Log In Sign Up

Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Window cleaning

Singapore Safety Glass

Month: January 2020

For a true circular economy, we must redefine waste.

Posted on by dishanth
For a true circular economy, we must redefine waste.

Too often the concept of a circular economy is muddled up with some kind of advanced recycling process that would mean keeping our industrial system as it is and preserving a growing consumption model.

This idea is based on a belief that recycling will take care of everything.

One of the most startling examples of this is the part of the European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan which aims to increase recycling rates: up to 70% of all packaging waste by 2030 and 65% of all municipal waste by 2035. In a properly built circular economy, one should rather focus on avoiding the recycling stage at all costs. It may sound straightforward, but preventing waste from being created in the first place is the only realistic strategy.

While we obviously need to continue recycling for quite some time, putting the emphasis on genuine circular innovations – that is, moving us away from a waste-based model – should be our sole objective.

 

Recycling is linear

In a linear economy, we do not account for the side-effects generated by a product once sold to an end customer. The aim is to sell a maximum number of products at minimal cost. Continuous pressure to reduce costs leads to the creation of many of these side-effects – called externalities by economists. The higher a company’s rate of production and the higher its efficiency, the more successful it will be at selling its goods in a fiercely competitive environment.

 

Here are three innovative ways to cut down on plastic waste

From building schools to buying food. 📕 Read more: https://wef.ch/2l0Veqy

Posted by World Economic Forum on Wednesday, September 25, 2019

 

This worked well in the 20th century when resources were easily available and raw material prices kept decreasing. Waste, as an economic externality, was not the producers’ responsibility. Managing waste cycles, dumping it out of sight or, at best, recycling it – but only when it was cost-effective – were under the control of our national institutions.

Visionary manufacturers, who understand the upcoming challenges of increasing their economic resilience, know better: a product that is returned for repair will cost less to fix and sell again, than manufacturing it from scratch.

In our current model, we extract resources, transform them into products, and consume or use them, prior to disposing of them. Recycling only starts at the throwing-away stage: this is a process that is not made to preserve or increase value nor to enhance materials.

We need to understand that recycling is not an effective strategy for dealing with unused resource volumes in a growth model. We will find ourselves in a never-ending pursuit of continuously generated waste, rather than seeing the avoidance of waste as a path to beneficial innovations on many levels.

Of course, it is easier to think about recycling. This avoids changing the whole of our volume-based production model. But in a world where we have to shift our consumption patterns and use less energy, recycling no longer has all the answers.

 

Recycling is ‘business-as-usual’

Since we cannot stop the volume of waste overnight, investments in the recycling industry are needed. But truly meaningful investment in developing a circular economy takes place outside of the recycling space. Indeed, the more we recycle and the more we finance recycling factories, the more we stay ‘linear’. We mistakenly believe this is the best route to solve our problems – but by staying in a recycling-based economy, we will delay the transition to an advanced circular economy.

In a circular economy, resources do not end up as recyclables since products are made to last several lifecycles. Products’ lifespans are extended via maintain, repair, redistribute, refurbishment and/or re-manufacture loops, thus they never end up in the low-value, high-need-for-energy loop: recycling.

We live in a world in dire need of disruptive innovations. Closing loops next to where customers live while avoiding waste is a short and longer-term win-win for any leading re-manufacturer. Short-term because you are in direct contact with your customers, and taking back a product that needs maintenance is an opportunity to better understand their needs and help them with additional services. Long-term because you will lower your exposure to future financial risks. Any of the feedback loops that exist prior to the recycling loop are an opportunity to take back control over your stock of resources – taking control away from the raw material markets, which may become highly volatile. Increased interactions with your customers, both commercial and financial, and an in-depth understanding of their needs, would increase customer loyalty and a business’ overall resilience.

Re-using, re-distributing and/or remanufacturing strategies are the preferred approaches in a circular economy, as they are based on parts durability. Caring for and preserving the value of product components increases corporate economic resilience, while diminishing external market risks. Whether you are acting in a highly advanced or a developing economy, these strategies make crystal-clear sense: they are less costly in the long-run because repairing a product made to last is always less expensive than producing it from scratch.

 

Leapfrogging into valued supply chains

Following this approach, we must move away from activities that devalue the material, such as recycling, and instead invest in those activities that preserve it: reuse and remanufacture. These two are especially important since they create many more secure jobs. Walter R. Stahel, the godfather of the modern circular economy, introduced the metric of labor input-per-weight ratio (man-hour-per-kg, or mh/kg) to measure job creation in relation to resource consumption. He found that the ratio of mh/kg when building a remanufactured engine from used resources compared to making the same engine from virgin materials is 270:1. The impact on employment is huge.

The re-localization and the re-sizing of activities closer to customers become critical. Production sites should migrate from a highly centralized global hub to units designed to fulfill local needs. In developed markets, a possible plan could be to develop strategic partnerships with local service providers, who can provide the infrastructure. In emerging markets, where there is often an urgent need for jobs, leapfrogging straight into a national re-manufacturing strategy is the way forward. Becoming the next ‘world factory’ hub is an obsolete vision today.

One way to start thinking like a leader in the next economy while creating jobs could be in order of priority:

– Reuse by repairing (goods) through re-hiring (people), while sharing the radical benefits (awareness) of such a model

– Redistribute by promoting access (goods) through collaboration (people), while sharing information (awareness) about this model

– Remanufacture via the ease of disassembly (goods) by training (people), while sharing the acquired knowledge (awareness) through this model

– Migration of recycling activities by diverting (goods) to service models, transferring skills (people) to remanufacturing processes (awareness).

All of the above make sense in a world where planetary limits have already hit most economies.

Adopting a circular strategy by avoiding reliance on recycling is the way forward.

This is about genuine innovation derived from genuine leadership.

This article was originally published in UNIDO’s Making It magazine

 

 

Written by

Alexandre Lemille, Co-founder and general secretary, African Circular Economy Network

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

This man is installing 100 trash barriers in Bali’s rivers to stop plastic pollution.

Posted on by dishanth
This man is installing 100 trash barriers in Bali’s rivers to stop plastic pollution.
  • Sungai Watch is the latest initiative from Gary and Sam Bencheghib, whose Make a Change platform promotes ocean plastic clean-up.
  • Make a Change has partnered with German tech start-up Plastic Fischer to test floating trash booms for rivers and smaller trash blocks for streams on Bali’s waterways.
  • They want the project to be implemented around the world.

In the summer of 2017, brothers Gary and Sam Bencheghib rowed down Indonesia’s most polluted river, the Citarum, on two kayaks made from plastic bottles.

Two months later, they paddle-boarded their way along two of New York City’s most polluted waterways.

“At the rate that we are destroying our planet, we believe that no idea is crazy enough to protect it,” says Gary, who founded Make A Change with Sam 10 years ago to help clean up the beaches on their home island of Bali.

Fast-forward to 2020. Younger brother Sam is just weeks away from completing a coast-to-coast run across the United States to raise awareness of the plastic pollution problem – and Gary is preparing to launch Make A Change’s latest initiative to solve the plastic crisis at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.

 

Cleaning up

Called Sungai Watch – from the Indonesian for river – it’s an online platform that uses GIS (Geographic Information System) mapping and artificial intelligence (AI) to see details in rivers of up to 10 centimeters.

 

Gary, pictured, as he installs a number of Trashbooms in one of Bali’s rivers
Image: makeachange.world

 

“Imagine watching the cleanup of the world’s most polluted river in real time,” says Gary, who hopes it will become the go-to platform to clean rivers around the globe.

For now, his ambition is to install 100 trash barriers in Bali’s rivers to catch the plastic waste before it reaches the ocean.

Around 90% of the marine plastic transported by rivers to the ocean originates from just 10 waterways. Indonesia is second only to China as the world’s largest contributor of this kind of waste to the ocean plastic problem – with four of its rivers among the top 20 polluters globally.

Bali’s pollution problem is so bad the government declared a “garbage emergency” in 2018. Tourists arriving on the beach at Sanur, Denpasar, in April that year had to pick their way through the debris.

After the brothers’ two-week expedition rowing down the Citarum, Indonesia deployed military troops to clean up rivers.

 

Trash booms

 

The trasbooms consist of PVC pipes as a floater and galvanized stainless steel mesh that functions as a catching net.
Image: Plasticfischer.com

 

l materials – stainless steel and galvanized steel wire mesh, suspended from PVC pipes.

Karsten Hirsch, CEO of Plastic Fischer, says, “We are convinced that we need a cheap solution that you can build within a few days, that you can do it on your own and put it into every river in the world.”

 

Turning the tide on plastic

The launch of the first trash boom on a tributary of the Ayung river, Bali’s most important waterway, was attended by Dr. Ir. Safri Burhanuddin, Coordinating Minister of Maritime affairs, who praised Make A Change and reconfirmed the country’s commitment to solving its plastic pollution problem.

“The government has committed to the UN and the world that we have to reduce at least 70% of the marine litter to the sea by 2025…Gary has made a movement to make sure Indonesia achieves this target.”

As Gary prepares to launch Sungai Watch globally in Davos, he says, “If we can stop plastic pollution before it reaches our ocean, we’ll be able to drastically reduce this problem before it becomes uncontrollable.”

 

 

Written by

Kate Whiting, Senior Writer, Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

China has announced ambitious plans to cut single-use plastic.

Posted on by dishanth
China has announced ambitious plans to cut single-use plastic.
  • China has announced a phased ban on various types of single-use plastic.
  • It joins numerous other countries in introducing bans.
  • The move to a circular economy is vital to reduce plastic pollution.

The Chinese government has announced plans to restrict the production and sale of plastic, in an effort to reduce waste in major cities.

The restrictions will be phased in over the coming years. For example, plastic bags will be banned in major cities by the end of 2020 and in all towns and cities within the next 5 years.

The restaurant industry will also be affected – with consumption of single-use plastic items in towns and cities needing to be cut by 30% by 2025.

This new policy follows China’s decision in 2018 to ban imports of plastic waste. The decision had major ramifications for global recycling, as China handled a large quanity of the world’s waste.

 

A global challenge

The announcement also follows hot on the heels of bans in other countries around the world – including Kenya, Thailand and France – that have moved to reduce single-use plastic production and consumption.

And, last year, 170 countries pledged to “significantly reduce” use of plastic by 2030.

 

Global plastic production has soared
Image: Our World in Data

 

But, plastics production has accelerated rapidly over recent years, as the chart above shows. However, in 2015 less than 20% of plastic waste was recycled – so it’s clear there’s still significant progress to make.

 

Less than 20% of plastic waste is recycled
Image: Our World in Data

 

Going circular

Governments and policymakers around the world face a challenge in balancing the importance of plastics – think food safety – with protecting the planet.

While bans are proving popular, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation highlights the need to “rethink the way we make, use and reuse plastic” as part of its New Plastics Economy Global Commitment.

This is part of the shift from a linear to circular economy, where products – including plastic – never become waste.

 

Going circular
Image: Ellen MacArthur Foundation / World Economic Forum

 

How to save the planet is one of the key themes on the agenda at Davos this week.

 

 

Written by

Joe Myers, Writer, Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Greta Thunberg: Our house is still on fire and you’re fuelling the flames!

Posted on by dishanth
Greta Thunberg: Our house is still on fire and you’re fuelling the flames!
  • Greta Thunberg addressed the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos.
  • She called for urgent action, stressing the need for ‘real zero’ emissions.
  • Thunberg had three immediate demands for Davos participants.

One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire. I said I wanted you to panic. I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do. But don’t worry. It’s fine. Trust me, I’ve done this before and I assure you it doesn’t lead to anything.

And for the record, when we children tell you to panic, we’re not telling you to go on like before.

We’re not telling you to rely on technologies that don’t even exist today at scale and that science says perhaps never will. We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching “net-zero emissions” or “carbon neutrality” by cheating and fiddling around with numbers.

We are not telling you to “offset your emissions” by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate.

Planting trees is good, of course, but it’s nowhere near enough of what needs to be done, and it cannot replace real mitigation or rewilding nature.

Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low-carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop to stay if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5 degrees target. And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net zero — we need real zero.

Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget — which applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

The fact that the U.S.A. is leaving the Paris accord seems to outrage and worry everyone, and it should.

But the fact that we’re all about to fail the commitments you signed up for in the Paris Agreement doesn’t seem to bother the people in power even the least.

Any plan or policy of yours that doesn’t include radical emission cuts at the source starting today is completely insufficient for meeting the 1.5-degree or well-below-2-degrees commitments of the Paris Agreement.

And again — this is not about right or left. We couldn’t care less about your party politics.

From a sustainability perspective, the right, the left, as well as the center, have all failed. No political ideology or economic structure has been able to tackle the climate and environmental emergency and create a cohesive and sustainable world. Because that world, in case you haven’t noticed, is currently on fire.

You say children shouldn’t worry. You say: “Just leave this to us. We will fix this, we promise we won’t let you down. Don’t be so pessimistic.”

And then — nothing. Silence. Or something worse than silence. Empty words and promises which give the impression that sufficient action is being taken.

All the solutions are obviously not available within today’s societies. Nor do we have the time to wait for new technological solutions to become available to start drastically reducing our emissions.

So, of course, the transition isn’t going to be easy. It will be hard. And unless we start facing this now together, with all cards on the table, we won’t be able to solve this in time.

In the days running up to the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum, I joined a group of climate activists who are demanding that you, the world’s most powerful and influential business and political leaders, begin to take the action needed.

We demand that at this year’s World Economic Forum participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments:

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.

And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now.

It may seem like we’re asking for a lot. And you will of course say that we are naïve. But this is just the very minimum amount of effort that is needed to start the rapid sustainable transition.

So either you do this or you’re going to have to explain to your children why you are giving up on the 1.5-degree target.

Giving up without even trying.

Well I’m here to tell you that unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight.

The facts are clear, but they’re still too uncomfortable for you to address.

You just leave it because you think it’s too depressing and people will give up. But people will not give up. You’re the ones who are giving up.

Last week I met with coal miners in Poland who lost their jobs because their mine was closed. And even they had not given up. On the contrary, they seem to understand the fact that we need to change more than you do.

I wonder, what will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing the climate chaos you knowingly brought upon them? The 1.5-degree target? That it seemed so bad for the economy that we decided to resign the idea of securing future living conditions without even trying?

Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fuelling the flames by the hour. We are still telling you to panic, and to act as if you loved your children above all else.

 

Written by
Greta Thunberg, Climate and Environmental Activist,

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Wealthy nations promise $9.8 billion to help poorer nations adapt to climate change

Posted on by dishanth
Wealthy nations promise $9.8 billion to help poorer nations adapt to climate change

London – Wealthier countries on Friday promised nearly $9.8 billion over the next four years to an international fund to help poorer nations develop cleanly and adapt to climate stresses, with nearly a dozen nations doubling their previous commitments.

The total was slightly higher than the $9.3 billion committed to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) at its first pledging conference in 2014, and came despite the absence of commitments by previous major donors such as the United States.

Climate finance analysts welcomed the stepped-up pledges – 11 of the 27 donor governments doubled their previous commitments – but said the totals were not rising as fast as the climate-change threats poor nations must deal with.

“It’s quite clear we have governments all over the world declaring climate emergencies, and far more finance from all sources is needed to adequately address the challenge,” said Joe Thwaites, a finance researcher with the U.S.-based World Resources Institute.

In its first five years the fund received total promises of a little over $10 billion.

But because the United States, under President Donald Trump, reneged on two-thirds of its initial $3 billion pledge, and currency values changed, it effectively had only $7.2 billion to spend, said Yannick Glemarec, its executive director.

The new commitments, if fulfilled, will effectively give it 70% more money to spend each year, with additional pledges likely in coming months, he said.

The funding is still a drop in the ocean compared with the estimated $3 trillion to $7 trillion a year needed to shift the world’s economy onto a more sustainable and climate-friendly path, Glemarec said.

But if used to show what is possible in developing nations and cut risks for private investors there, it could help spur the much larger investments needed to make that shift, he said.

“We are very excited because we should be able to prevent a lot of climate hurt” with the additional funds, he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The GCF so far has allocated about $5.2 billion to 111 projects in 99 countries.

They range from green, low-cost housing in Mongolia’s polluted capital and a methane-fuelled rapid-transit bus system in Karachi to restoring climate-threatened ecosystems in Namibia.

The GCF has committed to spend half of its funding on efforts to help poorer countries adapt to climate threats, which rarely attract significant private or government finance.

 

‘Good start’

Most of the donors making fresh contributions came from Europe, though New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Canada also committed funds, with New Zealand and South Korea pledging to double previous donations.

“This is a good start but in no way adequate to meet the needs on the ground,” said Wendel Trio, director of Climate Action Network Europe, saying he hoped more pledges would come.

The fund will remain open for additional contributions throughout its next term, GCF officials said.

Thwaites said Belgium was expected to commit to doubling its previous $100-million pledge to the fund in coming months, and Mexico had attended this week’s pledging conference in Paris too.

Gas-rich Qatar, at the U.N. Secretary-General’s climate summit in New York last month, pledged $100 million to help least-developed countries and struggling small islands cope with climate threats, Thwaites said.

The money was not intended for the GCF but shows issues affecting poorer states “are on their radar”, he said.

Stepped-up GCF funding is considered key to encouraging poorer nations to boost the ambition of their national targets to hold the line on emissions and better adapt to climate threats, finance experts said.

Both rich and poor governments are expected to improve their climate action plans – created as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change – by the end of 2020.

Many developing-nation plans rely heavily on external funding to meet their most ambitious goals to put in place everything from renewable energy to storm early warning systems.

Liane Schalatek, a climate finance specialist with the Heinrich Böll Foundation North America, said the new GCF pledges were positive but “probably not enough to give developing countries the confidence to significantly raise their ambition”.

They were also insufficient to pay for the roughly $15 billion in projects already waiting in the fund’s pipeline for cash, she said in a statement.

GCF head Glemarec said a key role of the GCF’s spending was to show private investors that good investments are possible in poorer countries, and remove roadblocks to those, by setting an example or helping shift policies.

In developed countries, 98% of investment in renewable energy is private, he said, but in the least-developed countries it is under 1%, he said.

Thwaites said the GCF “comes in with money to do things the private sector isn’t yet comfortable doing. They have a demonstration effect and a de-risking effect and then you see a lot more private finance can flow in those regions”.

This is especially appropriate for projects like establishing feed-in tariffs for solar or wind power that help create a renewable energy market and give investors confidence.

The GCF has so far mobilised $2.60 in additional financing for each dollar spent, though that figure is held down by its focus on adaptation projects, which struggle to attract private finance, Thwaites said.

He said the mobilisation rate was particularly respectable given the fund is working “in really difficult environments”. (Reporting by Laurie Goering @lauriegoering; editing by Megan Rowling. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate)

On climate change, failing to plan is planning to fail

Posted on by dishanth
On climate change, failing to plan is planning to fail
  • A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit says countries that prepare for climate-related heatwaves and hurricanes will fare better financially.
  • It found the global economy will contract by 3% with countries in North America faring the best and countries in Africa the worst.

Wealth alone will not shield economies from the impact of climate change, researchers have said, urging governments to build flood defences and early warning systems to stem financial losses.

Climate research has shown that poor people in tropical countries are most vulnerable to economic loss caused by global warming.

But countries that aggressively prepare for climate impacts like hurricanes and heatwaves will fare drastically better financially than others with similar economies, according to a report by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

For example, by 2050, Russia’s economy will be 5% smaller than it would have been without the impact of climate change.

Argentina, which has done more to prepare, will only contract by 2% despite having similar levels of economic development, said the study.

“Argentinean leadership recognises that climate change represents a risk to Argentina’s long-term growth rate, most obviously through its impact on the important agriculture sector,” said the report.

It linked Russia’s estimated losses to “widespread climate change scepticism among much of the Russian business community and a lack of broader public engagement”

 

Climate change is having a direct impact on Russia’s GDP.
Image: The Economist

 

Researchers looked at the willingness and financial ability to confront climate change of 82 countries with large economies.

The global economy will contract by 3% with countries in North America faring the best and countries in Africa the worst, it said.

Despite recent wildfires and hurricanes that have raised concerns about a warming planet, the researchers said climate change would only cause the U.S. economy to contract by 1% by 2050.

Since 1980, the United States has suffered 241 weather and climate disasters costing $1 billion or more, at a cumulative cost of $1.6 trillion, the United Nations has said.

Only seven countries including Germany, South Korea and Lithuania scored better.

“Despite the absence of leadership at the national level in the U.S., cities and certainly states are really moving ahead in combating climate change,” said David Miller, the North American director of the C40 network of cities tackling climate change.

“Within the U.S., once the federal government uses its authority, you’ll see even more progress building on what cities and states are doing today.”

Poorer nations – many in places where climate change effects are hitting the hardest – have long demanded more financial support so they can build stronger homes, plant hardier seeds, put in irrigation and warn citizens of dangerous weather.

Angola, Africa’s second biggest oil exporter, is one of the developing economies set to be hit the hardest.

The West African country has announced ambitious plans to fight climate change including improving irrigation and pledging to cooperate with the United Nations.

But the country has failed to live up to its promises, researchers said.

 

 

Written by

Matthew Lavietes, ,

This article is published in collaboration with Thomson Reuters Foundation trust.org.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

5 charts that show renewable energy’s latest milestone

Posted on by dishanth
5 charts that show renewable energy’s latest milestone

The 36 countries that make up the OECD bloc of developed nations have reached a milestone in the production of green energy. For the first time, electricity derived from renewable sources has outstripped that generated by burning coal.

 

Image: International Energy Agency

 

Figures from the International Energy Agency for 2018 show renewables as an energy source just edging out coal. When taken as a total across the bloc, renewables were used to produce 2,896 terawatt hours of electricity, while burning coal produced 2,863 terawatt hours.

It’s a tight margin but the chart above shows a clear trend. Coal is in rapid decline across the OECD, while renewable sources of energy are surging. Gas is now the most common source of fuel for energy production across the OECD. It’s cleaner than coal but still a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming.

Various sources of renewable energy have given OECD nations the ability to rapidly scale production. Hydro power is by far the leading source, with more than half the bloc’s total supply coming from water-powered production.

 

Image: International Energy Agency

 

Wind farms are the second largest source of green energy, producing 23% of the OECD’s supply. Solar power is another major contributor. The falling cost and increased efficiency of solar panels has pushed up their share of renewable electricity production in the OECD to 8.4%.

 

A global shift

The dash for renewables is not confined to developed nations. Around the world new generating capacity is being installed at a phenomenal rate, driven mainly by wind and solar. In the middle of 2018 the world reached a landmark, with more than 1,000 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity online, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

 

Image: BNEF

 

The problem with coal

Despite the increase in renewables, more coal than ever is being burned to generate electricity.

 

Image: International Energy Agency

 

Coal power generation increased 3% in 2018, and for the first time topped the 10,000 TWh mark, according to the International Energy Agency. Coal is still the largest fuel source for generating electricity, accounting for 38% of total global production.

The growth in coal-fired production was mainly in Asia, particularly in China and India. Investment in coal-fired power plants declined by nearly 3%, however, to the lowest level since 2004. India and China are also cancelling and delaying plans for new coal-fired power stations.

To hit targets for a sustainable global energy supply, coal-fired production needs to fall dramatically, and quickly, with an associated exponential rise in renewable production, as the chart below from the IEA illustrates.

 

Image: International Energy Agency

 

At the current rate of change, the world is set to miss sustainable development targets, but an accelerated rate of investment in renewable capacity could yet tip the balance in favour of greener energy.

 

 

Written by

Simon Torkington, , Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Davos 2020 will be carbon neutral: here’s how

Posted on by dishanth
Davos 2020 will be carbon neutral: here’s how

In January 2020, the World Economic Forum will call on companies to raise their ambitions for climate action at the Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters under the theme “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” The meeting’s 50th edition will bring together over 3,000 participants from around the world. For the fourth year, it will also be climate neutral.

So what exactly does being climate neutral mean?

For one thing, we do everything we can to reduce emissions in the first place. This involves looking at everything: from our use of materials and resources (this year, we are actually changing the configuration of the Congress Centre layout to use less carpet), to the food we serve (more local, seasonal and plant-based than ever before) and transportation (our fleet of cars and buses is 90% hybrid or electric this year).

We will keep on looking for ways to reduce our environmental footprint. For everything that we cannot eliminate, we offset by investing in schemes that reduce emissions levels in the atmosphere.

We have been calculating and offsetting all emissions to the Annual Meeting – including staff and participant air travel – by funding certified offsetting projects around the world since 2017. Beyond carbon emission reduction, these initiatives also create jobs and improved living conditions. For example, one of the projects selected to offset the 2018 meeting was Rwandan Boreholes, which has already provided 50 million litres of water to over 68,000 people and saved 85,000 tonnes of wood that would have been used to boil water for purification.

To offset the 2020 Annual Meeting, the Forum has decided to continue supporting two key projects: the Jacundá project in the Amazonian “Arc of Deforestation” known for its disappearing tropical forest, which protects an area of 95,000 hectares of native forest and sustainably produced rubber, açai and brazil nuts, and the Biogas for Greener Farms, which uses methane generated by the processing of manure in biogas digesters as energy and the residue as fertiliser for local farms in Switzerland.

Here are some other examples of offsetting projects supported by the Forum in collaboration with South Pole, a leading provider of global climate solutions.

 

Waste Composters

Although composting human waste, manure, or landfill is hardly new, reducing its carbon emissions is a more recent concern. Biogas digesters recycle the output of composting to have a twofold benefit: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enabling the production of green energy. Benefits include maintaining soil fertility and supporting food safety.

Composting New Dehli ensures that solid waste from fruit and vegetable markets in Delhi, India, doesn’t end up in landfills and transforms 73,000 tonnes of it into about 200 tonnes of compost every year. In Cambodia, the National Biodigester programme not only treats waste then used as fertilizer by over 18,000 farms but also replaces biomass stoves, saving 150,000 tonnes of wood since 2006.

 

Cook Stoves

Conventional stoves are inefficient and produce indoor smoke – the equivalent of burning 400 cigarettes per hour. Cook stoves, which have fewer fumes and require less energy and wood, provide health, energy and environmental benefits.

In India, where it’s estimated that toxic fumes from conventional cookstoves cause 500,000 premature deaths per year, The Breathing Space Cook Stove has already provided efficient cookstoves to over 200,000 families. In Mali, Katene Clean Cookstoves created 400 jobs in a local stove manufacturing factory and planted 2,400m2 of trees to counter desertification in a country that is more than half covered by the Sahara.

Communities gathering firewood in China’s Mamize Nature Reserve in Sichuan province threaten the surrounding biodiversity and the habitat of giant pandas, an issue the WWF Mamize Firewood-Saving Cook Stove Project has been working to address.

Small interventions on cooking stoves, such as improved ignition rates, can also benefit users financially – Highveld Air Quality – NFS project in South Africa, for example, saves users about $30 a year.

 

Hydro

Sustainable hydro plants are the most efficient way to generate electricity, but their cost is often a barrier to their construction. In Brazil, Incomex Hydro has set up three hydro plants, which produce clean energy and reduce over 83,000 tonnes of CO2 per year – that’s the equivalent of electricity use for 14,000 houses.

On a bigger scale, China’s Huóshui Grouped Small Hydropower has been supplying energy for over half a million rural Chinese homes every year and has supported the community with sustainable agricultural workshops for over 170 people, social initiative funding, and an educational programme about environment protection in which about 200 students have taken part.

 

Wind Power

Another renewable source of energy that can satisfy the world’s increasing demand is wind power. In Viet Nam, where economic growth and power demands are outpacing supplies, Bac Lieu Wind Farm set up the first large-scale coastal wind power project of the country.

In India, Mitcon wind plants have been supplying the national grid, creating employment, and supporting women entrepreneurs. Argentina’s economic difficulties from the early 2000s generated an energy crisis and an inability to meet power demands in sustainable ways. Today, Rawson windfarm works in Patagonia, one of the windiest regions of the world.

Reducing emissions remains the first priority of the Forum’s sustainability efforts for the Annual Meeting 2020, which form part of the boarder institutional sustainability strategy. Offsetting is used to neutralize the emissions that could not be avoided, in a way that fosters sustainable development in Switzerland and abroad.

 

 

Written by

Aylin Elci, Communications Officer, World Economic Forum Geneva

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

‘At Davos we will tell world leaders to abandon the fossil fuel economy’

Posted on by dishanth
‘At Davos we will tell world leaders to abandon the fossil fuel economy’
  • Young climate activists, including Greta Thunberg, will be attending Davos this year to put pressure on world leaders to end the fossil fuel economy.
  • In 2017 alone, the world spent $5.2 trillion subsidising fossil fuels.
  • “Anything less than immediately ceasing these investments in the fossil fuel industry would be a betrayal of life itself,” writes Greta.

This article originally appeared in The Guardian.

We have just entered a new decade, a decade where every month and every day will be absolutely crucial in deciding what the future will look like. Towards the end of January, chief executives, investors and policymakers will gather in Davos for the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum.

Young climate activists and school strikers from around the world will be present to put pressure on these leaders.

We demand that at this year’s Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now.

We understand and know very well that the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy. But the climate crisis is also extremely complicated, and this is an emergency. In an emergency you step out of your comfort zone and make decisions that may not be very comfortable or pleasant. And let’s be clear – there is nothing easy, comfortable or pleasant about the climate and environmental emergency.

Young people are being let down by older generations and those in power. To some it may seem like we are asking for a lot. But this is just the very minimum of effort needed to start the rapid sustainable transition. The fact that this still – in 2020 – hasn’t been done already is, quite frankly, a disgrace.

Yet, since the 2015 Paris agreement, 33 major global banks have collectively poured $1.9tn (£1.5tn) into fossil fuels, according to Rainforest Action’s report. The IMF concluded that in 2017 alone, the world spent $5.2tn subsidising fossil fuels. This has to stop.

The world of finance has a responsibility to the planet, the people and all other species living on it. In fact, it ought to be in every company and stakeholder’s interest to make sure the planet they live on will thrive. But history has not shown the corporate world’s willingness to hold themselves accountable. So it falls on us, the children, to do that. We call upon the world’s leaders to stop investing in the fossil fuel economy that is at the very heart of this planetary crisis. Instead, they should invest their money in existing sustainable technologies, research and in restoring nature. Short-term profit should not trump long-term stability of life.

 

A coal fired power plant: ‘Since the 2015 Paris agreement 33 major global banks have poured £1.5tn into fossil fuels.’
Image: John Giles/PA

 

The theme of this year’s gathering in Davos is “stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world”. According to the Forum’s website, leaders will meet to discuss ideas and improve our global progress on climate change. Our request to them is perhaps not so far-fetched considering that they say they understand and prioritise this emergency. Anything less than immediately ceasing these investments in the fossil fuel industry would be a betrayal of life itself. Today’s business as usual is turning into a crime against humanity. We demand that leaders play their part in putting an end to this madness. Our future is at stake, let that be their investment.

• Greta Thunberg is a 17-year-old environmental campaigner from Stockholm, Sweden. This article was co-written with youth climate activists Jean Hinchliffe, Australia; Danielle Ferreira de Assis, Brazil; Joel Enrique Peña Panichine, Chile; Robin Jullian, France; Luisa Neubauer, Germany; Licipriya Kangujam, India; David Wicker, Italy; Julia Haddad, Lebanon; Oladosu Adenike, Nigeria; Iqbal Badruddin, Pakistan; Arshak Makichyan, Russia; Holly Gillibrand, Scotland; Alejandro Martínez, Spain; Isabelle Axelsson, Sweden; Sophia Axelsson, Sweden; Ell Jarl, Sweden; Mina Pohankova, Sweden; Linus Dolder, Switzerland; Vanessa Nakate, Uganda; Tokata Iron Eyes, USA

 

 

Written by

Greta Thunberg, Climate and Environmental Activist,

This article is published in collaboration with The Guardian.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Australia’s bushfires have pumped out half a year’s CO2 emissions.

Posted on by dishanth
Australia’s bushfires have pumped out half a year’s CO2 emissions.
  • Australian CO2 emissions have surged by 250 million tonnes as a result of bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland.
  • Vegetation vital for absorbing CO2 is being destroyed by the blazes.
  • Experts say climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of the fires.

The east coast of Australia is burning. And as bushfires rip through everything in their path, they are generating CO2 emissions that pose a long-term threat to the world.

NASA data, supplied to Guardian Australia, shows that since August fires in New South Wales and Queensland have increased Australia’s annual emissions by 250 million tonnes – that’s half the country’s total emissions in 2018.

Australia is in the grip of a severe heatwave, with forecasters predicting the country’s highest-ever temperature of 50.7°C could soon be exceeded.

 

Temperatures around Australia.
Image: Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology

 

So far, the fires have killed six people, destroyed hundreds of homes, and consumed 2.7 million hectares of countryside, wiping out plant life that is vital for absorbing future CO2 emissions. The cost of the damage has already reached $100 million.

 

Air quality

More than 2,000 firefighters have been tackling the bushfires but fire chiefs say a prolonged drought has made the task much harder.

 

Bushfire at Mount Tomah, New South Wales in December 2019.
Image: Reuters

 

Sydney has recorded air quality 22 worse than standard levels as bushfire smoke has created a smog that has caused respiratory problems for residents. Actor Sam Neill reported smelling the fires at 39,000 feet while his flight was still hundreds of miles from Sydney.

 

 

Bushfires are common in this region of Australia during the summer and autumn, but this year the blazes have arrived early and with unexpected ferocity. The country’s Bureau of Meteorology says climate change is influencing the frequency and severity of dangerous fires.

 

Smog caused by bushfires in the Blue Mountains envelops Sydney.
Image: REUTERS/Stephen Coates

 

The extreme weather has prompted renewed calls for climate action by the Australian government. In response to the crisis, New South Wales is reported to be planning new climate targets, reducing emissions by 35% by 2030, compared to a national target of a 26% cut.

 

Tackling climate change

Australia was ranked 43rd out of 115 nations in the World Economic Forum’s 2019 Energy Transition Index because of its heavy dependence on coal for electricity generation.

However, there are ambitious plans to harness the country’s abundant sunshine to generate renewable energy for export. Plans have been announced to build a huge solar farm, covering 15,000 hectares in the Northern Territory, to supply power to Singapore.

 

Burnt-out cars left behind by the Australian bushfires.
Image: Reuters/Darren Pateman

 

In the Pilbara region of Western Australia an even larger green energy project is under way. The Asian Renewable Energy Hub plans to use wind combined with solar to generate up to 15 gigawatts of electricity at what backers say will be the world’s biggest wind/solar hybrid site.

By greening its industries and becoming a major exporter of renewable energy, Australia would be able to reduce its carbon emissions which, including its coal, oil and gas exports, now account for 5% of the global total.

 

 

Written by

Douglas Broom, Senior Writer, Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.