to Mr. Kell, were more closely embracing sustainability based on those principles as a new business strategy.

.

“This kind of thinking now needs to develop much faster because the necessity for doing so is clearly out there,” he said.

.
More than 1 billion people worldwide had no access to potable water, he said. And the international community faced the daunting task of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent to avoid environmental catastrophe. But no one was clear on how to achieve those goals.

.

Fundamental socioeconomic change was needed and that required the full engagement of the private sector, he said, noting the merits of a “green deal” combining stimulus packages with environmental conservation.

.
“We strongly believe that next year will be the year of sustainability, where the sustainability of markets will be intimately linked with climate change, water and related issues,” Mr. Kell said.

.
Launched in 2000, the Compact had grown from a broad policy platform to engage businesses in support of the United Nations goals to a practical framework for companies to manage their activities on specific issues. He said the Compact’s working group on labour addressed workplace violations, while the working group on anti-corruption looked at transparency as an organizational tool.

.
The more than 300 members of the “Caring for Climate” initiative focused on business solutions to climate change in a post-Kyoto policy framework. Mr. Kell added that more than 450 businesses, representing $18 trillion in assets, had signed the Principles for Responsible Investment, while 200 business schools had endorsed the Principles for Responsible Management education.

.
The Compact had removed 800 companies for failing to publicly disclose on an annual basis their progress in reaching the Compact’s goals, Mr. Kell said. More than 200 would likely be de-listed in the future.

.

More here

.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
New Green Jobs ??
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.
Carbon Disclosure Project releases results

.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

A new report issued today by Ceres analyzes climate change governance practices at 63 of the world's largest retail, pharmaceutical, technology, apparel and other consumer-facing companies.

.

The report finds that select companies in various consumer and technology sectors are responding to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change, primarily by setting GHG emissions reduction targets, boosting energy efficiency efforts, expanding renewable energy purchases and integrating climate factors into product design.

.

But the report found that many other companies are still largely ignoring climate change, especially at the board and CEO level. For example, only 11 of the 63 companies have their boards receive climate-specific updates from management, only seven of the CEOs among these firms have taken leadership roles on climate change initiatives and none of the companies have linked C-suite executive compensation directly to climate-related performance.

.

The report concludes that more action is needed to align company strategies with GHG reductions that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.

.

In this regard, the report recommends that companies:

.
* elevate climate change as a governance priority for board members and CEOs
* link the company's largest compensation packages – those of the CEO and other senior executives – to GHG reduction targets or other climate performance measures
* set company-wide energy efficiency goals and mandate energy efficiency evaluations for all major capital investments
* boost attention to supply chain management by including supply chain GHG emissions – emissions that result from raw material extraction, production, transport and packaging – in emissions inventories and setting emission standards for suppliers
* set renewable energy purchase targets
* expand programs to educate, empower and reward employees for climate-related initiatives.

.
Report available here

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies:

Survey of Professionals in 115 Countries Buries Myth that Cutting Carbon Will Kill Economies, but Price of Carbon Must Rise.

Download detailed survey results, including methodological details, in PowerPoint format.

Here is an interesting new survey (that has been released today at the climate change conference in Poznan) that found that climate decision makers (in the private, public and civil society sectors) believe that combating climate change and boosting economic growth are natural allies rather than enemies of each other. Anyway, here is the press release below (I have bolded the good bits):

Accelerated action on energy savings and the scrapping of fossil fuel subsidies are the two top actions needed to combat climate change and spur economic recovery.

The findings of this survey of climate decision makers in the private, public and civil society sectors underline their overwhelming view that combating climate change is a pro-growth, pro-economic recovery policy.

Three-quarters (73%) of the 1,000 experts surveyed agree that “equitable economic growth and development and significant progress in combating climate change can be achieved at the same time.” Only 11 percent disagree.

The overall findings from professionals across 115 countries who make or influence climate decisions will be presented today in Poznan, Poland at the UN Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1)

The survey found that decision makers believe that the price of carbon must nearly triple to over $50 per tonne on average before their organizations will consistently implement climate-friendly decisions over more cost effective, but carbon-intensive options. (2)

(1) Media briefing with comments from IUCN, UNEP and the World Bank in the main press room at the International Fair at 11:30 local time.

(2) The current price of carbon on the European Climate Exchange is 15 Euros or US$19 per tonne.

The survey was conducted during the past four weeks by researchers at GlobeScan with the support of the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), along with other contributing organizations.

GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller comments: “The fact that these decision makers across the world don’t see any inherent conflict between the economy and climate action certainly challenges the governments meeting in Poznan to move forward in spite of the current economic crisis. And they’re saying the price of carbon needs to be increased in order to stimulate action on the ground.”

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director said,: ”Combating climate change is the stimulus package needed to power the planet out of its current malaise and set the stage for a 21st century Green Economy—one that prizes resource efficiency, innovation and decent employment in developed and developing societies alike”.

The survey additionally asked hands-on decisions makers to rate 17 specific approaches to addressing climate change.

Increasing energy conservation and efficiency (77%) rates as having the greatest potential impact on GHG emissions in the short term (rated “major” by 77 percent).

Ranked second is the removal of subsidies for carbon-intensive activities (76%) –– a clear signal to policy makers needing to free up budgets to fund fiscal stimulus measures.

When asked to evaluate the potential of different technologies to lower atmospheric carbon concentrations in the longer term (25 years), efficiency and conservation (88%) remain the most attractive among decision makers, well above nuclear energy (only 29% rate current nuclear technology highly), carbon capture and storage (29% on retrofits) and biofuels from food crops (only 12%). Clearly, these decision makers see energy efficiency as the “low-hanging fruit”.

“The development challenge is to accelerate or maintain robust economic growth in poorer countries while also dealing with the impacts of climate change,” says Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development.

“The new global survey supports the view that developing countries will need support in terms of finance, as well as technology in the fight against climate change,” she said. “The financial situation is no justification for postponing action on climate change. Climate change is not waiting, so we cannot wait either.”

In spite of their strong opinion that economic development and climate action are synergistic, a plurality (44%) expect that the current economic crisis will nonetheless hinder progress toward an effective international climate agreement.

The survey results provide guidance for negotiators in Poznan. A solid majority (66%) of those surveyed endorse the G8+5 GLOBE legislator’s 2008 Tokyo Framework for International Cooperation beyond 2012 as a model for negotiators at Poznan and Copenhagen. Support is strong for an inclusive, multifaceted, long-term yet flexible global agreement that acknowledges the value of ecosystem services.

A key finding of last year’s Climate Decision Makers Survey (conducted before the COP 13 Bali conference) revealed just how important decision makers view the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. This year’s updated poll reaffirms it. Majorities (64%) of decision makers say that investing in biodiversity protection and creating new financial mechanisms (59%) as an incentive should be short-term climate priorities.

“This survey echoes the message we heard at IUCN’s World Conservation Congress in Barcelona,” says Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN Director General. “We had 8,000 participants from 180 countries and the message they brought was clear; biodiversity underpins the well-being of human societies and their economies. We now have an understanding of the clear link between conservation and climate and that healthy ecosystems are the best defense against climate change.”

Unlike public opinion polls, this survey focuses on the views of professionals in position to make or influence large decisions in government, the private sector and civil society. This focus, together with the survey’s large global sample and good balance of respondents across geographies and sectors, makes this survey unique.

Download detailed survey results, including methodological details, in PowerPoint format.

.

If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

.

Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .

.

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Nine Meals from Anarchy

.

Polar Bear Begs
.
Comments most welcome !!!

The Poznań Communiqué

The Poznań Communiqué was developed by The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change at the University of Cambridge.

.

Here is a summary of the Poznań Communiqué (from the website http://www.poznancommunique.com/) that calls for "decisive action" on climate change from 140 global companies.

.

140 global business leaders unite behind the key elements of an international deal on climate change.

.
"Decisive action will stimulate economic activity"

.
On Monday 8th December 2008, the business leaders of over 140 global companies published The Poznań Communiqué on Climate Change.

.
In this document, the business leaders set out what they believe should be the key elements of an international deal on climate change.

.
The initiative represents an impressive coming together of the international business community and includes some of the biggest companies and brands from around the world, including Australia, China, Europe, Japan, the Middle East, South America, the United States and Canada.

.
Key messages of the The Poznań Communiqué:

.

• Climate change poses global social, environmental and economic risks and demands a transformational change in how we manage our global economy
  
• We must deliver deep and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Decisive action will stimulate global economic activity
  
• Delaying action will increase the costs of stabilizing the climate
  
• A sufficiently ambitious, international, comprehensive and legally binding United Nations agreement will provide business with the certainty and frameworks it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies
  
• The overall targets for emission reduction must be guided by science
  
• Even an immediate peaking in global emissions would require a subsequent reduction of 50-85% by 2050, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  
• Any credible comprehensive agreement must include mechanisms to reduce tropical deforestation as the continuing destruction of these ecosystems accounts for up to a fifth of annual greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Developed countries need to take on immediate and deep economy-wide emission reduction commitments
  
• Rapidly emerging economies should be looking to adopt commitments by 2020
  

.

The Poznań Communiqué also presents some ideas on the key supporting elements of an international agreement, including:
.

• Measures to deliver a robust global greenhouse gas emissions market
  
• A revised Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM)
  
• Non-price interventions
  
• A framework for developing countries
  
• An adaptation strategy
  
• A mechanism to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing
• Countries (REDD)
  

.

Click here for the full text of The Poznań Communiqué

.

If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

.

Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .

.

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Nine Meals from Anarchy

.

Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism

.
Comments most welcome !!!

Environmental consultancy future ?

An interesting article from the Financial Times on whether the economic downturn will take its toll on environmental consulting.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5fefa730-b1e3-11dd-b97a-0000779fd18c.html

It finds that two factors will be key in answering this question

1) whether environmental consultancy can help companies to save money and improve business performance; and

2) whether the regulatory drivers that inspired the rush to environmental improvements hold firm.

Most affected area ?

“So far, the firms most affected by the financial crisis have been those which were engaged in contaminated land consultancy for the development market”

California Climate Risk and Response

The University of California Berkeley has released a report called "California Climate Risk and Response" which found that over half of California's real estate was at risk from climate change from such risks as extreme weather events, sea level rise and wildfires.

Real estate ($2.5 trillion worth at risk) and insurance represent the largest sectors at risk from climate change in the state, according to the report.

Six additional sectors, including water, energy, transportation, tourism, agriculture and public health would incur tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs and expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risks, according to the report.

“Our report makes clear the most expensive thing we can do about climate change is nothing,” said lead author UCB adjunct professor Davis Roland-Holst.

The report, “California Climate Risk and Response,” was funded by Next 10, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.

The executive summary of the report is available here.

Well worth a read, especially if you live on the coast.

UPDATE

I woke up on Sunday to see "Fire menaces Los Angeles suburbs"

Note: I don't want to suggest that these fires are a direct result of climate change. Fire has been a natural part of the ecosystem for many many years, but we now face increasing risk from fire because of the increasing chance of weather extremes (due to climate change) and the fact that there is more concentrated human development in this area than ever before.

UPDATE 2
.

Here is a story from the New York Times

.

California to Plan Climate Change Strategy

.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has instructed state agencies to prepare for climate change, especially rising seas, as they plan to replace, upgrade and repair the system of pipelines that distributes water around sewage treatment plants and low-lying airports, among other things.

.

“We have to adapt the way we work and plan in order to manage the impacts and challenges that California and our entire planet face from climate change” said Mr. Schwarzenegger on Friday after issuing the executive order.

.

“We don’t want to be investing in infrastructure that could be underwater in 20 to 30 years.” said Anthony Brunello, deputy secretary for climate change and energy at the California Resources Agency.

Australia's Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation

The Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Water released Australia's Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation on the 30 October 2008.

This report presents the results of the Treasury's economic modelling of the potential economic impacts of reducing emissions over the medium and long term.

It spans global, national and sectoral scales, and looks at distributional impacts, such as the implications of emission pricing for the goods and services that households consume.

The Treasury's modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action; that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many of Australia's industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change.

The modelling shows that Australia and the world continue to prosper while making the emission cuts required to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change.

Summary Report

Summary Report – Corrigenda

Major Report

Major Report – Corrigenda

Fact Sheets Discussing Key Issues of Australia's Low Pollution Future

Consultants Reports – Modelling Australia's Low Pollution Future


Source:

http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/

The 'real' cost of carbon trading in Australia

Here are some good quotes from Peter Israel (General Manager of Origin Energy) about what he felt would be the real cost of an emissions trading scheme in Australia.

“I looked at what the economic modelling is telling us as to what an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will do to Australian business and there is a lot of hot air about the issue,” said Peter Israel.

“For example, the Garnaut Report and the Climate Roundtable work indicate the economy will grow only slightly less quickly when you have an ETS - it is 0.1% per year reduction in GDP" he said.

“People think it's doom and gloom and we will all be broke, but already hundreds of organisations are focusing on some element of the carbon economy …" he said.


Source:

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
A Brief Analysis of COP 14 & COP/MOP 4

.
Summary of Poznań Climate Change Conference

.

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Development Programs
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Carbon Disclosure Project releases results

From their website:

"The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an independent not-for-profit organisation which acts as an intermediary between shareholders and corporations on all climate change related issues, providing primary climate change data from the world’s largest corporations, to the global market place."

http://www.cdproject.net/


CDP6 Global 500 Report

The report has 5 aims:

(1) To provide institutional investors and other stakeholders with information that facilitates a better understanding of the risks and opportunities stemming from climate change.

(2) To highlight best practice in activities to address climate change across a range of sectors.

(3) To benchmark action and disclosure between different geographies and sectors.

(4) To analyse key issues in relation to climate change disclosure and to comment on different geographically and on a sector-by-sector basis.

(5) To use companies' responses to CDP6 as a way of highlighting key concerns, challenges and future directions around carbon disclosure and wider corporate sustainability.

http://www.cdproject.net/download.asp?file=CDP6_Global_500_Report.pdf

CDP6 S&P 500 Report



http://www.cdproject.net/download.asp?file=CDP_Report_SP500_Final.pdf
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
New Green Jobs ??
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Big firms lack climate change plans

.
Van Jones to advise Obama on 'Green Jobs'

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

It is good to see Google putting some serious cash into geothermal.

Google puts $10m into new geothermal technology

Speaking about geothermal, Dan Reicher (Google's head of climate and energy initiatives) said "It's 24-7, it's potentially developable all over the country, all over the world, and for all that we really do think it could be the 'killer app' of the energy world,".

$6.25 million, will help finance EGS company AltaRock Energy Inc of Sausalito, California.

$4 million of Google's money will go to Potter Drilling Inc, a Redwood City, California company which has a hard rock drilling technology.

Google's previous clean technology investments include $20 million for two solar thermal companies - eSolar Inc and BrightSource Energy Inc, and $10 million to high-altitude wind company Makani Power Inec.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/google-puts-10m-into-new-geothermal-technology-903555.html

Carbon Planet in the news

I met one of the founders of Carbon Planet (Dave Sag) when I was at the 2nd Annual Climate Change Conference 2008 recently in Sydney.

Dave also told a fantastic story about the time that the Summer Nats ("tits" and "burnouts" or "the bogan festival" as I think he called it) organizers rang him needing to make their event greenhouse friendly. LOL !

Anyway here is the story from The Age by Phillip Hopkins . . . (and a good plug for Carbon Planet too!)

Phillip Hopkins
The Age
August 8, 2008

DAVE Sag has been called many names, but it does not worry him.

He is doing what he loves — running a ground-breaking business in the new world of greenhouse emissions trading.

Mr Sag is a founder and now executive director of Australian company Carbon Planet.
The company helps businesses measure, save and manage carbon emissions and organises carbon offsets.

The name may sound like something out of a greenhouse marketing manual, but Carbon Planet has done the "hard yards". The Federal Government's Department of Climate Change this year certified the company's operations and services "greenhouse friendly". "It's an expensive, complicated and difficult process to get qualifications," Mr Sag said.

Carbon Planet also complies with many international standards and protocols and is one of the few Australian participants on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

"The exchange is growing in strength, and we've been involved in it for some time," he said.
The unlisted public company has about 40 shareholders, and was founded in 2000 by Mr Sag and Ross Williams, a computer science PhD. Mr Sag's background is in IT and software. The two men are still on the board, along with executive chairman Jim Johnson.

At the time the company was set up, a lot of groups were trying their hand in the new, evolving carbon-trade world. "Some were former hippies, or well-meaning tree growers and environmentalists," Mr Sag said. "There were no scientists, engineers or mathematicians."

From the start, Carbon Planet set itself the task of getting that expertise. "There was a lot of noise, negative publicity about offsets, but we wanted to back our claims with good engineering," he said. "We now employ serious scientists and economists. We employ more engineers than most consultancies."

Carbon Planet has about 60 employees, with offices in Melbourne and the other Australian capitals, London and Vancouver. Some employees are also shareholders.

The company has four key areas of operation:

■A greenhouse auditing, energy reduction and carbon management service.
■Education for the corporate sector.
■Scientific analysis and consultancy to create carbon credits from valid projects.
■ A community-focused range of carbon emissions management and reduction services.

Mr Sag places an emphasis on credibility.

"Many are emerging with no qualifications and not many standards," he said.
"Transparency is such an issue. It separates us from the cowboys."

Carbon Planet must file half-yearly reports with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. "It's more comfortable for big organisations who deal with us," Mr Sag said.

"We are more accountable than a private company. It forces us to be on top of our game."
Mr Sag believes in man-made climate change, but thinks the carbon economy has gone beyond that issue.

"The carbon economy has its own legs," he said. "There are fears about peak oil, resource depletion and an understanding we live in a finite world.

"We know we have to be more efficient and eventually move away from fossil fuels. It's a form of future planning."

http://www.carbonplanet.com/

http://business.theage.com.au/business/carbon-planet-orbits-in-a-world-of-change-20080807-3rs9.html

To telecomute or not ??

Here is a story from Forbes.com about some research that shows that telecommuting may be bad for the environment.

Telecommuting is bad for the environment
Klaus Kneale
Forbes.com

Sure, your daily commute to the office is hurting the environment. But so is your telecommute.

High gas prices are making many more people consider working from home. The idea is to save some money on gas and as an added benefit to be kinder to the environment. But in fact, telecommuting is often worse for the planet than driving to work each and every day.

First and foremost, telecommuters often drive just as much as those who work in an office. The commute between home and work accounts for only 20% of all car travel, and telecommuters often drive into work a couple of times a week anyway. Plus, there are those extra trips to have lunch with friends, run errands or just get out of the house. It often comes down to cabin fever.

"Some people just can't [telecommute]; they get too lonely," says Jack Aiello, a Rutgers University professor who studied IBM's telecommuting program in the late 1990s.

And it's not just driving that's bad. Home workers have to equip and power their own offices, often duplicating electronic equipment like printers that are shared in an office. The manufacturing process for computers and electronics is a particularly nasty and ungreen business.

Arpad Horvath, an engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has estimated that telecommuting lowers a number of emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

However, the extra electricity used by dedicated home offices and electronics meant that telecommuters produced more nitrous oxide and methane. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide is almost 300 times worse for the environment over 100 years than carbon dioxide. Methane is 25 times worse.

In another study, Patricia Mokhtarian of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, found that better telecommunications (the foundation of telecommuting) caused more travel rather than less.

http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14734351

Some money for the environment

There were a couple of stories in the news today about large sums of money being made available to help the environment.

First: the World Bank agreed to set up two investment funds (Clean Energy Fund and Strategic Climate Fund).

"The G8 is likely to broadly support the establishment of the climate investment funds," Warren Evans, director of the World Bank's environment department, told reporters.

He said the World Bank was counting on an initial $4 billion to $5 billion in donations by G8 nations for the Clean Technology Fund, adding that media reports that $10 billion would be raised for the fund "are on the high side".

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN0131191820080701


Second: Gerhard Andlinger (chairman and founder of the investment company Andlinger & Co. ) donated $100 million to Princeton University to create a center for energy and the environment.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azWcHx7jec.0&refer=us

World's Biggest Windfarm in Texas

Oil mogul throws caution to the wind

April 18, 2008
SMH

Legendary Texas oil man T Boone Pickens has gone green with a plan to spend $US10 billion ($10.7 billion) to build the world's biggest wind farm. But he's not doing it out of generosity - he expects to turn a buck.

The Southern octogenarian's plans are as big as the Texas prairie, where he lives on a ranch with his horses, and entail fundamentally reworking how Americans use energy.

Next month, Pickens' company, Mesa Power, will begin buying land and ordering 2700 wind turbines that will eventually generate 4000 megawatts of electricity. This is the equivalent of building two commercial scale nuclear power plants and enough power for about 1 million homes.

"These are substantial," said Mr Pickens, speaking to students at Georgetown University yesterday. "They're big."

Mr Pickens knows a thing or two about big. He heads the BP Capital hedge fund with over $US4 billion under management, and earned about $US1 billion in 2006 making big bets on commodity and equity markets.

Though a long-time oil man, Pickens said he has embraced the call for cleaner energy sources that don't emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"I'm an environmentalist - I can pass the saliva test," he said.

But Mr Pickens is not out to save the planet. He intends to make money.

Though Mr Pickens admits that wind power won't be as lucrative as oil deals, he still expects the Texas project to turn at least a 25 per cent return.

"When I go into these markets, I expect to make money on them," Mr Pickens said. "I don't expect to lose."

America is facing a looming power crunch, with electricity demand expected to grow 15 per cent in a decade. And while many states have rejected big coal-fired power projects on environmental concerns, they are offering a bounty of incentives to build renewable sources.

US crude futures at new records above $US115 a barrel means a bright future for renewable sources like wind and solar.

Mr Pickens' wind farm is part of his wider vision for replacing natural gas for power generation with wind and solar, and using the natural gas instead to power vehicles.

To picture Mr Pickens' energy strategy, imagine a compass.

Stretching from north to south from Saskatchewan to Texas would be thousands of wind turbines, which could take advantage of some of the best US wind production conditions.

On the east-west axis from Texas to California would be large arrays of solar generation, which could send electricity into growing Southern California cities like Los Angeles.

The end result would be to free up more clean-burning natural gas - primarily a power-generation fuel now - to power automobiles.

Major oil companies have embraced so-called natural gas liquids because they have spent billions of dollars building refineries and pipelines to turn crude oil into petrol, Mr Pickens said.

But shifting natural gas used in power generation to transportation needs could cut US crude oil imports by nearly 40 per cent, he said.

Source

UPDATE:

Boone Pickens:Texas Wind Farm Delayed By Oil-Price Drop

T. Boone Pickens confirmed news reports Wednesday that falling energy prices have forced him to delay plans to build a massive wind farm in western Texas.

.

"Things have slowed down, but, no, the (turbine) order has not been canceled," the energy investor and former oil magnate said on CNBC. He said he still expects to take delivery of the project's 2,700 turbines in 2010, as originally planned, but that their installation might be "slowed down a little bit" until wind is more competitive economically.

.

The Associated Press also reported Wednesday that Pickens has decided to cut spending on his multimedia renewable-energy campaign to between $40 million and $50 million from an initial budget of $60 million, due to the falling price of oil.

.

"Patience is what we're practicing. We think it's going to get worse, and there will be better opportunities," Pickens said.