Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.
The report – Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing — sets out specific recommendations to “put sustainable development into practice and to mainstream it into economic policy as quickly as possible.” The report reinforces the push to phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, speed up the deployment of renewable energy, and accelerate energy efficiency efforts. The high-level report was the result of the U.N. Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability.
Fossil fuel subsidies drain public resources, drive global warming, and make it harder for clean energy to compete. In fact, fossil fuel subsidies are 500% larger than the subsidies provided for clean energy which led one commentator to point out: “The house is ablaze and we are throwing bucket after bucket at it - buckets of petrol.”
Reforming subsidies without harming the poor should be within reach as the International Energy Agency estimates that the vast majority of the subsidies never reach the poor. The poorest 20 percent receive only 5-10 percent of the subsidies.
Hence, the report suggests that a large focus must be placed on the subsidies to produce more fossil fuels – known as “production subsidies” – and a targeted approach to subsidies that support consumption of fossil fuels (e.g., subsidized gasoline, etc) – so-called “consumption subsidies”. At least $100 billion per year goes to support production subsidies – such as tax breaks for oil companies – at a time when the fossil fuel industry doesn’t seem to be hurting financially.
Who will take the first step?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Singapore shows the way
If there is vision, good things simply follow! Like the 26-mile wide island Singapore. For years, Singapore has relied on imported water from Malaysia to provide 40 percent of its water supply.
To become more self-sufficient, Singapore has invested billions of dollars in membrane filtration technologies that allow wastewater to be reclaimed, filtered, and transformed into high purity potable water called NEWater. Desalination plants and rainwater-catching reservoirs have also helped reduce its reliance on imported water.
Singapore excels in building efficiency—an area with huge potential impact, given that an astounding 90 percent of the population lives in some form of high-rise condominium. Singapore has set an ambitious target of greening at least 80 percent of its buildings by 2030, including existing stock.
Using clean technology advancements Singapore has been making great strides in transportation, particularly around the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Since roughly 85 percent of Singapore’s power supply comes from natural gas, EVs provide a cleaner solution compared with conventional oil burning vehicles.
Singapore-based clean tech company Greenlots has been committed to designing and delivering hardware and software to enable utilities, municipalities, electric vehicle manufacturers and distributors and other private businesses to install, own and operate their own EV charging network. Already, it has established charging stations in major parking lots in the city.
One can argue that a small island can afford to change tracks which is difficult for larger nations and larger populations. But as the saying goes, where there is a will there is a way.
To become more self-sufficient, Singapore has invested billions of dollars in membrane filtration technologies that allow wastewater to be reclaimed, filtered, and transformed into high purity potable water called NEWater. Desalination plants and rainwater-catching reservoirs have also helped reduce its reliance on imported water.
Singapore excels in building efficiency—an area with huge potential impact, given that an astounding 90 percent of the population lives in some form of high-rise condominium. Singapore has set an ambitious target of greening at least 80 percent of its buildings by 2030, including existing stock.
Using clean technology advancements Singapore has been making great strides in transportation, particularly around the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Since roughly 85 percent of Singapore’s power supply comes from natural gas, EVs provide a cleaner solution compared with conventional oil burning vehicles.
Singapore-based clean tech company Greenlots has been committed to designing and delivering hardware and software to enable utilities, municipalities, electric vehicle manufacturers and distributors and other private businesses to install, own and operate their own EV charging network. Already, it has established charging stations in major parking lots in the city.
One can argue that a small island can afford to change tracks which is difficult for larger nations and larger populations. But as the saying goes, where there is a will there is a way.
Shale gas - a winner?
Shale gas is one of the lowest carbon sources of natural gas. Shale gas produced using fracking may have lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gas. If that sounds controversial, check out a report in recent Environmental Science and Technology, that “shale gas life-cycle [greenhouse gas] emissions are 6% lower than conventional natural gas”.
It goes on to substantiate the claim by saying the lower emissions are due to the fact that multiple horizontal wells (used when tapping shale gas) can be drilled from a single well pad. In conventional vertical drilling, there is one pad per well. In horizontal drilling, there are typically six to eight wells drilled from one pad. This means less equipment, less surface disruption, and fewer opportunities for leaks on the surface. Fewer leaks mean lesser methane escaping!
The report further notes that all types of natural gas represent a huge opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agreeing that Methane leaks and water management are two of the biggest issues, and must be addressed, it says that natural gas, with fracking, (which it claims is not the cause of water pollution) is still a clear winner. Especially when compared to coal!!
If China builds one new coal plant per week, that translates to about 450 million tons of added carbon emissions each year. If China just built natural gas plants instead of coal plants, it would reduce added emissions by between 150 and 270 million tons per year (depending on the type of coal and power plant, natural gas typically has between 30% and 60% less GHG emissions than coal). That reduction in emissions would be like taking roughly 40 million cars off the road.
Any thoughts?
It goes on to substantiate the claim by saying the lower emissions are due to the fact that multiple horizontal wells (used when tapping shale gas) can be drilled from a single well pad. In conventional vertical drilling, there is one pad per well. In horizontal drilling, there are typically six to eight wells drilled from one pad. This means less equipment, less surface disruption, and fewer opportunities for leaks on the surface. Fewer leaks mean lesser methane escaping!
The report further notes that all types of natural gas represent a huge opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agreeing that Methane leaks and water management are two of the biggest issues, and must be addressed, it says that natural gas, with fracking, (which it claims is not the cause of water pollution) is still a clear winner. Especially when compared to coal!!
If China builds one new coal plant per week, that translates to about 450 million tons of added carbon emissions each year. If China just built natural gas plants instead of coal plants, it would reduce added emissions by between 150 and 270 million tons per year (depending on the type of coal and power plant, natural gas typically has between 30% and 60% less GHG emissions than coal). That reduction in emissions would be like taking roughly 40 million cars off the road.
Any thoughts?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Simple steps, big gains
Simple low-or no-cost actions such as regular maintenance, leak prevention, reducing pressure and switching off an electrical gadget when not in use could save a typical business in the industrial sector £1500 a year. In fact, more efficient use of compressed air systems could save UK businesses £110 million a year, according to the UK government-backed Carbon Trust.
Compressed air is widely used in many industries from aircraft manufacturing to water treatment, as well as in electronics and engineering.
“There is a misconception that compressed air is a free or low cost resource, when – in fact – the opposite is true. Just a single 3 mm hole in a compressed air system creates a leak, which can cost a business an additional £1000 a year in electricity costs,” says Richard Rugg, director of Carbon Trust Programmes.
Meanwhile, according to another report from CNT Energy and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), energy efficiency upgrades to US apartment buildings could save owners and residents up to $3.4 billion!
Cost-effective upgrades to buildings with five or more apartment can save 15-30% on utility bills, according to the report Engaging as Partners in Energy Efficiency: Multifamily Housing and Utilities.
The report’s key finding is that utilities and building owners need to work together to identify potential savings and implement the necessary measures.
Energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit in the tree of energy security. But often the option that is ignored, due to the illusion of surplus that has been the bane of energy supply anywhere. While it may look like meagre efforts in scrimping and saving, when many hands put together, the savings can be enormous.
Compressed air is widely used in many industries from aircraft manufacturing to water treatment, as well as in electronics and engineering.
“There is a misconception that compressed air is a free or low cost resource, when – in fact – the opposite is true. Just a single 3 mm hole in a compressed air system creates a leak, which can cost a business an additional £1000 a year in electricity costs,” says Richard Rugg, director of Carbon Trust Programmes.
Meanwhile, according to another report from CNT Energy and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), energy efficiency upgrades to US apartment buildings could save owners and residents up to $3.4 billion!
Cost-effective upgrades to buildings with five or more apartment can save 15-30% on utility bills, according to the report Engaging as Partners in Energy Efficiency: Multifamily Housing and Utilities.
The report’s key finding is that utilities and building owners need to work together to identify potential savings and implement the necessary measures.
Energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit in the tree of energy security. But often the option that is ignored, due to the illusion of surplus that has been the bane of energy supply anywhere. While it may look like meagre efforts in scrimping and saving, when many hands put together, the savings can be enormous.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Put agri on the stage, say scientists
Are agricultural productivity and environmental conservation two separate issues? While that is what the big agricultural industry would claim, Britain’s chief scientist, John Beddington, along with an international group of scientists, have in their article in Science this month asked climate negotiators to stop ignoring agriculture.
Agriculture has been hovering just on the margins of climate change policy. While it is a fact that precise measurement of the climate impact of many industrial farming practices remains difficult and controversial, the overriding factor is that the indutry chooses to ignore any such consideration in the pursuit of profit. The U.S in particular has resisted any attempts to formalize the agricultural sector’s obligation to climate mitigation.
It is an irony that farming will be most affected by exacerbated climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase and have disastrous on agricultural yields. Yet, the effects of unsustainable agriculture on the weather remains ignored largely.
Greenhouse gases are released by land clearing, inappropriate fertilizer use, and other practices while agricultural run-off carries nitrogen which ends up in the atmosphere as potent nitrous oxide. When forest land is cleared for farming, land which earlier acted as a sponge during rains becomes a sluice, and floods rivers and surrounding areas! How often are practices to mitigate taken? Rarely.
Surely it is time to review farming practices?
Agriculture has been hovering just on the margins of climate change policy. While it is a fact that precise measurement of the climate impact of many industrial farming practices remains difficult and controversial, the overriding factor is that the indutry chooses to ignore any such consideration in the pursuit of profit. The U.S in particular has resisted any attempts to formalize the agricultural sector’s obligation to climate mitigation.
It is an irony that farming will be most affected by exacerbated climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase and have disastrous on agricultural yields. Yet, the effects of unsustainable agriculture on the weather remains ignored largely.
Greenhouse gases are released by land clearing, inappropriate fertilizer use, and other practices while agricultural run-off carries nitrogen which ends up in the atmosphere as potent nitrous oxide. When forest land is cleared for farming, land which earlier acted as a sponge during rains becomes a sluice, and floods rivers and surrounding areas! How often are practices to mitigate taken? Rarely.
Surely it is time to review farming practices?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Will this be a Smart year?
This will be a year of the smart grid, or perhaps make or break year, as experts put it.
But the immediate criteria of smart grid success will be perceived benefits from advanced metering (AMI) and phasor measurement units (PMUs)--devices that precisely measure variations in voltage and current permitting their synchronization in real time.
In the US and now in the UK, there is some amount of resistance to smart meters, largely over the cost. While they radically reduce meter reading costs for the utilities, their introduction has meant rising bills only for consumers.
For success, the Advanced Metering Infrastructure will have to start yielding lower energy costs. Smart meters will have to produce their full range of expected benefits, which can be said to include demand response (enabling customers to modify electricity usage in reaction to hourly price changes), faster and more efficient service (including automated reporting of emergencies, and greater system reliability (because utilities will be getting real-time feedback from every customer's meter). They will be seen as a disappointment, according to a grid expert, if all they produce is less expensive meter reading for utilities.
As thousands of PMUs are being deployed on transmission lines to report voltage deviations in real time to utilities, significantly greater system reliability should result. If we don't start seeing measurable improvements in system reliability soon, they too will be a disappointment.
In the longer run the smart grid should involve much more than just AMI and PMU: integration of two-way communications throughout distribution systems, a more renewable-friendly grid, power systems that in their totality are much more efficient, lower carbon emissions, etc.
But the immediate criteria of smart grid success will be perceived benefits from advanced metering (AMI) and phasor measurement units (PMUs)--devices that precisely measure variations in voltage and current permitting their synchronization in real time.
In the US and now in the UK, there is some amount of resistance to smart meters, largely over the cost. While they radically reduce meter reading costs for the utilities, their introduction has meant rising bills only for consumers.
For success, the Advanced Metering Infrastructure will have to start yielding lower energy costs. Smart meters will have to produce their full range of expected benefits, which can be said to include demand response (enabling customers to modify electricity usage in reaction to hourly price changes), faster and more efficient service (including automated reporting of emergencies, and greater system reliability (because utilities will be getting real-time feedback from every customer's meter). They will be seen as a disappointment, according to a grid expert, if all they produce is less expensive meter reading for utilities.
As thousands of PMUs are being deployed on transmission lines to report voltage deviations in real time to utilities, significantly greater system reliability should result. If we don't start seeing measurable improvements in system reliability soon, they too will be a disappointment.
In the longer run the smart grid should involve much more than just AMI and PMU: integration of two-way communications throughout distribution systems, a more renewable-friendly grid, power systems that in their totality are much more efficient, lower carbon emissions, etc.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Glaring truth
Eliminating subsidies for coal, gas and oil could save as much as Germany's annual greenhouse gas emissions each year by 2015, according to Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA). While the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase out such fossil fuel subsidies in the "medium term", the hundreds of billions that governments spend each year rose in 2010.
Energy is significantly underpriced in many parts of the world, leading to wasteful consumption, price volatility and fuel smuggling. It's also undermining the competitiveness of renewables, Birol told The Guardian.
According to IEA research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.
A phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists.
That brings us back to our old question: who will bell the cat? Which government will brave it, to lose votes?
Energy is significantly underpriced in many parts of the world, leading to wasteful consumption, price volatility and fuel smuggling. It's also undermining the competitiveness of renewables, Birol told The Guardian.
According to IEA research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.
A phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists.
That brings us back to our old question: who will bell the cat? Which government will brave it, to lose votes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
