Ecobella Blog

Davos, Switzerland – Iceland leads the world in addressing pollution control and natural resource management challenges, according to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) produced by a team of environmental experts at Yale University and Columbia University. This is the third edition of the EPI, which has been revisited biannually since 2006.

Released today at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010, the EPI ranks 163 countries on their performance across 25 metrics aggregated into ten categories including: environmental health, air quality, water resource management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, and climate change.

Iceland’s top-notch performance derives from its high scores on environmental public health, controlling greenhouse gas emissions, and reforestation. Other top performers include Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Norway – all of which have made substantial investments in environmental infrastructure, pollution control, and policies designed to move toward long-term sustainability.

The United States places 61^st in the 2010 EPI, with strong results on some issues, such as provision of safe drinking water and forest sustainability, and weak performance on other issues including greenhouse gas emissions and several aspects of local air pollution.

Of the newly industrialized nations, China and India rank 121^st and 123^rd respectively – reflecting the strain rapid economic growth imposes on the environment. However, Brazil and Russia rank 62^nd and 69^th, suggesting that the level of development is just one of many factors affecting placement in the rankings.

Source: YALE

China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain’s Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, found “impossible resistance” from China to a global carbon mitigation deal.

A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2% of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate.

Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future.

By: Bjorn Lomborg

To read full article: Project Syndicate

In a recent interview, Mr. Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank, and author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” correctly states, “For almost 20 years, from Rio to Kyoto to Copenhagen, we’ve been wasting time, pursuing the failed strategy of cutting carbon-dioxide emissions. It’s about time we changed course. Do we really want to be remembered as the generation that wasted another decade? For years, we have been spinning our wheels on what I call the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen road to nowhere, slavishly following the notion—first endorsed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and then extended in Kyoto 13 years later—that the only way to stop global warming is by means of draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. All we have to show for this devotion is a continuing series of unmet targets, along with a startling increase in the number of people who no longer think climate change is worth worrying about.”

China and India recently announced plans to reduce the carbon intensity, or the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, of their economies over the next decade. China, which increased vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in recent years, wants to cut its carbon intensity by as much as 45% from 2005 levels by 2020 while India has targeted a reduction of as much as 25% from 2005 levels over the next decade. The Chinese can promise to do this because they’re modernizing their economy. They’re investing in more efficient energy sources and nuclear power. So this in essence is basically saying, “We’re just going to promise to do what we’re going to do anyway.” The situation is the same for India. Estimates show that India will probably end up, if they do nothing, reducing its carbon intensity by almost 50%.

In order for the world to keep temperatures from rising beyond a ceiling of 1.5 °C to 2 °C above pre-Industrial Revolution levels via solely reducing carbon emissions, it is estimated that the annual cost will be US$40 trillion by the end of the century. Mr. Lomborg estimates that for every dollar spent, the world will avoid only about two cents of climate damage. Furthermore, each dollar spent on traditional cap-and-trade plans only brings about US$0.90 in benefits. However, climate economists predict that if investment in clean energy technology is dramatically increased, for every dollar spent, the world will avoid eleven dollars of climate damage.

“Instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should focus on making alternative energy cheaper. The cost of fully implementing the Kyoto Protocol (in terms of lost economic growth) has been estimated at roughly $180 billion a year. For just a little more than half that amount, we could fund a fifty-fold increase in spending on R&D for the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs—like smart grids, ultra-efficient batteries or even cheap, manageable fusion—we will need to end our addiction to fossil fuels. Such a commitment would resolve many of today’s political challenges. Developing nations would be much more likely to embrace a positive path of innovation than a punitive one that handicaps their ability to grow their economies, ” Mr. Lomborg says. Trying to force drastic carbon emissions cuts in the short-term doesn’t work economically or politically.

Source: Green Car Congress

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, renewed his call for a European carbon tax on imports to the bloc on Thursday as he unveiled details of a new charge on fossil fuel products in France.

“I will not accept a system … that imports products from countries that don’t respect the rules [on carbon emission reductions]. We need to impose a carbon tax at [Europe’s] borders. I will lead that battle.”

The French president has in the past sparked accusations of protectionism after calling for European import tariffs on products from countries that do not abide by international targets on carbon emission reductions.

On Thursday economists warned that such an initiative – likely to be supported by some European countries such as Italy – could have catastrophic consequences for the ongoing attempts to strike a global trade deal.

“This would put the developed world on a collision course with China, India and other developing countries. It could do serious damage to the international trade system,” said Simon Tilford, chief economist of the Centre for European reform. “It would be seen as naked protectionism.”

Mr Sarkozy sought to defend his position, which is clearly aimed at making France’s own carbon tax more palatable in the face of strong public opposition.

“A carbon tax at the border is the natural complement to a domestic carbon tax. More importantly, a carbon tax at the borders is vital for our industries and our jobs. This has nothing to do with protectionism,” he said. “This is about fair play.”

France will become the largest economy to levy a carbon tax when it comes into effect next year.

Mr Sarkozy set the tax at €17 per tonne of carbon emissions, just above the €14 signalled by François Fillon, his prime minister, last week, but still far below the level recommended by environmental activists.

This represents about 4.5 cents per litre of diesel, or 4 cents per litre of gasoline and 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour of gas.

In a concession to concerns within his own party about the impact of a new tax on poorer and rural households, Mr Sarkozy said the tax would be offset by reductions in income tax or special “green cheques” for those below the tax threshold.

“The creation of the carbon tax will not increase charges in our country,” he said. No household or business would be worse off as a result, he added, and an independent commission would be set up to monitor the impact of the tax

Source: MINA

Cash for Clunkers Wraps came to a close with nearly 700,000 clunkers taken off the roads, replaced by far more fuel-efficient vehicles. Rebate applications were $2.877 billion.

Cars made in America topped the most-purchased list, from the Ford Focus to the Toyota Corolla to the Honda Civic.

“American consumers and workers were the clear winners thanks to the cash for clunkers program,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Manufacturing plants have added shifts and recalled workers. Moribund showrooms were brought back to life and consumers bought fuel efficient cars that will save them money and improve the environment.”

In addition, the program provides good news for the environment. That’s because the average fuel economy of the vehicles traded in was 15.8 miles per gallon and the average fuel economy of vehicles purchased is 24.9 mpg, a 58% improvement.

“This is a win for the economy, a win for the environment and a win for American consumers,” Secretary LaHood said.

Cars purchased under the program raised the average fuel economy of the fleet, while getting the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles off the road.

Now assuming the average car drives 20,000 miles per year, means the US saves 324 million gallons of fuel per year, at $2.75 per gallon saves of $890 million per year.  Over a 5 year span, the program provides a 28.3% Internal Rate of Return in fuel savings alone.  The IRR breaks even at 13,000 miles per year and for cars that run 25,000 miles a year the IRR goes to 51.0%.

Other factors like reduced carbon emissions, cleaner environment, savings on spare parts, increase safety, increased economic activity and new jobs are harder to measure and tally into the account.

If the US and other developed nations could replace a sizable proportion of their fleets, it may be an important factor on keeping the price of oil at reasonable levels, save trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Without looking into absolute number of tons reduced and into the different sectors, a company that pledges a reduction of 25%+ on its emissions over a short period of time, makes a strong statement.

Looking into EPA Climate Leaders, the following companies stand out meeting the 25%+ reduction:

1. 3Degrees pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2007 and maintain that level through 2012.
2. 3M achieved its initial goal by reducing total U.S. GHG emissions by 60 percent from 2002 to 2007.
3. Advanced Micro Devices pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 33 percent per manufacturing index from 2006 to 2010. AMD achieved its initial goal by reducing global GHG emissions by 53 percent per manufacturing index from 2002 to 2006.
4. Burt’s Bees pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 35 percent per dollar sales from 2006 to 2011.
5. Cherokee Investment Partners pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2007 and maintain that level through 2011.
6. Cisco Systems pledges to reduce total global GHG emissions by 25 percent from 2007 to 2012.
7. Codding Enterprises pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 50 percent per square foot from 2005 to 2010.
8. Conservation Services Group pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2006 and maintain that level through 2010.
9. Cummins pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 25 percent per dollar revenue from 2005 to 2010.
10. Deere & Company pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 25 percent per dollar revenue from 2005 to 2014.
11. Dell pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 15 percent per dollar revenue from 2007 to 2012, and to achieve net zero global GHG emissions by 2008 and maintain that level through 2012.
12. Design Continuum pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 25 percent per square foot from 2007 to 2012.
13. DPR Construction pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 25 percent per employee from 2007 to 2015.
14. EarthColor pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 40 percent per dollar sales from 2006 to 2012.
15. Ecoprint pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2006 and maintain that level through 2010.
16. Exelon Corporation achieved its initial goal by reducing total U.S. GHG emissions by 38 percent from 2001 to 2008.
17. Fairchild Semiconductor pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30 percent per manufacturing index from 2003 to 2010.
18. FetterGroup pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 25 percent by sheets printed from 2007 to 2012.
19. First Environment pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2008.
20. Genzyme Corporation pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 25 percent per dollar revenue from 2007 to 2012.
21. Green Mountain Energy Company pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2005 and maintain that level through 2009.
22. Intel Corporation pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 30 percent per production unit from 2004 to 2010.
23. Johnson Controls pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30 percent per dollar revenue from 2002 to 2012.
24. Lincus Incorporated pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30 percent per square foot from 2006 to 2011.
25. Lockheed Martin pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30 percent per dollar revenue from 2001 to 2010.
26. Melaver pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2006 and maintain that level through 2009.
27. National Renewable Energy Laboratory pledges to reduce total U.S. GHG emissions by 75 percent from 2005 to 2009. NREL achieved its initial goal by reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 10 percent per square foot from 2000 to 2005.
28. Owens Corning pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 25 percent per unit of production from 2006 to 2012.
29. PepsiCo pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 25 percent per ton of production from 2006 to 2015.
30. PSEG achieved its initial goal by reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 31 percent per kWh from 2000 to 2008.
31. Quad/Graphics pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 25 percent per page printed from 2003 to 2013.
32. Shaklee Corporation pledges to maintain net zero U.S. GHG emissions from 2006 to 2009.
33. Steelcase pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 40 percent per dollar sales from 2004 to 2009.
34. STMicroelectronics pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 50 percent per manufacturing unit from 2000 to 2010.
35. The Tower Companies pledges to achieve net zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2008 and maintain that level through 2012.
36. Unilever pledges to reduce global GHG emissions by 25 percent per ton of production from 2004 to 2012.
37. Xerox Corporation pledges to reduce total global GHG emissions by 25 percent from 2002 to 2012. Xerox achieved its initial goal by reducing total global GHG emissions by 18 percent from 2002 to 2006.

Reference:  EPA Climate Leaders

George Ahn

CEO

TRIRIGA

Home Depot battled negative headlines in May when shareholders voted down a resolution to enforce more rigid and transparent energy efficiency measures. The resolution proposed that the organization assess company-wide energy use from its buildings, transportation and supply chain. It also urged Home Depot to set energy use reduction targets and report findings and progress to shareholders.

While the measure did not pass, it received support from the $20 billion Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust, the advisory firm RiskMetrics Group (RMG), and other investors in the $7 trillion Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR). Despite the outcome, the resolution foreshadows a future in which shareholders increasingly require reports on energy efficiency improvements and climate change risk. Organizations that fail to put the right systems in place today to meet these reporting requirements will suffer.

Findings from CERES, a coalition of investors, environmentalists and public interest groups, report that “the resolution filed with Home Depot is one of a record 67 global warming resolutions filed with 58 U.S. companies and two Canadian companies as part of the 2009 proxy season.” The findings confirm that companies must start to disclose risks from climate change now and provide stakeholder groups with a plan to mitigate those risks.

Further, despite the evidence that climate change disclosure will quickly transition from a proposal to an imperative, many companies have not started to track or abate their carbon emissions.

In fact, according to a 2009 report co-authored by CERES, over 76 percent of the S&P 500 fail to even mention climate change in SEC filings. This is surprising given that, according to a September 2008 McKinsey survey of 1,453 international executives, 50 percent said that environmental issues ranked among the top three areas that would most affect shareholder value in the next five years. While organizations appreciate investors’ concerns, they often lack the tools necessary to address them.

Further evidence that organizations will face more stringent demands from shareholders comes from INCR, an alliance of over 80 institutional investors and financial firms that collectively manage more than $7 trillion in assets. INCR has suggested that congress mandate climate change disclosure in SEC filings, and INCR Director and CERES President Mindy Lubber states, “climate change is a bottom line issue and investors have a right to know which companies are best positioned for the emerging clean energy global economy.”

To meet shareholder climate risk reporting requirements, organizations need technology that not only measures their current carbon footprint, but also manages abatement opportunities, facilitates emissions reduction initiatives and tracks progress and ROI. To gain a sense of where and how to start reporting, consider real estate. Buildings represent 48 percent of energy consumption and present the most significant opportunities to reduce environmental impact, improve operating costs, and demonstrate carbon reduction accountability.

With a technology framework that can identify underperforming building locations, provide a set of analysis tools to evaluate different carbon reduction options, and manage those options through to completion, organizations can address even the most exacting shareholder resolutions.

Investors will use a number of tools to determine how well companies address risks from climate change, including the Global Framework for Climate Change Disclosure, the Carbon Disclosure Project, CERES, and SEC Filings. Companies should seek out technology solutions that provide flexible reporting platforms to facilitate carbon reporting to multiple agencies. All else being equal, companies that adequately disclose and address risks from climate change will be rewarded with higher valuations and a lower cost of capital.

As your organization evaluates shareholder demands, ask yourself this: do you have the right tools to disclose your impact on the environment, or will you, like Home Depot, face climate nondisclosure backlash and risk losing shareholder support?

George Ahn is President and Chief Executive Officer of TRIRIGA. He has more than 18 years of software industry leadership.

Source: Environmental Leader

JULY 31, 2009

By ANDREW BATSON, Wall Street Journal

Tariffs Remain Low by Global Standards

BEIJING — Cities across China are raising the price of water, in moves that try to balance the need to conserve an increasingly scarce resource with the effects on a public used to low fees.

The city government of Luoyang, in central Henan province, prepared to hold a public meeting Friday to argue for a proposed water-price increase of 40% to 48%. Water prices in the dry region haven’t risen since 2003, which the government says is exhausting meager supplies and keeping the local water utility in the red. At least half a dozen other major cities have raised water prices in the past few months.

The changes reflect a growing official consensus that low prices are part of China’s water-shortage problem, since they give companies and households little incentive to use water carefully. The government is also spending billions of dollars on a controversial system of canals to divert water from the flood-prone south to the dry north.

The amount of water available per person in China is just one-quarter of the world average. The World Bank has estimated that water shortages cost China about 1.3% of its annual economic output, with a further 1% lost to water pollution.

“Given the underpricing of water in China and its environmental consequences, I feel it is wise for governments to take the opportunity of low inflation pressure to adjust the water tariff,” said Jian Xie, a senior environmental specialist at the World Bank.

Shanghai raised residential water prices 25% in June and plans a 22% increase in November 2010. The central city of Zhengzhou raised water fees 25% in April, and officials say prices will have to change more rapidly in the future.

There has been “strong public reaction” to the price increases in some cities, the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice in early July. Some local news reports have suggested the price increases are being driven more by corporate greed than a real need to conserve water. The agency, which supervises the prices of regulated goods like water, said local governments need to take public concerns into account as they plan for necessary price increases.

The eastern city of Nanjing raised residential water prices 12% in April but also rolled out subsidies to reduce the impact on low-income households.

The rise in water bills has upset consumers even in cities where rates haven’t been rising. Zheng Hong, a lawyer in Beijing who lives with seven family members, says his household spends 60 yuan to 70 yuan ($8.78 to $10.25) a month for tap water. He is against any price increases. “The lower, the better,” he says. “Compared to my hometown in Henan province, the water prices in Beijing are already pretty high.”

China’s water prices are still low by global standards, even with the average residential water fee in major cities now up 3% since the end of 2008, to 2.44 yuan per ton. Average water prices in Europe are anywhere from four to 10 times higher, according to Deutsche Bank estimates.

—Sue Feng contributed to this article.

Write to Andrew Batson at andrew.batson@wsj.com

Source: WSJ

Two years into development, innovative startup enables path to energy independence; Unveils proprietary production system capable of supplying unlimited quantities of renewable fuel at costs competitive with fossil fuels

Cambridge, Mass.—July 27, 2009—Joule Biotechnologies, Inc., today unveiled a revolutionary process that harnesses sunlight to directly convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into liquid energy. This eco-friendly, direct-to-fuel conversion requires no agricultural land or fresh water, and leverages a highly scalable system capable of producing more than 20,000 gallons of renewable ethanol or hydrocarbons per acre annually—far eclipsing productivity levels of current alternatives while rivaling the costs of fossil fuels.

“There is no question that viable, renewable fuels are vitally important, both for economic and environmental reasons. And while many novel approaches have been explored, none has been able to clear the roadblocks caused by high production costs, environmental burden and lack of real scale,” said Bill Sims, president and CEO of Joule Biotechnologies. “Joule was created for the very purpose of eliminating these roadblocks with the best equation of biotechnology, engineering, scalability and pricing to finally make renewable fuel a reality—all while helping the environment by reducing global CO2 emissions.”

Joule’s transformative process leverages highly-engineered photosynthetic organisms to catalyze the conversion of sunlight and CO2 to usable transportation fuels and chemicals. The scalable system facilitates the entire process—from sunlight capture to product conversion and separation—with minimal resources and polishing operations. This represents a significant advantage over biomass-derived biofuels, including newer algae- and cellulose-based forms, which are hindered by varying obstacles: costly biomass production, numerous processing steps, substantial scale-up risk and capital costs.

The modular design is engineered to meet demand on a global scale while requiring just a fraction of the land needed for biomass-based approaches. It can be easily customized depending on land size, CO2 availability and desired output. The functionality is proven and can readily scale from smaller operations with limited land to extensive commercial plants.

Joule liquid energy has up to 100 times the energy storage density of conventional batteries, and can be very efficiently stored and transported with no degradation of power.

Joule liquid energy meets today’s vehicle fuel specifications and infrastructure, and is expected to achieve widespread production at the energy equivalent of less than $50 per barrel. The company’s first product offering fuel, will be ready for commercial-scale development in 2010.

Source: Joule Biotechnologies

• Experts are putting thousands of metal mirrors networked
• Project aims to eliminate the current dependence of the European Coal
• Energy will be distributed thru high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission cables under the Mediterranean sea

In just six hours of the Sahara desert receives solar energy from which humanity consumes in a whole year.

Therefore, a network formed by 60 scientists from Europe and Africa yesterday announced a project to capture part of that energy to produce electricity and use non-polluting, for now, on both continents.

The initiative, designed by the private conglomerate called DESERTEC Industrial Initiative, based in Germany, is the creation of a huge network of solar-thermal-solar farm in various parts of the Sahara desert.

Despite being located in the desert, all plants are located near a water source, on the shores of the Mediterranean. This occurs because water is an important part of the production of energy.

The plants under construction will be different to the traditional power plants because they do not work with photovoltaic cells or solar panels, which are normally quite expensive and some are difficult to install, but use metal mirrors to capture the sun’s rays.

Once they catch the sunlight, this energy is stored in a container. Then, another container filled with clean water from the process of water desalination in the Mediterranean, will be responsible for cooling the first container that stores the sun’s heat to generate steam.

The resulting water vapor is responsible for pushing the turbines and thus generates the electricity that we all know and has many uses.

The technology also has other value-added as the plants can generate electricity network in the absence of sunlight, i.e. at night or on cloudy days because it has the ability to store the heat it produces and then cooled with desalinated water.

Source: La Nacion
Source: Financial Times
Related: DESERTEC Foundation