Description:
Environmental bits and pieces
Contents:
Changing finance - Financing change
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 changeNew Green Jobs ??
Top 10 Environmental Posts
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
So please, tell us what you think.
How to save the planet?
Wondering how to save the planet? Here is a suggestion from Tariq Banuri (Director of the Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of economic and Social Affairs). He suggests that "there is only one way to solve the climate change problem. And this is to have a strategy that results in lowering the costs of renewable energy as rapidly as possible".
Seems simple enough, although perhaps overly technocratic rather than holistic in nature.
Anyway, here is the rest of what he said:
Colleagues,
I want to share with you a rather simple message, based on the analysis made in the World Economic and Social Survey (WESS) 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet. The message is that there is only one way to solve the climate change problem. And this is to have a strategy that results in lowering the costs of renewable energy as rapidly as possible.
The reasons are quite straightforward. Energy is central both to human development and climate change. The burning of fossil fuels is the predominant cause of climate change. Yet, the same burning of fossil fuels on a large scale ushered in the industrial age and resulted not only in the dramatic growth of income and productivity, but also in the determinants of human development: clean water, public health and hygiene, sewerage systems, life expectancy, transport and mobility. However, these gains are distributed enormously unequally. Industrialized countries consume on average 120 kilowatt-hours per person per day (kpd) of total primary energy, while all but a handful of developing countries consume less than 35 kpd, while sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia consume less than 16kpd. The reason is not only the lack of infrastructure but also that even at current prices modern energy services are unaffordable by poor populations in developing countries. A shift to more expensive renewables (as well as the increase in price of non-renewable alternatives because of climate policy) will put these services beyond the reach of an even larger share of the population and effectively derail the development agenda.
The options being considered now are to provide financial assistance from the North to the South, partly to support adaptation activities, and partly to compensate for the incremental costs of mitigation action. However, by itself this cannot be a sustainable strategy. The only possible sustainable strategy is one that ensures that climate friendly alternatives become the default option for developing countries as they seek to overcome their energy poverty and sustain their growth process.
This cannot be accomplished through price manipulation alone, or by individual countries acting alone, with or without financial support. Rather, it requires a global investment strategy, whose goals are, first, to direct investment into promising renewable energy technologies; and second, to achieve the economies of scale and technological learning that would bring down the costs to levels that poor people can afford. The answer is a global partnership that sets a global target for renewable energy generation as well as cost reduction, organizes a "big push" of investment by using public resources to "crowd in" private sector investment, establishes a mechanism (such as a global feed-in tariff system) that ensures investors of a decent return on their investment and consumers of an affordable price for the resulting services, and supplements this big push with a Global Climate Corps to assist, educate and build awareness.
Developed and developing countries have a common interest in solving the climate problem, but they also share a need for the energy security and affordable energy access that accompany growth and development. Abundant renewable energy is therefore the lattice work upon which a climate consensus must grow.
Tariq Banuri
Director
Division for Sustainable Development
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
Adaption of People and Forests to Climate Change
The New Green Economy
New Green Jobs ??.
Top 10 Environmental Posts
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.
Online Research Conference on Climate Change
Climate 2009 is the world´s second on-line research conference on climate change and a major tool on climate change communication, worldwide.
The event will be held on-line from 2 to 6 November 2009 and around 100 papers prepared by some of the world´s leading researchers, will discuss the economic, social and political aspects of climate change.
The Conference will be organized around four main categories of papers: - Social aspects of climate change
- Economic aspects of climate change
- Political aspects of climate change
- Projects which focus on the social, economic and political aspects of climate change, as well as educational and awareness-raising initiatives
Moreover, the Conference "Climate 2009 / Klima 2009" will pay a special emphasis to research linking climate change with one or more of the Millennium Development Goals categories: - poverty and hunger;
- universal primary education;
- gender equality and women's empowerment;
- child mortality;
- maternal health;
- HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;
- as well as environmental sustainability.
Join Climate 2009, join the chats and inform yourself about the latest developments in the field of climate change.
Further details and registration (which is free of any charges) are available at:
http://www.climate2009.net
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.
Overcoming barriers to beat climate change
New Green Jobs ??
Top 10 Environmental Posts
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
So please, tell us what you think.
Clean Coal?
Four Corners this week looked at the issue of 'clean' coal - also called Geosequestration or Carbon Capture and Storage (or CCS) or even 'burying the carbon pollution under the ground' - and whether it was a possible major part of any climate change solution. . Against clean coal was Mark Diesendorf (from the Institute of Environmental Studies at UNSW), who argued that the technology was: unproven; expensive; risky; and the money would be much better spent on already available renewable energy such as wind and solar.
. Dr Joseph Romm was also interviewed. He argued that clean coal faced a number of challenges: There were also pro-clean coal viewpoints put forward by the coal industry. I
nterestingly the program also had a look at the failed US attempt to get CCS technology 'off the ground' and working 'safely' (it faced increasing levels of community concerns). Given that any new technology must cross the technology 'valley of death' to get to market, it will be both difficult and expensive for Australia to succeed where the US is currently failing. . It needs a lot of Government funding and regulatory help. It is getting this at the State and Federal level, but given that the funding available here is relatively very small in size compared to the US (and they found it too expensive to get a demonstration plant running), it is a difficult task indeed. . The main question is: Could the money be better spent on other solutions?
. Renewable energy is already available and needs further policy help to play a major part. The clean coal technology plant would have only lowered the carbon pollution emitted by the coal fired power station by 1.5%. Not a great reduction. "its the idea" said the coal spokesman. It would also take many years (decades even) to roll out any retrofit program for existing coal power stations. Dr Romm suggested we would also need to bury as much carbon pollution as we dill oil out of the ground each year. . Anyway, well worth a look.
Video available here
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
'Clean Coal' ???
EPA decides 'no new coal-fired power plants' (Well at least for now)
Home
|
