theglobaljournal.net: Latest activities of group Carbon Politics

Importance Of Bioenergy Should Not Be Underestimated

2013-06-27T11:32:17Z

Over the next decade millions of tonnes of biomass will burn in power stations across Europe. But if we are not careful many of the benefits of using biomass could also go up in smoke. This has polarised opinion and caused criticism from NGO’s. Dr. Matthew Aylott from Bioeconomy Consultants NNFCC argues that, while concerns shouldn’t be ignored, they do not reflect the reality.

The abundance of biomass makes it one of the world's most important sources of renewable energy. But this resource is not evenly spread. The UK for example produces relatively small volumes of biomass but growing demand is resulting in a sharp increase in wood imports from countries like the US and Canada. In fact the UK is now one of the world’s largest importers of biomass. The meteroic growth of the UK biomass industry has been made possible by the public subsidies available to bioenergy generators. This has understandably led to intense scrutiny of biomass to ensure it not only delivers greenhouse gas savings but does so in a way that offers taxpayers value for money.

And this scrutiny is unlikely to diminish if predictions on the future use of biomass are correct. According to research funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) we are only at the tip of the iceberg. DECC claim that bioenergy could deliver up to 11 per cent of the UK's primary energy demand by 2020 (1) and will continue to play an important role in energy production until at least 2050 (2).

The use of biomass in energy production is, however, faced with three key criticisms. Firstly, it is expensive compared to other forms of low carbon energy. Secondly, it drives up the cost of wood used in other markets, like manufacturing and construction. And finally, it does not deliver greenhouse gas savings over meaningful timescales relevant to climate change targets.

If we take a worst case scenario then one or more of these statements may be true but when managed sustainably, biomass is an essential part of the portfolio of renewable energy technologies; delivering low cost, low carbon heat and power that can help reverse the decline in the global forestry sector.

The true cost of biomass

A study by ARUP for the UK Government in 2011 (3) – which NNFCC contributed evidence to – found that co-firing biomass in coal-fired power stations is among the cheapest forms of renewable energy. At scales, greater than 20MW biomass co-firing was found to cost around £167,000/MW with an operating cost of £30,000/MW/yr.

This makes co-firing biomass far cheaper than many other forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. For example, a 5MW wind turbine has a capital cost of around £1,524,000/MW and an operating cost of £57,000/MW/yr.

Incentives for bio-energy production are also likely to have wider economic benefits, such as investment and jobs in the UK. NNFCC estimates suggest that the biomass heat and power sector (excluding the manufacture of new equipment) could employ 50,000 people in the UK by 2020 (4).

The UK has already seen significant new investment in biomass handling facilities at major ports. In March 2013, Associated British Ports announced it was investing £100 million in new wood pellet handling facilities at the Ports of Immingham, Hull and Goole to support the conversion of Drax – the UK's largest power station – to run off 50 per cent biomass. The project will create over 200 new jobs.

However, if subsidies for bio-energy production were to increase the cost of wood and push other industries out of the UK, we could see a net loss in jobs. The panel industry-led 'Stop Burning Our Trees' campaign quotes unpublished research from consultants Pöyry, stating that energy production creates 2 man-hours of work per tonne of timber used, while making panels, joinery products and paper creates 178 man-hours of work per tonne of timber (5).

This, however, assumes that we are limited by the amount of low quality wood available and that the two industries cannot exist simultaneously. In contrast, evidence shows that both markets are still growing and forest production is increasing to meet this demand (6).

Impact on wood prices

If heat and power generators are incentivised to use biomass then this could artificially drive up the price of wood for other industries. This could have a negative impact on manufacturers and consumers.

The UK Wood Panel Industries Federation states that “the high price that energy companies are able to pay for UK trees may eventually mean it's uneconomic to make things with wood in this country. The factories that produce kitchens, windows, wardrobes, chipboards, building panels and many other useful things may have to move abroad, to places where costs are lower.”

There is also the concern that in cost-competitive markets, wood may be substituted for cheaper alternatives like plastic (7) and further research is needed on the environmental impact of substituting wood for other materials in manufacturing.

But it remains unclear what impact, if any, bioenergy is having on the price of wood used in other industries. It is certainly true that the price of wood in general has risen above inflation over the last decade and this has coincided with the growth of bioenergy in the developed world. However, it is very difficult and potentially misleading to link the two.

In regions where bioenergy generation is subsidised, like Europe, the price generators can pay for wood remains lower than that the average price payable in other industrial roundwood markets (8). Bioenergy generators cannot afford the high quality wood demanded by other industries, like furniture or construction industries. In many cases without a bioenergy industry there would not be demand for the low quality feedstocks, such as diseased or damaged wood.

However, in supply-limited markets that require lower quality wood there may be greater competition with bioenergy generators, which could influence price. This again works on the assumption that we are limited by the amount of wood available.

Worldwide demand for industrial roundwood – i.e. non-fuel wood – is predicted to increase from 1668 million m3 in 2005 to 2165 million m3 by 2020 (6). The FAO predict that this increased demand will be met by increased production in areas like Europe and East Asia – where production is estimated to grow by 2 to 3 per cent per year up to 2020. And large bioenergy markets, like Europe and North America, are expected to remain net exporters of industrial roundwood up to 2020 and beyond.

In fact, industrial roundwood markets could benefit from the growing bioenergy sector, both economically and from a carbon sequestration viewpoint. Bringing neglected woodland back into management and actively managing forests to produce both useful timber products and biomass for heat and power production can increase carbon stocks and make forests more economically productive (9).

Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass

Biomass is not as carbon dense as fuel made from fossilised plant material (i.e. coal or gas) - so you need more of it to produce the same amount of power. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, biomass will initially release up to twice as much carbon dioxide as coal and up to four times as much as gas. But unlike coal or gas, we can re-absorb this carbon dioxide in just a few years by replacing the trees we cut down or thinning forests to make them more productive.

The time it takes for a new plant to absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that was released during the harvest, transport and combustion of the felled plant is called the 'carbon payback' rate. This is important when considering the environmental benefits of using biomass.

Calculating this rate requires a life cycle assessment which takes into account all of the contributing factors to carbon dioxide emissions across the entire biomass supply chain. The rate varies according to the type of biomass being used.

Biomass that has come to the end of its life, such as inedible food residues, will rot if left to decompose naturally and release methane and carbon dioxide – both greenhouse gases. Similarly, forests tend to decline after a number of years and start producing more deadwood. This deadwood will decompose on the forest floor, again releasing methane and carbon dioxide.

If we manage forests by taking out thinnings and deadwood, we can improve productivity, prevent the release of greenhouse gases and create a feedstock for bioenergy generation. But there will also be emissions associated with the harvest and transportation of the wood, which must be paid off. Research tells us that the carbon payback from forest thinnings used in energy production can be as little as four years (10; 11; 12; 13). However, we are limited by the accessibility and availability of forest thinnings.

As we start producing bioenergy on a larger scale some NGO’s believe that the use of whole trees will increase. They argue that this will result in longer and less palatable carbon payback periods from bioenergy. Research (10; 14) suggests that it may take 40 years or more to payback the carbon released when using whole trees in electricity generation.

But what is an acceptable carbon payback period? This is a crucial political question. Europe has 2020 and 2050 emissions targets to meet and if we don’t see an emissions reduction from substituting coal or gas with biomass until after 2050 some will argue we shouldn't be using whole trees to generate electricity and should instead stick to using 'cleaner' alternatives. However, this oversimplifies a more complex picture.

A typical wind turbine can take around three months (15) to payback the carbon used or disturbed in its construction, while a solar photovoltaic panel has a carbon payback period of up to two and a half years (16). On the face of it wind and solar would seem to have an environmental advantage over biomass. However, wind and solar are intermittent and can't be used to meet peak or base-load power demands, unlike biomass.

Hydro-electric can be used in peak and base-load power production, while nuclear can also deliver base-load power, but each of these technologies faces considerable planning and cost barriers that are likely to stunt their future growth.

Without biomass our only alternative would be to use more coal, oil and gas to meet peak and base-load power demands; dwindling sources of energy whose carbon payback rates are not measured in decades but are instead measured in millennia.

The importance of bioenergy simply cannot be underestimated. We need to move away from single issue politics and look at the bigger picture, by considering the broader benefits and implications of utilising a diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources, including biomass.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

Photo © DR

References

(1) DECC. 2012. UK Bioenergy Strategy. Download at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/bio-energy/5142-bioenergy-strategy-.pdf

(2) DECC. 2010. 2050 Pathways Analysis. Download at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/What%20we%20do/A%20low%20carbon%20UK/2050/216-2050-pathways-analysis-report.pdf

(3) ARUP. 2011. Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK. Download at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/147863/3237-cons-ro-banding-arup-report.pdf

(4) NNFCC. 2012. UK jobs in the bioenergy sectors by 2020, NNFCC 11-025. Download at: www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/uk-jobs-in-the-bioenergy-sectors-by-2020-nnfcc-11-025

(5) Pöyry. Download at: www.stopburningourtrees.org/why_its_wrong.html

(6) FAO. 2009. State of the World's Forests. Download at: http://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0350e/i0350e.pdf

(7) The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. 2012. Dirtier than coal? Why Government plans to subsidise burning trees are bad for the planet. 2012. Download at: www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf

(8) FAOStat. 2012. Forestry Production and Trade. Download at: http://faostat.fao.org

(9) Sedjo R and Tian X. 2012. Does Wood Bioenergy Increase Carbon Stocks in Forests? Journal of Forestry, Vol. 110, pp. 304-311. Download at: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2012/00000110/00000006/art00005

(10) McKechnie J, et al. 2011. Forest Bioenergy or Forest Carbon? Assessing Trade-Offs in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Wood-Based Fuels.Environ, Sci. Technol., Vol. 45, pp. 789-795. Download at: www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/McKechnie-et-al-EST-2010.pdf

(11) Manomet. 2010. Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study. Download at: www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRez.pdf

(12) Repo A, Tuomi M and Liski, J. 2010. Indirect Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Producing Bioenergy from Forest Harvest Residues. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, Vol. 3, pp. 107-115.

(13) Bernier P and Paré D. 2012. Using ecosystem CO2 measurements to estimate the timing and magnitude of greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy. Global Change Biology, online only. Download at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01197.x/abstract

(14) Southern Environmental Law Center. 2012. Biomass Supply and Carbon Accounting for Southeastern Forests. Download at: www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/publications/biomass-carbon-study-FINAL.pdf

(15) Martinez E., et al. 2009. Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renewable Energy, Vol. 34, pp. 667-673. Download at: www.cynulliadcymru.org/sc_3_-01-09__p8__further_evidence_from_bwea_cymru_on_carbon_reduction_via_land_use.pdf.pdf

(16) Fthenakis VM, Kim HC and Alsema E. 2008. Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles. Environ, Sci. Technol., Vol. 42, pp. 2168-2174. Download at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es071763q

Climate Change Expedition Ready For The Atlantic

2013-03-26T15:25:18Z

Last October, the Deepwater Project, led by Nobel laureate Martin Beniston, was the winner of the first ever GLOBAL+5 Innovation Award. Thanks to support from the University of Geneva, the Dudley Wright Foundation and private donors, The Global Journal is proud to announce that PlanetSolar - the largest solar catamaran ever built – will set off at the beginning of April from La Ciocat in the south of France on its very first mission to conduct a unique three-month scientific expedition. Operating with zero carbon emissions, the boat will collect data along the relatively unexplored Gulf Stream, documenting the behavior of the ocean atmosphere interface and the current’s role as a climate regulator. Gerard d’Aboville, a veteran navigator and French adventurer of the North Pole, is the captain of the solar catamaran during the expedition. With its mission base in Geneva, The Global Journal spoke to Beniston ahead of PlanetSolar’s departure.

How did this project come about?

Everything started exactly a year ago with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s visit to Geneva, where he inaugurated the R20 – his association of regions to find technological solutions to climate questions. At the time, we thought that with the imminent return of PlanetSolar we could perhaps convince Schwarzenegger to come back as part of the Cannes Film Festival because the boat would have been in Cannes at that moment. Notwithstanding this idea to create media interest in the event, the University of Geneva was in any case already present in the mind of Schwarzenegger given he organized the R20 inauguration conference here.

Eventually, I was asked if we could finally do something scientific together and from this moment the idea was born to use the boat to measure the Gulf Stream in quite unique conditions as PlanetSolar operates with zero emissions. Usually, in the part of the atmosphere where such experiments take place, we cannot use measures free from entropic pollution. That is why we are certain we can obtain more accurate results using measures from natural origins uncontaminated by pollution.

Were the measures developed previously? And as a scientist, what kind of link do you expect to find between these measures and climatic changes?

The Gulf Stream has been a climate regulator for a long time, especially in the North Atlantic and more particularly in Europe. What is quite innovative is that on the one hand we will measure all the trajectories of the Gulf Stream – from Florida just beyond the point of Ibiza towards Europe. We will go further north into colder zones. At the same time we will measure physical, chemical and biological properties linked to the atmosphere of the ocean and this is really something totally new.

You have expeditions that have measured certain physical properties in certain places – others have measured chemical properties in other places. But in general, having a boat do this experiment is something that is extremely expensive and demanding. That is why the best-case scenario is to have a boat at your disposal for perhaps 15 days or three weeks to see if you can target something in particular. Then, you have all the liberty and all the time to see a process connected to the Gulf Stream but also all processes in other areas.

In terms of physical properties, there are quite standard measures such as temperature, humidity, pressure, wind-speed and direction in the atmosphere, but also thermal properties, salinity and density. What we will be looking for is to better understand the exchanges that occur between the surface layers of the ocean and the lowest layers of the atmosphere – what is happening there?

When we use all these mechanisms that modulate the climate on a larger scale, we can try to really understand the interface between the ocean and the atmosphere. We can have a better idea of the energy fluxes and aerosol fluxes, which consist of solid or liquid particles that are suspended in the atmosphere. They also play a direct or indirect role on climate change either from sunlight or their part in nucleus condensation, where mini particles make the process of condensation more efficient. So we know very little about what is going on. Why does the ocean like this quantity of aerosol in the atmosphere? So it will be interesting to see which part of the Gulf Stream likes which type of aerosol. Is it the sulfate aerosols or other aerosols that contain a biological signature?

Are you talking about evaporation of water?

No, it is more related to wind friction against the surface of the ocean that can lift up droplets. The waves that crash, however, release a very large quantity of aerosol. For instance, we estimate that around a third of sulfate aerosols are produced in mass when we burn carbon and petrol – which contain sulfur – and the ocean consumes 30 percent of all such sulfur aerosols from the atmosphere. These are immense quantities even independent of all human activity. We will try to see whether this is uniform in the ocean or whether there are zones emitting these types of sulfur aerosols that are more concentrated in the warm area of the Gulf Stream or in the cold area. We don’t know the answer in advance, but it would be interesting to quantify all of this to better understand the mechanisms of exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Does this particular type of boat and scientific expedition pose any security problems?

For security I should direct you to the technician of Planetsolar. But in my view it doesn't pose any more security problems than a regular plane to the extent that this boat has proven itself during its world tour, sometimes in difficult weather. It was tested in a tropical storm and a monsoon between Australia and Asia, in the Philippines. It is an extremely stable boat with quite a particular catamaran technique where it attacks the waves – the buoys stay in the water even if the waves break underneath.

So for the team who are not necessarily seamen this will be quite a comfortable experience. In theory, I do not have any concerns about security in terms of the boat. We may have some other doubts about the boat because during its world tour it did not stay long between the two tropics of the equator where there is maximum sun. But according to the assessment by our partner Meteo-France, which has developed a routing program for the boat that can position it in accordance with optimal sun conditions – during storms for example, in the season in which we will navigate north of Iceland – it is completely feasible. There is no large risk – they doubt that we will break down because of a lack of sun.

We could potentially encounter delicate conditions in terms of a storm in the North Atlantic. Effectively, however, we are not going to encounter hyper-extreme conditions as if, for instance, we were trapped in the Antarctic ice. We will leave the Tropic of Cancer practically just at the polar circle with a change in the weather and behavior of the ocean. We will pass into an ocean just before the hurricane season in Florida – we hope – and we will pass through to the north of Iceland and in principle avoid Titanic-era icebergs.

What equipment do you need on board?

There are several types of instruments. There are the instruments that are submerged – the instruments that will measure the content of physicochemical oceanic properties, like temperature, salinity and density. We will make two stops per day in order to carry out surveys, at a depth of around 250-300 meters. We will survey morning and evening the deep layers of the ocean to see not only what is happening close to the surface, for example, but equally different points of depth that account for the basis of change in water mass. In addition, we have standard meterological measures that are part of the package provided by Meteo-France for the boat and we also have two instruments developed by the Physics Department here at the University of Geneva, which will measure solid aerosols. This is a commercial device.

We also have a device that was developed by the University to detect biological aerosols, bio-aerosols. This is an instrument that measures pollen in the atmosphere. Since these atmospheric pollens are a little bit similar in size to marine micro-organisms, we decided it is worth a try to use this instrument called the Box Corer in oceanic conditions. It is an instrument that collects the air hopefully containing all types of aerosols and is able to determine the types of micro-organisms and their abundance.

We also think we will be able to detect the biological signature of water mass transitions, for example warm or cold water masses. We have turbines that break away in the main area of the Gulf Stream, which start to twirl in the ocean. One of the roles of these turbines is to channel the heat but also trap phytoplankton, that is marine organisms. We think we can detect the presence, absence or abundance of these organisms with these atmospheric instruments, which coat the atmosphere.

Photo © Rita Scaglia

The World Climate Summit 2012

2012-11-08T13:59:31Z

The World Climate Summit, Doha, Qatar, December 1-2, 2012 is the largest international business and finance conference during the UNFCCC COP18. The high-level summit supports an active community of global business, finance and government leaders as they develop new business models, broker public-private partnerships, scale projects, transfer technologies, and establish replicable financing mechanisms for the global green economy. WCS provides a strong media platform with FT, TIME magazine and other local media partners. WCS is working closely with the Qatar government. Some key highlights include:

VIP speakers such as Presidents, Ministers and CEOs
Business development opportunities in the Networking Lounge
Lunch networking sessions
Media centre with more than 40 journalists already confirmed for press conferences, announcements and commitments
Cocktail reception

This year’s event will be at the exclusive Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Doha, Qatar.

For more information please go to www.worldclimatesummit.org

Tickets can be purchased at this link:

http://cop18-6.eventbrite.com/

Enter promotional code “WCS2012” for a 25% Discount.

From an Environmental Program to a World Organization?

2012-05-31T15:03:19Z

by Achim Steiner, United Nations Under-Secretary General and Executive Director, UN Environment Programme

2012 marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as a result of the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment of 1972.

The four intervening decades have seen a sharp rise in global awareness of environmental issues, and over recent years a growing understanding of the link between environmental sustainability and sustainable development.

Over the 40 years there has also been a series of landmark treaties, many of which were negotiated under the auspices of UNEP ranging from the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer to ones covering trades in hazardous wastes, chemicals and biodiversity. But there is acknowledgement, backed by science, that despite all that has been achieved the scale of the response to environmental challenges has not kept pace with the velocity of environmental change. Many also acknowledge that UNEP still remains, in a sense, the custodian of hopes and dreams and ‘work in progress’ rather than the finished item. The focus now is on Rio+20, taking place in Brazil next June, 20 years after the Earth Summit of 1992. Two central themes have been chosen for Rio+20: one, “green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” reflects the emerging consensus that an economic model able to serve the needs of seven billion people, rising to nine billion people, needs to factor in the multiple benefits of clean energy to sustainable transport and the real value of nature and natural resources in order to deliver growth and social outcomes including decent jobs for the young and the unemployed or under-employed. The other theme –“the institutional framework for sustainable development”– underlines the urgency to reform the international architecture within which UNEP sits, in order to scale-up and accelerate delivery across a suite of sustainability challenges. Within this debate discussions are now taking place on a potential reform and strengthening of UNEP, including transforming it from a UN programme into an organization. The question is, would such a political investment in terms of effort and time, bear fruit? Would it empower the world’s environment ministers and entitle them to higher levels of authority and support? How would such an organization differ from the status quo in terms of federating a fresh and decisive response to the multiple challenges the world is facing? Would it merely be a grand but ultimately hollow political gesture to a planet and a people in peril?

To read the full article, order a copy of the magazine.

Climate Accords At Risk from Vested Interests

2011-12-21T10:27:19Z

The UN’s climate change panel (IPCC) has warned that if measures are not taken to lower global CO2 emissions between 50 and 85% by the year 2050, it will be too late to halt the rise of the earth’s average temperature above the 2 degree Celsius mark.

The question remains: how strong is the political will to heed this warning - despite the last-minute agreement reached in Durban (December 11) by nearly 200 countries to adopt a legal agreement on climate change by 2015 which won’t go into effect until 2020?

The accord that was finally reached at the end of the week-long conference is largely a stop-gap measure designed to keep the current 1997 Kyoto protocol in effect until a new agreement is adopted.

The good news is that - unlike Kyoto - the Durban deal would put all countries, including the world’s top emitters - China, India, Brazil and the US - under the same legal regime to enforce commitments made to control greenhouse gases.

The bad news is that there are indications that some countries are dragging their feet. The day after Durban ended, Canada announced it will no longer abide by Kyoto although it will honor its pledge for a new accord by 2020.

“We don’t expect other countries to follow suit,” said Jonathan Lynn, director of communications at IPCC in Geneva. “Canada was clearly concerned that under Kyoto they would have to pay a penalty and that’s why they’ve withdrawn.” Rather than reduce greenhouse gases as promised under Kyoto, levels have risen by more than 4% largely due to Canada’s embrace of tar sand mining, resulting in an enormous fine.

Pressure from coal and oil lobbies is also compromising efforts to go green in the US and other industrialized countries. While the Obama administration tries to encourage investment in renewable energies by granting tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment.

Both the IPCC and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) noted that many of the studies denying that human activity plays a major role in global warming are funded by coal and oil interests.

“Some of this funding does come from vested interests,” said WMO spokeswoman Claire Nullis. She cited a recent study by scientists from the University of Berkley - funded by the coal industry - that disputed the WMO graphs about warming temperatures. However, the move backfired: “They came up with very similar findings and that has caused a lot of unhappiness - to put it mildly - among those who would deny that global warming is taking place and that it is human-induced.”

(Photo © M. Molendyke)

Mountains Ignored at Durban But Look Out Rio+20

2011-12-13T12:55:32Z

Although the loss of mountain forests and glacier ice was not on the agenda at the Durban conference on climate change that ended December 11th, advocates are determined it will be on the agenda of the Rio+20 climate talks in June 2012.

“The big story at Durban is that Kyoto (the 1997 climate accord) will not die on January 1st but will go on until 2015,” said Jan Dusik, European regional director for UNEP (UN Environmental Program) which co-hosted The World Mountain Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Verbier. However, Dusik said he regretted that UNEP’s report on glacier and mountain degradation was not part of the Durban agenda.

“Perhaps the image of islands disappearing into the ocean is more dramatic than images of melting glaciers,” he said. “We want the same recognition for the plight of people living in and depending on mountains.”

“We all live downstream,” noted mountaineer and photographer David Breashears of GlacierWorks added. “We all depend on water run-off from glaciers into mountain streams, lakes and rivers.”

Breashears said his 45 expeditions in the Himalayas and five Everest ascents have convinced him that the loss of mountain forests and glaciers will have worldwide impact if it continues unchecked. “Especially in Asia where the Tibetan plateau provides water for 40% of the world’s population and glacier run-off feeds the rivers flowing into China, India and Pakistan.”

Asked whether the glacier melt is due to historical cycles or the effect of humans on the environment, Breashears said, “Of course there are natural cycles but we know humans are also having an impact…and we can’t continue to vilify energy companies. They are simply responding to what we’re asking for.”

Another speaker at the Verbier Forum was Jean Bourliaud of the French advocacy group APMM (Association des Populations des Montagnes du Monde). “I’m a Chamonix guide but have done many treks in the Andes where there has been even more mountain and glacier degradation. In the next 40-50 years there will be no more glaciers there. This is an especially severe problem where cities depend on glacier run-off like Santiago de Chile.”

The World Mountain Forum was hosted by UNEP in partnership with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Similar events to mark International Mountain Day (December 11) were held in Canada, Peru and Nepal with the goal of highlighting the social and economic effects of melting glaciers in the world’s four biggest mountain ranges: the Andes, Himalayas, Alps and Rockies.

The Rome-based Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) also held a ceremony (December 12) to mark the day under the theme “Mountain forests – roots to our future.”

(Photos Mount Everest in 1921 and 2007 © George Mallory courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society / David Breashears for GlacierWorks)

A New Obsession

2011-12-06T12:13:18Z

"This obsession with a legally binding treaty [to tackle climate change] is an obstacle for countries achieving targets they have committed to," declared Paul Bledsoe, a climate change advisor to President Clinton. "What we need is national will to reach stated goals."

Given that the only international agreement so far, the Kyoto Protocol, expires in 2012, and that greenhouse gases have been rising instead of falling, we clearly need a new obsession - - or a way to pay for the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

In a world facing economic meltdown, the question for many is not "how?" but "why?" Even with carbon caps and emissions trading systems limited to Europe, parts of the US, and a voluntary market, the value of carbon trades in 2011 will top $140 billion. That's already a big tax imposed on the economy, even if offset by benefits that are less obvious. So, could we stimulate economic growth (which would certainly answer the "why?") with policies and technologies that emerge from something other than those being considered around the United Nations' table in Durban this week (thus answering the "how?").

"The answer is yes!" For example, according to a report from Environment America, California's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative helped homes and businesses install one gigawatt of rooftop solar in just five years. This cost-effective program has put thousands of people to work all around the state, stimulating the economy in one of the few bright spots of the construction sector these days. Twenty-nine other US states have followed suit, establishing targets for all types of renewable energy for themselves, which collectively will create new local businesses and jobs, contribute sales tax to state treasuries, and cut carbon emissions dramatically.[1]

Even more impressive - and a more immediate boost to the economy - are energy efficiency measures begun by states, then transferred globally. California once held the crown of "most energy efficient state in the nation" at 40% more efficient than the national average. Recent figures show that Connecticut and New Jersey have adopted many of the same efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, propelling them into the lead in this competition to see who can get the most out of the least. Using similar measures, along with tough new limits on inefficient smelters and industrial facilities, China reports an improvement in energy efficiency of almost 20% in the past five years, helping it usher in a period of unprecedented economic growth.

Of course, carbon emissions also come from transportation fuel, but again it is the regional governments that are making a difference. California set carbon pollution standards for new vehicles, which were adopted by thirteen other states and finally by the Obama administration as federal rules. The result? Automakers are already delivering less-polluting, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks of all sizes to showrooms, which save money for owners, improve air quality, and help to solve the climate crisis simultaneously.

Some quick calculations show that if the world followed these examples and became a third more energy efficient, switched at least a third of its energy supplies to renewables, and improved vehicle emissions by the same standards set in the US today, we would achieve half of the long-term carbon-cutting goals set by many experts to avoid the most costly impacts of climate change. And all of these measures would be paid for with savings and sustainable economic growth.

Realizing that this is their time, regional governments are helping each other to do just that - - in new organizations like former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's R20 Regions of Climate Action - - with policy, technology, and finance to build a low carbon economy and harvest these benefits. More can be done over time as technologies improve even further and as a rebounding economy recognizes that it can afford a global cap-and-trade system or carbon tax to deal with the remaining carbon cuts that are needed.

There's nothing wrong with an obsession, as long as it's focused on clear goals with proven methods of accomplishing them. By looking to regional governments instead of obsessing over new treaties, the goals pursued in Durban are well within reach.

[1] America on the Move: State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World, Environment America, December 2009

Durban Take Heed: The Earth is Heating Up

2011-11-30T09:00:42Z

There is no question that the earth is warming up and that it is due to human activity, according to the report delivered to the UN Climate Change conference that opened in Durban, South Africa (November 28). The results of the report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) were made public simultaneously in Durban and Geneva.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said the role of his organization is “to provide the scientific knowledge to inform action by decision makers…Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities,” he said.

Global temperatures in 2011 were said to be the tenth highest since the start of records in 1850. This was despite the weather phenomenon known as La Niña which has a cooling and drying influence – as versus El Niño which causes excessive rainfall, floods and rising tides. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997, the report notes.

Many scientists believe that warmer weather and warmer water is driven by carbon emissions which cause global warming during certain years in which there are large El Niño events. Strong La Niña years typically bring between 0.10° to 0.15°C cooler temperatures than preceding and following years.

“Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs," said Jarreau, adding that average global temperatures are rapidly approaching levels consistent with a rise of 2.4°C. “Scientists believe (this) could trigger far reaching and irreversible changes in our Earth, biosphere and oceans,” he said. The extent of Artic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record and its volume was also the lowest.

The WMO report was provisional in that it only measured the period January-October 2011 during which time the combined sea and land air temperature was 0.41°C above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C.

Jarraud said scientists have noticed that “weak La Niña conditions have re-developed in recent weeks but have not yet approached the intensity of those in late 2010 and early 2011.” Climate disasters during this 10 month period included severe drought in Africa, major floods in Pakistan, Central and South America, extreme weather events in the US and unusually dry periods in Europe and eastern China.

How much of an impact the WMO report will have on the complex deliberations in Durban is difficult to gauge but at least the conferees cannot say they didn’t know.

(Photo © DR)

Climate Change Affects World Security

2011-11-29T14:18:18Z

The week before the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change talks open in Durban, South Africa, UN Secretary Ban ki-Moon told the Security Council (November 23) that climate change should be treated as a threat to global security.

“Climate change has the potential to reduce the availability of food and water, threaten biodiversity, raise sea levels, and disrupt weather patterns, exposing all of us to greater risk. Many regions of the world will be vulnerable to more intense and longer droughts, putting lives and livelihoods in peril.

In his address to the Security Council, UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres echoed the appeal, warning that "The process of climate change and its role in reinforcing other global imbalances constitutes an important threat to peace and security.”

Instead of focusing on how many people might be displaced by climate change he said, “we should be addressing the more complex issue of the way in which global warming, rising sea levels, changing weather patterns and other manifestations of climate change are interacting with, and reinforcing, other global imbalances, so as to produce some very powerful drivers of instability, conflict and displacement."

Ban ki-Moon singled out the United States by reminding that Washington has reaffirmed the important role of the Durban climate change talks (November 28-December) adding, “We are committed to working with all countries to achieve a balanced and comprehensive outcome at the Framework Convention negotiations in Durban.”

The US Ambassador and Alternate Representative to the UN, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, responded that the US is also “committed to working with all countries to achieve a balanced and comprehensive outcome at the Framework Convention negotiations in Durban.”

However, doubts about the outcome of the climate change talks are already being raised in many quarters. Will the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol, committing nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least five percent below 1990 levels, be renewed? Will nations accept a proposed Green Climate Fund to deliver billions of dollars from richer nations to poorer ones through carbon credits?

The US and Saudi Arabia have reportedly thrown a wrench into the works by failing to agree (November 24) to key aspects of a pledge by rich nations to provide $100 billion a year in climate cash by 2020, to be managed by the Green Climate Fund.

(Photo © DR)

Forget Smart Power, Go for Cloud Power

2011-11-29T13:54:28Z

Dr Comtesse is among those who believe and support the emergence of new governance. Master in Mathematics and PhD in Computer Science (University of Geneva), Xavier L. Comtesse worked in academic institutions, as a start-up CEO and at the Swiss Federal Administration, including 7 years as a diplomat in the US. He was the first Swiss Consul in Boston where he founded the Swissnex Network, an organization in charge of technology and science exchange between the USA and Switzerland. Since 2002, he has been head of the Geneva Office of Avenir Suisse, a prominent think tank in Switzerland for economic and social issues. He enjoys what he sees in today’s political evolution. He is looking forward to the achievement and assimilation of what he calls “Cloud Power”.

Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power, and now Cloud Power. How does it all tie in with reality ?

We are at the heart of political reality. After the era of relations between nation and nation, at the beginning of the 20th century we saw the birth of multilateralism, which in turn, at the end of the first world war, gave rise to the Society of nations. It was no longer possible to settle problems just between two. From the 19th century onwards we saw the emergence of non-political, multinational organizations, such as the Postal Union, the Telegraph. After the second world war, multinationalism started to appear in the UN, although not as rapidly as in the two great antagonistic blocs of the Cold War. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new period of multilateralism began – with a difference. Neither bilateralism, nor multilateralism but a notion of multistakeholders took form. In addition to nations, there were also companies and civil society. An example was the rise in power of NGOs in the sixties, especially concerning issues of global governance. The idea of ‘soft’ law arose at this time –non-obligatory regulations based on voluntary commitment, without legal enforcement, without sanctions, giving complete freedom to withdraw.

Soft law was expressed notably through the increase of labels and norms, especially those proposed by the ISO (International Organization for Standardization).
With these famous soft laws in the ascendance, Joseph Nye a rmed his concept of Soft Power, which he considered to be just as important as Hard Power, essentially represented by the police, the military and control. Since then we have witnessed an unprecedented development of soft law.
When Obama moved into the White House, he would try to reconcile these two major currents and define Smart Power, a project undertaken and embodied byHillary Clinton as the American Secretary of State.

What makes you believe in the appearance of a new movement that you call Cloud Power ?

Having published a series of four books on Soft Power for the Geneva Foundation, it seemed to me that those concepts had been overtaken by new realities. For example, the networks of megalopolises or regions, like the one set up by the R20, are developing and assuming importance. These networks represent political and economic power of the fi rst rank. As a result, even if they are trying to include civil society and the private sector in their decision making, the classic multilateral organizations feel thrown of course. The emergence of the Internet society is a major innovation that has a completely new set of rules, both with regard to intellectual conception and physical boundaries. Up until now power lay in a linear framework, transmitted from one end to the other. From now on, the new symmetry of information will completely change our thought patterns. What does this phenomenon mean for us? That’s where it seems to me we are entering a new era of global governance : we are entering Cloud Power. What it means is that from now on we can think of power as made up of a collection of processes, capacities and concepts, and that, faced with a problem, we can search for a suitable solution from the Cloud. When we’re confronted by an environmental problem it’s possible that resorting to an Internet-type operation will be the best solution, with a massive involvement of participants, more labels than laws –this is where I can draw from the panoply of ‘soft’ laws. For issues of migration or distribution of growth I can turn to an R20 type of structure for greater economic capillary action –targeted, e ective, green and sustainable. This vision of Cloud Power allows us to get past certain aberrations.

But isn’t that the role of the international organizations ?

Like many others, the United Nations would like to continuously reinvent itself to become more e cient, but is that really the right way of thinking? Each international organization has its history, a contemporary history what’s more, from which it is di cult to detach itself. Why seek to transform oneself when it would be simpler and more e cient to turn to a better adapted and more mobile structure? Cloud Power, as a vehicle for global governance, o ers a capacity to adapt both to the age and to each issue. Rather than rely on a single organization to answer every question, why not use a customized solution for each major problem ? From this point of view, Cloud Power encourages direct governance. I need a tool and I use it for a given issue.

Could this concept encourage us to share and make available the tools and processes for decision-making ?

Indeed, the Cloud borrows from information systems. Uploading and downloading are part of the game, and that’s very appropriate for our polycentric world. If a particular person or organization emerges, their knowledge becomes shareable, in the non-proprietorial manner of Internet space. They become an element of Cloud Power. From 2020 half the world’s inhabitants will be born with the Web. This half will think Cloud.

You have to accept that all our forms of governance to resolve world problems, be they local or global, are inherited from the 18th and 19th centuries, and apart from the major powers entering the game, we have not experienced any great upheavals. What we are witnessing now is the swing into a new form of development, of acquiring and applying di erent types of governance.

Isn’t there a risk ? Fear of social instability and the temptation to return to Hard Power ?

Let’s take the recent world fi nancial crisis. It wasn’t sorted out by the Basel agreement. Numerous protagonists took action. No specifi c organization was appointed to fi nd the answer. A diverse group of organizations were called upon, but no hint of hard power.

One of the paradoxes is that the G20 appears to be an institution without power. The will to act is there, but its effectiveness is no better than that of a UNO.

I’m so convinced that Cloud Power o ers us a perspective to explain what is happening around us and to advance our thinking. We managed to fi nd some solutions to the 2009 crisis, albeit with the risk of deferring the problem, but at least a response was produced. In 1929 no politician or organization was able to curb the crisis.

Internet also has rules and is making changes which may pose problems. ICANN’s (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) recent authorization to create domain names incorporating the name of an entity such as .nestle or .danone, all the same, has sent out shock waves.

Internet is managed according to a posteriori requests, the famous Request for Comment (RFC) for all new ideas about regulations. The request is accepted if it is applied. Many of us fi nd this strange, but that’s how Internet governance operates. No vote, but trial and error. Proof lies in the pudding. It resembles case law rather than code law –and it works. The change you mention was formulated according to the RFC procedure. The real reason for it is that the .coms and other domain names brought money to these regulatory bodies. It corresponds to their business model. All these globalized organizations, ICANN, Internet Society (.org), W3, are all fi nanced according to this model and it was brought into play because they need fi nancing. This latest authorization will give them new scope for fund-raising. A .brand will cost a lot, about US$ 250,000. It’s a sort of tax on globalization to fi nance these Internet structures. Oppositioncomes from those who won’t have access to any of this income. Naturally, the others who stand to benefi t agree. In supporting this proposition the ‘soft’ organizations can maintain their self-fi nancing.

In Cloud Power, will there be a greater need to widen the debate to involve ordinary citizens ?

Even if the number of debates increases through think tanks or summits between leaders, ordinary people are not involved. It should be a much wider debate. Two major events in 2011 give us hope : the youth revolt in North Africa taught the establishment a lesson, and it embodied a new form of politics ; the second event was the nuclear disaster at Fukushima which produced an instant global discussion, with a noticeable distrust of the authorities. Nowadays, discovering the truth is perceived as a search or quest. What we are told day by day may be false, but we’ll fi nd out the truth in the end. Even a medical patient now goes through a process of questioning and verifying the accuracy of what the doctor says. Internet is the source of this phenomenon. It was the case with the images of torture in Egypt where people tried to fi nd out if they were genuine or not. When it was proved to be genuine, it totally liberated the revolt. It all contributes to a new form of global political dialogue. And for those in hard power the situation has become very complex.

But hard power won’t disappear completely ?

True, but it will soon be only one element among other forms of power, and will never regain the position it once had. Let’s take the case of football hooliganism in Europe. Incarceration was the fi rst response, with an assortment of fi nes and bans from the stadium. The real solution came from a dialogue between the police, the teams and an ‘NGO’ of fans. We are witnessing the failure of hard power, that’s the world we are entering now. There’s a sort of Darwinian evolution happening in the progressive empowerment of individuals, and we’re experiencing an acceleration of this phenomenon

by Henry Montana

photographs by Pascal Dolémieux