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: March 2021

Asian companies claim they are going net-zero — but are their targets realistic, ambitious or greenwash?

Posted on by dishanth
Asian companies claim they are going net-zero — but are their targets realistic, ambitious or greenwash?

The race is on for the business world to figure out how to sustain economic growth and go carbon-free.

The penny seems to be dropping that avoiding climate action comes with financial risks. Last October, 200 of the world’s largest multinational companies said they would achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Among them were Asian companies in sin industries linked with spotty environmental records such as Sinopec and Asia Pacific Resources International Limited (APRIL). Chevron, Philip Morris and DuPont were also among those that made pledges.

By 2050, climate change will shrink the global economy by 3 per cent as drought, flooding, crop failure and infrastructure damage become more severe — unless drastic action is taken to bend the curve on global warming, according to a report by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The Covid-19 pandemic — which has been called a “dress rehearsal” for climate change — has accelerated the urgency to mitigate the impacts of climate change which cost the global economy billions every year.

“Suddenly, corporates have realised that if we’re going for a 1.5 degrees Celsius cap on global warming [the goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change], we have to hit net zero by 2030. It’ll be very expensive to decarbonise any later,” said Malavika Bambawale, Asia Pacific head of sustainability solutions at Engie Impact, a decarbonisation consultancy.

 

“What is the cost of not decarbonising? That is the question businesses should really be asking themselves.”
Pratima Divgi, director, Hong Kong, Asean, Oceania, CDP

 

Western businesses have led the way, with the likes of Microsoft saying it will make “the biggest commitment in our history” by removing all of the carbon it has put into the atmosphere since its founding in 1975. Asian companies have been slower to commit. “A lot of Asian companies are further down the supply chain, so they can hide for longer,” says Bambawale.

But climate action in a region that produces more than half of global emissions is cranking up. Of the 1,200 or so firms that have signed up to the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which helps companies cut their emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, 250 Asian companies have set carbon-cutting targets or are in the process of getting targets approved — a 57 per cent increase between 2019 and 2020. Forty-eight of those 250 firms have aligned their business models with the Paris agreement. 

“From a small base, corporate decarbonisation is growing in Asia Pacific,” says Pratima Divgi, Hong Kong, Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand director at CDP, a carbon disclosure non-proft that co-developed the SBTi. Companies that have signed up to the SBTi include Hong Kong real estate firm Swire Properties, Chinese computer giant Lenovo, and Malaysian textile firm Tai Wah Garments Industry.

National-level policy commitments, like China, Korea and Japan’s net-zero declarations over the past six months have set the tone for Asian corporate decarbonisation. Competition is helping. Australian supermarket chain Coles declared a 2050 net zero target six months after rival Woolworths did the same, and Singaporean real estate firm City Developments Limited (CDL) made a net zero pledge the week after competitor Frasers Property. Gojek and Grab are racing to be the first ride-hailing app in Southeast Asia to declare a decarbonisation target.

“Now that market leaders such as CDL have made net-zero commitments, it will be harder for their competitors to sit and wait,” says Bambawale.

Malaysian oil and gas giant Petronas announced in October that it would hit net-zero by 2050, a month after PetroChina, the region’s largest oil company, said it would be “near-zero” by mid-century.

 

Aspiration versus reality

But questions hang over how Asia’s big-polluters will realise their declared targets. Ensuring the big emitters share detailed plans and a budget to support their carbon neutral declarations is key for accountability.

PetroChina’s announcement came with “frustratingly little detail”, commented renewables consultancy Wood MacKenzie. The oil giant aims to spend just 1-2 per cent of its total budget on renewable energy between now and 2025. This compares to Italian oil major Eni’s planned 20 per cent of total spend on renewables by 2023 and BP’s 33 per cent by 2030.

Petronas’ own 2050 net-zero pledge is an “aspiration” and not a science-based target that aligns the firm with the Paris Agreement.

“Aspirational targets can only go so far — science-based targets also need to clearly allocate interim short- to medium-term targets to work out what this transformation means to your business and value chain,” says Divgi.

Setting a science-based carbon reduction target takes time. Singapore-based transport firm ComfortDelGro has given itself two years to set science-based goals, but the company avoided giving a carbon reduction timeline in its announcement earlier this month.

Other companies are also being selective with the information they make public. This could be because they do not want to reveal the extent to which they intend on decarbonising, or because they do not have a plan yet. CDL has pledged that it will be net-zero by 2030 — 20 years ahead of competitor Frasers Property — but has declined to give further detail on how it will meet this target.

CDL’s carbon commitment is limited to its wholly-owned assets and developments under its direct control, while Frasers Property is aiming to remove emissions from its entire value chain.

 

Why carbon dieting is difficult

For major emitters like oil and gas firms, decarbonising means transforming their business model without going out of business. Petronas told Eco-Business that meeting its 2050 target “won’t be easy”, and would require the company to “re-strategise how we do our business, with the focus no longer being on profitability or production capacity alone”.

Petronas plans include hydrocarbon flaring and venting, developing low and zero carbon fuels, capturing emissions and investing in nature-based solutions. It also plans to cap emissions to 49.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent for its Malaysia operations by 2024, and increase renewable energy capacity to 3,000 megawatts by the same year.

Meeting its target would “requires us to strike an equitable balance between providing low carbon solutions while still ensuring energy security and business profitability,” said the company’s group health, safety, security and environment vice-president, Dzafri Sham Ahmad.

But removing the carbon from a company’s operations is no longer deemed enough. The indirect emissions that occur in the entire value chain — known as scope 3 emissions — are becoming the new business imperative. A new report from CDP found that emissions from a company’s supply chain are on average 11.4 times higher than its operational emissions – double previous estimates. ExxonMobil’s scope 3 emissions from the use of its products exceed the national annual emissions of Canada, it was revealed in January.

 

“Achieving this aspiration will require us to re-strategise how we do our business, with the focus no longer being on profitability or production capacity alone.”

Dzafri Sham Ahmad, vice-president, group health, safety, security and environment, Petronas

 

Electric vehicle makers such as Telsa are now asking questions about the emissions of their nickel suppliers while computer giant Apple wants to source low-carbon semiconductor chips. But tackling scope 3 emissions is tricky. For instance, how do Singapore construction companies reduce the imported carbon of building materials sourced from China, where electricity is generated from coal? And how does a building owner persuade its tenants to turn down the air-conditioning?

“Reducing scope 3 emissions looks easy enough from the top down. But for people in the field operating the assets it can be a nightmare,” says J. Sarvaiya, an engineer who’s an expert in decarbonisation.

Balancing the carbon books by sourcing renewable energy is also difficult in a region where fossil fuels are still the dominant power source, and where a diversity of regulatory landscapes has made scaling renewables hard and where prices remain high in places. This has led Asian companies to focus on reducing energy consumption first, before looking at procuring renewables, notes Bambawale.

But energy capping is not easy in a high-growth region with escalating energy needs. Southeast Asia’s energy consumption is growing by 4 per cent a year — twice the rate of the rest of the world — and much of that demand comes through cooling as global temperatures rise. Some 30 per cent of a business’s energy bill in this region goes on cooling, says Bambawale.

 

Offset or cut?

Facing so many challenges, it’s tempting for businesses to buy their way to net-zero. Carbon offsets, where companies fund projects that capture or store greenhouse gas emissions to offset their own, are becoming an increasingly popular path to carbon neutrality. Singapore state investor Temasek was one of Asia’s first companies to neutralise the carbon emissions of its operations last year, and did so primarily by buying carbon offsets. Petronas is also relying on offsets as part of its ‘measure, reduce, offset’ net-zero drive.

But offsets are drawing growing scepticism because they enable businesses to carry on as usual, without reducing their actual footprint. “Many companies find that it’s cheaper to reach net-zero by purchasing offsets. It may cost more to replace old technology with more efficient kit than buying offsets,” says Sarvaiya.

Offsets are a necessary piece of the decarbonisation puzzle — but the quality of offset is key, says Bambawale. Companies should ensure that an offset is additional—that is, the carbon reduction would not have happened without the company’s effort. It should also have permanent, rather than temporary, impact. And it should not cause any sort of environmental or social harm. Proving all of that is difficult. “Companies could spend years checking and validating that an offset is actually happening,” says Bambawale.

Offsets will get more problematic the warmer the world gets, Sarvaiya points out. The ability of plants to absorb carbon declines in a warmer world, so more trees will have to be planted to balance the carbon books. Buying renewable energy faces a similar issue. Every one degree increase of surface temperature reduces the efficiency of solar panels by 0.5 per cent.

Companies are also looking to emerging technologies to help them hit carbon goals. In Singapore, concrete producer Pan-United and Keppel Data Centres are part of a consortium that is banking on carbon capture, use and storage technology that won’t be online for another five to 10 years to reduce the carbon impact of the city-state’s oil refining, petrochemicals and chemicals sectors.

Heavy-emitting sectors such as steel production, aviation and shipping have high hopes for hydrogen power, which is considered the missing piece of the renewables puzzle. But questions over cost and transportation make hydrogen a fuel for the future for now. “Moonshot ideas should be the last step,” says Bambawale.

 

Why net-zero is not just hot air

In Southeast Asia, where governments have shown little interest in decarbonising their economies in their post-pandemic recovery plans, there is less incentive for businesses to cut their carbon footprints amid the struggle to stay afloat.

But a wave of commitments to decarbonisation in the past 18 months will likely lead to more. Scores of businesses have signed up for science-based targets during the pandemic, which has played a part in pushing others towards net-zero, says Divgi, adding that a Southeast Asian bank recently committed to SBTi whose suppliers’ emissions were 400 times its own.

Another indicator of interest in corporate climate action is the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), a global framework for companies to disclose the financial risks they face from climate change. CDP has seen a 20 per cent increase in TCFD disclosures in Asia over the last year, Divgi notes.

More companies are trying to assess the financial implications of the transition to a low-carbon economy, and the more progressive companies have recognised that calculating climate risk is not a reporting exercise, it’s a strategic one, says Divgi.

“We’re not saying that it [decarbonising] is without problems. There’s a huge level of transformation involved, but climate change presents both a financial and an existential challenge for many businesses,” she says.

“What is the cost of not decarbonising — that is the question that businesses should really be asking themselves.”

 

 

By Robin Hicks

Source Eco Business

Twiggy Forrest sets sights on making the impossible possible when it comes to ‘pure green energy’

Posted on by dishanth
Twiggy Forrest sets sights on making the impossible possible when it comes to ‘pure green energy’

In the second half of last year, while most of the world was in pandemic lockdown, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest and a team of 50 staff did what others couldn’t. He spent five months crisscrossing the globe in a private jet, visiting more than 40 countries.

It set Australia’s second-richest person on a path to an outcome that, if delivered, could transform the energy landscape of not just Australia, but the globe.

The iron ore billionaire says after his private discussions with sovereign leaders, politicians, business people and investors across the world he was convinced of their “genuine thirst for our green energy”.

“It made me strongly, and no longer hesitantly, optimistic,” he told Guardian Australia. “I felt a change in the global mood, a shift in belief, that the impossible could be possible.”

Forrest’s response was to announce in November that his Fortescue Metals Group would aggressively support zero-emissions energy through its new green arm, Fortescue Future Industries.

The initial pledge was that it would back 235 gigawatts of clean energy capacity – more than three times the entire Australian electricity grid – across the globe, with $1bn committed over the next two years. Four months on, that has expanded to a promise to explore more than 500GW of hydro, geothermal, wind and solar with a goal of being involved in the creation of 1,000GW.

 

Forrest estimates the world will need at least 5,000GW of pure green energy to really slow the climate crisis. He has committed himself to helping develop a fifth of that by providing capital, technology and encouragement.

It will, he claims, “create so much momentum and value that consuming energy from a polluting source becomes commercial nonsense”. He has big-name support: the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has signed on as chairman of the future industries arm, and the ex-Australian Secret Intelligence Service director general, Nick Warner, is a special advisor on international affairs.

“We figure if we are able to set an example of a 1,000GW target then people will realise that the impossible isn’t actually impossible,” Forrest. “We’re hoping that other companies will get in and vigorously compete with us, and maybe even challenge and beat us, but what will happen in that process is global warming will slow and eventually stop. That’s our mission.”

It is a pledge that sits alongside – and in some cases outstrips – support for fixing the climate crisis from some of the world’s richest people, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Like some of their commitments, it has drawn widespread praise for the agenda-setting and potentially transformative role it could play – and a fair dose of scepticism about whether it is possible.

Forrest’s green ambition is too vast to quickly summarise. In addition to the global push, which he says has already led to deals in 17 countries, FMG this month set a domestic target of reaching net zero emissions by 2030, a decade earlier than it had previously promised, and 20 years before most competitors.

Underpinning it is Forrest’s belief that green hydrogen, created using renewable energy, will change energy systems much faster than some analysts believe is possible. From there, he says, it can be used to create zero-emissions liquid green ammonia and turn iron ore into the holy grail of “green steel” – made without the current reliance on coking coal.

 

Some of his goals will be tested in the short-term. In a speech to a Credit Suisse investment conference on Wednesday, Forrest said that by 30 June this year the company will have developed a green iron ore train that either runs on renewable electricity or a combustion engine powered by green ammonia.

It also plans to be trialling a ship run on green ammonia, a shift that could lead to the replacement of the notoriously dirty bunker fuel currently used by fleets across the globe. Forrest says the pace of what he is proposing on shipping surprised and impressed the climate activist and former US vice-president, Al Gore, and puts him at least five years ahead of the global competition.

Dan Gocher, from shareholder activists the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, is among those impressed. He says Forrest’s vision for FMG is “literally decades ahead” of other major companies.

“They’re clearly the leading company on the Australian Stock Exchange in terms of ambition – and probably globally,” he said. “What he’s saying is what we’ve been calling on BHP and Rio [Tinto] to commit to – heavy investment in renewables to really kickstart the green hydrogen economy.”

While his focus is on a green future, Forrest has not completely abandoned fossil fuels – at least not yet. This week, he was also speaking with the federal and New South Wales energy ministers, Angus Taylor and Matt Kean, about a proposal by his private company, Squadron Energy, to build a new 635-megawatt gas-fired power station at Port Kembla.

If approved, it would initially run on liquefied natural gas (LNG) brought in via a new floating gas import terminal at the port. Forrest stresses both the plant and the terminal would be “dual-fuel” – a more expensive option that would give them the capacity to use green hydrogen once it is ready – but says he is making “an allowance for natural gas as a critical stepping-stone” to get the developments moving.

The continued inclusion of gas in Forrest’s portfolio has drawn criticism. Gocher says it is at odds with Forrest’s green ambition, which he believes FMG has the capacity to deliver.

“It is a bit hypocritical given the language he has used around the climate crisis,” Gocher said.

“He’s clearly saying we need to take action in the next 10 years, but he wants to build a terminal that will supply more gas. It means he’s not talking about electrification [of industry] or trying to reduce [gas] demand, which is what we should be talking about.”

Forrest takes umbrage when asked whether his gas developments are at odds with his climate push.

“If it was just a gas-fired power station and a gas importation system, sure, take me to task,” he said. “But if I’m spending the huge amount of capital to make it dual-fuel – that’s hundreds of millions – and then on the other side of my life [spending] tens of billions to create that green energy and green hydrogen, then the Guardian really has to be responsible, and encourage people to take that big step and build dual-fuel so that they can switch to hydrogen when it’s available.”

While the Morrison government has said it will back a “gas-led recovery” from recession, Forrest believes there is now no justification for leaders to support developments unless they also have the capacity to become zero emissions “when the fuel is available”.

“It might be green electricity, it might be green ammonia, it might be green hydrogen. If you really care for what your citizens want, make sure you’re not building a dinosaur or licensing a dinosaur.”

The bigger question about Forrest’s vision is whether the rise of green hydrogen is as inevitable as he believes.

The nascent technology is now receiving significant support across the globe, and the Morrison government has named it a priority under its low-emissions technology roadmap. But it is still early days – relatively little hydrogen from any source is being produced and less than 1% of that is created using renewable energy.

Tony Wood, the energy program director at the Grattan Institute, is among those who believe that while green hydrogen has a future, its ubiquity in a low-emissions world is not guaranteed. He doesn’t see a future for hydrogen-fuelled electricity, for example.

“There are better ways to produce low-emissions power than with hydrogen and if we could produce low-cost green hydrogen there are better uses for it than electricity,” he said.

 

 

Source The Guardian

 

Turning wood Into recyclable, biodegradable plastic

Posted on by dishanth
Turning wood Into recyclable, biodegradable plastic

Efforts to shift from petrochemical plastics to renewable and biodegradable plastics have proven tricky — the production process can require toxic chemicals and is expensive, and the mechanical strength and water stability is often insufficient. But researchers have made a breakthrough, using wood byproducts, that shows promise for producing more durable and sustainable bioplastics.

A study published in Nature Sustainability, co-authored by Yuan Yao, assistant professor of industrial ecology and sustainable systems at Yale School of the Environment (YSE), outlines the process of deconstructing the porous matrix of natural wood into a slurry. The researchers say the resulting material shows a high mechanical strength, stability when holding liquids, and UV-light resistance. It can also be recycled or safely biodegraded in the natural environment, and has a lower life-cycle environmental impact when compared with petroleum-based plastics and other biodegradable plastics.

“There are many people who have tried to develop these kinds of polymers in plastic, but the mechanical strands are not good enough to replace the plastics we currently use, which are made mostly from fossil fuels,” says Yao. “We’ve developed a straightforward and simple manufacturing process that generates biomass-based plastics from wood, but also plastic that delivers good mechanical properties as well.”

To create the slurry mixture, the researchers used a wood powder — a processing residue usually discarded as waste in lumber mills — and deconstructed the loose, porous structure of the powder with a biodegradable and recyclable deep eutectic solvent (DES). The resulting mixture, which features nanoscale entanglement and hydrogen bonding between the regenerated lignin and cellulose micro/nanofibrils, has a high solid content and high viscosity, which can be casted and rolled without breaking.

Yao then led a comprehensive life cycle assessment to test the environmental impacts of the bioplastic against commons plastics. Sheets of the bioplastic were buried in soil, fracturing after two weeks and completely degrading after three months; additionally, researchers say the bioplastic can be broken back down into the slurry by mechanical stirring, which also allows for the DES to be recovered and reused.

 

“We’ve developed a straightforward and simple manufacturing process that generates biomass-based plastics from wood, but also plastic that delivers good mechanical properties as well.” — Yuan Yao, assistant professor of industrial ecology and sustainable systems

 

“That, to me, is what really makes this plastic good: It can all be recycled or biodegraded,” says Yao. “We’ve minimized all of the materials and the waste going into nature.”

The bioplastic has numerous applications, says Liangbing Hu, a professor at the Center for Materials Innovation at the University of Maryland and co-author of the paper. It can be molded into a film that can be used in plastic bags and packaging — one of the major uses of plastic and causes of waste production. Hu also says that because the bioplastic can be molded into different shapes, it has potential for use in automobile manufacturing, as well.

One area the research team continues to investigate is the potential impact on forests if the manufacturing of this bioplastic is scaled up. While the process currently uses wood byproducts in manufacturing, the researchers say they are keenly aware that large-scale production could require usage of massive amounts of wood, which could have far-reaching implications on forests, land management, ecosystems and climate change, to name a few.

Yao says the research team has already begun working with a forest ecologist to create forest simulation models, linking the growth cycle of forests with the manufacturing process. She also sees an opportunity to collaborate with people who work in forest-related fields at YSE — an uncommon convenience.

“It’s not often an engineer can walk down the hall and talk to a forester,” says Yao.

Yao, an emerging scholar in the field of industrial ecology, joined the YSE faculty last year. Her research examines the environmental and economic impacts of emerging technologies and industrial processes., integrating interdisciplinary approaches from the fields of industrial ecology, sustainable engineering, and systems modeling to develop techniques that promote more sustainable engineering approaches and policies.

Reference: “A strong, biodegradable and recyclable lignocellulosic bioplastic” by Qinqin Xia, Chaoji Chen, Yonggang Yao, Jianguo Li, Shuaiming He, Yubing Zhou, Teng Li, Xuejun Pan, Yuan Yao and Liangbing Hu, 25 March 2021, Nature Sustainability.
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00702-w

 

 

By YALE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Source SciTech Daily

World’s biggest coal company bets on solar power

Posted on by dishanth
World’s biggest coal company bets on solar power

The world’s largest coal mining firm is to “aggressively” pursue solar energy and continue to close smaller mines.

Coal India Limited (CIL) plans to invest in a 3,000 megawatt solar energy project in a joint venture with state-run NLC India.

The company also wants to compete in India’s solar auctions and win projects by offering the lowest prices for clean power.

It marks a major shift for the firm, which produces most of India’s coal.

 

“Coal as you know, we’re going to lose business in the next two, three decades. Solar will take over (from) coal slowly as a major energy provider in the coming years,” CIL’s chairman Pramod Agarwal said in an interview with Reuters.

The company’s solar project with NLC India will be worth 125bn rupees ($1.73bn ; £1.26bn), with CIL expected to invest roughly half of that figure by 2024.

The group closed 82 mines in the three years to March 2020, and reduced its workforce by 18,600 employees.

Mr Agarwal said he expected further reductions to the workforce, with the savings potentially reinvested into solar wafer production.

 

Energy transformation

India currently uses about one billion tons of coal annually, making it the world’s second largest consumer behind China.

CIL is by far the country’s biggest producer, with the company aiming to produce 710 million tons of coal in 2020-21, according to India’s coal ministry.

That’s slightly more than all US coal companies produced in 2019, according to figures from the US Energy Information Agency.

India is hoping for a significant shift in its energy mix over the coming years to help it meet its climate targets.

The country is a signatory to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and it has committed to reducing its emissions by up to 35% by 2030 from 2005 levels.

Last year, the country’s emissions fell for the first time in decades.

Although the lower emissions were partly due to strict Covid-19 lockdown measures, lower demand for coal was also a factor.

India hopes to generate 175GW of renewable energy capacity by next year, with a target of 450GW by the end of the decade.

 

 

Source BBC

From pre-loved fashion to shopping local: 5 ways lockdown has encouraged sustainable living

Posted on by dishanth
From pre-loved fashion to shopping local: 5 ways lockdown has encouraged sustainable living

Over the past year, the coronavirus pandemic has transformed the way we live, impacting everything from how we work to how we socialize.

One of the few positive results of the pandemic has been that many people have become more aware of their carbon footprints. In April 2020, an Ipsos survey found that 71 percent of people in 14 countries felt that climate change was as serious a crisis as the pandemic. In July 2020, a survey by green energy provider Bulb found that more than a third of the UK public were living more sustainably during the shutdown. Meanwhile, an American survey conducted by the Boston Consultancy Group at the same time found that 70 percent of people were more aware of their environmental impacts than before.

“I think a lot of people at home have a new appreciation for nature and its local environment,” a WWF spokesperson told The Independent . WWF Executive Director Tanya Steele adds that this year marks the beginning of a “critical decade” when it comes to taking action against the climate crisis. “It has never been more important for people to use their voice, their own power, to defend nature and show leaders why they should care,” she says.

It goes without saying that spending more time outdoors can have a huge impact on one’s relationship with the environment. “One of the things we’ve all noticed is the importance of our green spaces,” Environment Minister Rebecca Pow told The Independent . “I am encouraged to see that more and more people are using them to connect with nature, which is beneficial for physical and mental health.”

The environmental benefits of the blockade have also been evident. In April, reports emerged of wild animals emerging from their hiding places and roaming the suddenly empty streets. Dolphins were suddenly spotted off Boshprosu, Istanbul, one of the world’s busiest sea lanes, while wild boars roamed the streets of Haifa, Israel. Closer to home, reports noted a significant increase in bat, bee and squirrel sightings in 2020 in the UK compared to the previous year.

Other benefits were seen in the form of reports that air pollution had decreased by record amounts in countries around the world.

But how did we become more sustainable as individuals during the confinement? And can we continue like this once the restrictions are lifted? These are the climate lessons we learned during the confinement.

 

Changing our diets

It’s no secret that moving toward a more plant-based diet can have a hugely positive impact on the environment. Not only did roughly 14 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities come from livestock, but a study published in Science in 2018 that listed the environmental impact of 40 top foods found that the top nine were all products. of animal origin.

A few weeks after the first shutdown, reports emerged that millions of Britons were cutting back on meat and dairy , while supermarkets reported an increase in demand for vegan products. Meanwhile, The Vegan Society found that one in five Britons have reduced their meat consumption during the pandemic, while 15 percent have reduced their dairy consumption. Then, in January 2021, the organization’s month-long annual vegan commitment, Veganuary, reported its highest number of sign-ups: 500,000.

There are several reasons why people might have been drawn to veganism in the confinement. “For some, it is because their usual food options were not available at the supermarket, for others it has been a cost-saving exercise,” a spokesperson for The Vegan Society told The Independent.

“However, I think more than anything else, the pandemic has put health at the forefront of people’s minds and we have suddenly become much more aware of what we are eating, where it comes from and how it makes us feel.” .

“Consumers are becoming more conscientious and ethical shoppers with many interested in seeking cruelty-free and plant-based alternatives.”

 

We stop traveling

The pandemic has put an end to international travel for most of the past year.

Massive flight grounding during 2020 reduced aviation’s CO2 emissions by about 60 percent, according to the Global Carbon Project .

Instead of traveling abroad in search of warmer climates, Brits embraced home vacations during the summer months, and a luxury accommodation specialist, Hoseasons, reported a new booking every 11 seconds in June after the first Minister lifted restrictions on overnight stays. Meanwhile, Hoseasons sister company cottages.com reported a 455 percent increase in year-on-year bookings.

But beyond the holidays, due to restrictions that required Brits to stay within their local areas, we also stopped using trains and cars to get around so much, instead favoring walking and cycling: bicycle sales increased by 63 percent during the confinement.

As a result, in London, traffic pollution was reduced by as much as 50 percent during the first blockade, according to a study . Meanwhile, data from the London Air Quality Network, run by King’s College London , found that air pollution dropped substantially in UK cities in March 2020.

Professor Alastair Lewis, from the National Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the University of York, explained at the time: “This is primarily a consequence of lower traffic volumes, and some of the clearest reductions have been in nitrogen dioxide, which mainly comes from the vehicle’s exhaust. ”

 

Eat more at home

With the hospitality industry shut down for much of 2020, Brits ate at home more than ever. While this has resulted in a major economic hit to the industry, cooking and eating more at home has some environmental benefits. In other words, it gives you more control over food waste prevention, which the nonprofit Friends of the Earth cites as one of the biggest problems regarding the environmental impact of our food.

Friends of the Earth estimates that more than 10 million tonnes of food is disposed of in the UK each year. And many of the things people can do to combat this come from eating more at home – recycling their own food waste, composting, and using leftovers. You can read more about food waste prevention here .

Plus, eating at home gives you more control over where you get your ingredients from. This means that you can choose to buy seasonal products that have been sourced locally rather than those that have been brought in from abroad, further reducing your carbon footprint.

Data from the shopping intelligence platform Cardlytics also found that meal kits and grocery boxes saw great growth in sales during the pandemic – spending on DIY meal kit companies, including Hello Fresh, Gousto and Mindful Chef, grew 114% in April 2020 compared to the previous year, also reducing food waste as the kits provide consumers with the exact amount of ingredients needed for a particular recipe.

We have yet to see if the pandemic will have a lasting impact on whether we eat more at home, but Mintel research found that more than half (55 percent) of people are already planning to cook at home more after COVID-19 in compared to before.

 

Buy less and favor your favorite fashion

One of the many ways we have become more sustainable is through our fashion choices. In 2020, clothing sales fell 25 percent, marking the biggest drop in 23 years, according to ONS figures . This is not surprising considering we had so few opportunities to socialize last year and nonessential retail was closed for much of 2020.

However, some of us looked online for our fashion solution, and when we did, we regularly opted for pre-loved clothing. In 2020, second-hand shopping app Depop saw a 200 percent year-on-year traffic increase, and its turnover doubled globally since April 1. Meanwhile, eBay reported that it had sold 1,211 percent more used items in June 2020 compared to 2018, noting a further increase of 195,691 percent in second-hand designer fashion sales at the same time.

Another eco-friendly fashion habit that emerged over the last year is DIY fashion. Remember the TikTok crochet trend that emerged last year as a result of people trying to recreate the JW Anderson multi-colored cardigan worn by Harry Styles? How could you forget? It proved so popular that Anderson himself eventually released the pattern so that people could recreate the exact cardigan at home. “Crafts flourish when people get stuck at home,” Abby Glassenberg, president and co-founder of the Craft Industry Alliance , previously told The Independent.

 

Participation in local community groups

Another way the pandemic has made us more sustainable is simply because more people are joining local community groups that are dedicated to fighting the climate crisis. Speaking to The Independent , Friends of the Earth says they have noticed a significant increase in the number of people joining local groups.

Alasdair Roxburgh, Director of Communities and Networks for Friends of the Earth, told The Independent: “The biggest and most important change we have seen in environmental action over the past year is how people have come together in their communities to support one another.

“In just over a year since we launched them, there are now 250 Climate Action Groups in communities across the country. The incredible work done by mutual aid groups, councils, local businesses and more showed the power and speed of change that can occur when communities work together at the local level. This has definitely translated into action against the climate crisis. ”

You can see the full list of the nonprofit’s Climate Action Groups on their website , which has a tool that allows you to type in your zip code and find the one closest to you. Different groups have different priorities.

For example, in Newcastle, a group has petitioned the government for safe cycling, and in Newbury, they are campaigning for paper bags at their local Tesco. Meanwhile, in Ilkley, a group is campaigning for local people to switch to banks that don’t invest in fossil fuels.

 

 

Source The Independent

Australia’s miners urge Europe to define nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture as ‘sustainable’

Posted on by dishanth
Australia’s miners urge Europe to define nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture as ‘sustainable’

The Minerals Council of Australia has weighed into a European Commission climate policy debate, urging it to back fossil fuels with carbon capture use and storage (CCS) and nuclear power on a list of environmentally friendly developments.

In a written submission to the commission, the minerals council (MCA) said a proposed EU taxonomy for sustainable activities intended to shape investment under a European green deal was inconsistent in how it dealt with clean technologies because it favoured solar, wind and biofuels over nuclear and CCS.

The mining lobby group said it was concerned this approach would have a flow-on effect on the types of energy investments backed by EU-based companies across the globe and “increase the cost of reducing CO2 emissions”. It called for an overhaul.

InfluenceMap, a London-based thinktank that tracks corporate climate lobbying, said the MCA’s submission suggested it wanted to export its “negative approach to climate policy” by pushing for changes in other parts of the world that would allow continued use of coal and gas.

The MCA submission argued there was “no valid basis” for treating CCS and nuclear differently given EU countries currently used coal, gas and nuclear.

It quoted the International Energy Agency in saying emissions from existing energy fleets needed to be significantly reduced by 2030 if countries were to achieve the widely held goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The minerals council said this would require technologies such as CCS.

“Underpinning the MCA’s concern is the broad-ranging investment impacts the taxonomy will have, not just within the European Union but anywhere European Union-based firms invest,” the submission said.

But InfluenceMap’s program manager, Rebecca Vaughan, said the MCA appeared concerned a science-led approach to dealing with the climate crisis would hurt the industries it represented.

“While the MCA says it wants the EU to take a technology neutral position, its submission appears to advocate for the continued use of coal and gas with carbon capture utilisation and storage, which is clearly at odds with the commission’s science-based policy,” Vaughan said.

The MCA has long been accused of hindering action to tackle the climate crisis in Australia, and campaigned aggressively against Labor’s two attempts to introduce a carbon pricing scheme.

In recent years it has come under pressure to change its anti-climate stance from its biggest members, BHP and Rio Tinto. It followed the big mining companies facing repeated calls from their investors to abandon the MCA over its commitment to coal.

It resulted in the MCA releasing a climate plan that said it was committed to the Paris agreement and reaching net zero emissions, but did not include a timeframe in which that target should be reached.

The EU taxonomy is intended to help it meet a target of at least a 55% cut in its emissions below 1990 levels by 2030 on the way to net zero by 2050.

It considers a development sustainable if it makes a substantial contribution to one of six environmental objectives, does no significant harm to any of the other five and complies with minimum business safeguards. The environmental objectives are: climate change mitigation, climate adaptation, sustainable use and protection of water resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The commission said it expected the taxonomy would “create security for investors, protect private investors from greenwashing, help companies to plan the transition, mitigate market fragmentation and eventually help shift investments where they are most needed”.

Tania Constable, the MCA’s chief executive, said “the technology-led transformation required” could not happen without Australia’s minerals and raw materials.

She said InfluenceMap had got it wrong. “[It] clearly opposes a lowest-cost, faster-paced approach to global decarbonisation,” she said.

“The MCA and all of its members are taking serious action on climate change and are committed to the Paris agreement and its goal of net zero emissions. The MCA advocates the inclusion of all low and zero emissions energy sources in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy because unequal treatment of nuclear and CCUS in particular undermines the EU’s own objectives.”

The final version of the EU’s sustainable finance rules was due in January but a decision was delayed until April after 10 countries objected to the initial proposal because they wanted gas to be deemed a sustainable energy source.

Nuclear energy plays a significant role in some EU countries, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported its future was uncertain in wealthy nations as ageing plants were expected to close due to cost and regulatory decisions. It said this trend could affect climate goals.

The forecast decline of nuclear has coincided with generation from cheaper renewable energy growing significantly from a low base.

CCS, which most commonly involves capturing emissions and pumping them underground, remains at a relatively early stage of development despite pledges of billions of dollars in funding. It is used in some industrial processes, but has sometimes been financially viable only when employed to increase oil extraction from an underground reservoir.

It is yet to be proved viable as a means of reducing emissions from fossil fuel power generation. One of the world’s most prominent CCS projects, the Petra Nova power generation facility in Texas, was mothballed last year because of its poor financial performance.

The Morrison government has backed CCS as one of five priorities to receive support under its low-emissions technology roadmap, and opened a $50m fund for applications earlier this month.

Several observers noted it was a relatively little funding if the government was serious about developing the long-stalled technology. Some of is expected to be will be dedicated to exploring the “use” of captured CO2 to turn it into products such as building materials.

Nuclear energy remains banned in Australia. Some Coalition MPs and industry leaders want the prohibition lifted.

 This article was amended on 23 March 2021 to include the EU’s criteria for a sustainable activity and the IEA’s assessment of nuclear generation.

 

 

Source The Guardian

Climate justice and human rights movements must go hand-in-hand

Posted on by dishanth
Climate justice and human rights movements must go hand-in-hand

Both the Paris Agreement and the advancements towards mandatory due diligence have the potential for a huge, transformational effect across our economy.

The climate justice and human rights movements have been on separate paths for far too long. Both have made considerable progress in the past decade, but if we are going to see the type of transformational change that our times require in either, the two must come together.

Recent advancements indicate that this is starting to take place.

The climate movement reached a watershed moment when the Paris Agreement entered into force in 2016. Over 196 governments around the world set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, an unprecedented challenge of coordination and action.

They also sent a bold message to actors across all sectors – from finance and business, to civil society and philanthropy – that it was time for action.

 

For instance, a company’s failure to decarbonise could be seen as contributing to human rights and environmental violations under a mandatory due diligence regime.

 

Concurrently, the field of business and human rights rapidly accelerated in 2010 when the United Nations endorsed the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), a framework to prevent and address the risk of adverse impacts of business activities on human rights.

Governments have been encouraged to translate the UNGPs into national action plans or roadmaps. At the same time, demands on the corporate sector to implement human rights due diligence, a central component of the UNGPs, intensified.

Lawmakers saw an opportunity to recognise the expectation of due diligence behaviour on the part of companies, and governments started legal mandates, including the French Devoir de Vigilance law of 2017, the Dutch Child Labour Law of 2019.

Most recently, the European Parliament indicated through a large majority the likelihood of adopting an EU-wide mandatory due diligence law that would cover human rights and environmental issues.

Both the Paris Agreement and the advancements towards mandatory due diligence have the potential for a huge, transformational effect across our economy.

As governments and the private sector race to decarbonise and minimise their harmful greenhouse gas emissions, legal requirements on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence are being instituted that can themselves spur this action through incentives and sanctions.

For instance, a company’s failure to decarbonise could be seen as contributing to human rights and environmental violations under a mandatory due diligence regime.

The researcher Chiara Macchi has termed this merger “climate due diligence” and argues it as an emerging notion requiring corporations to assess and address risk, as well as to integrate the climate change dimension into vigilance planning, corporate reporting, external communication and investment decisions.

This concept is being tested in real-time in France. Oil giant Total is being sued by French nonprofit and law firm Sherpa together with 14 French local authorities and four NGOs.

The suit alleges that Total’s failure to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its operations is a violation of the French Devoir de Vigilance law, France’s seminal legislation that required a duty of care from French companies for human rights and environmental harms.

Sandra Cossart, Sherpa’s Director, said: “This law specifically obliges companies to prevent the risks of human rights and environmental violations caused by their activities, and to do so in an appropriate manner. Total is legally required to identify the risks resulting from its contribution to global warming and to take the necessary measures to reduce its emissions.”

(Editor’s note: After the lawsuit was filed in January last year, Total said it regretted the legal action taken, adding it was working in compliance with national legal standards. The case is ongoing.)

The same French law is also being applied to pursue broader climate justice and just transition issues by representatives of the community of Unión Hidalgo in Mexico. The civil lawsuit against Electricité de France (EDF)’s wind park project focuses on the non-compliance of EDF with its vigilance duties to respect human rights by seeking free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous Union Hidalgo community.

(Editor’s note: The EDF did not respond to a request for comment by the Thomson Reuters Foundation about the lawsuit).

The urgency of addressing the climate crisis is clear, and avenues to accelerate needed transformation in our economy are expanding, including through legal mechanisms like mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.

If Europe moves to a standardised mandatory due diligence approach with a right of action, this could be an incredible tool to shift momentum on corporations in addressing their greenhouse gas emissions. Two distinct paths, the Paris Agreement and the UNGPs and the resulting momentum towards mandatory human rights due diligence, are indeed converging, and this couldn’t happen soon enough.

Amol Mehra is the Director of Industry Transformation at Laudes Foundation, while Ilan Vuddamalay is a Senior Programme Manager for Labour Rights.

This story was published with permission from 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.

 

 

Source Eco Business

UK is now halfway to meeting its ‘net-zero emissions’ target

Posted on by dishanth
UK is now halfway to meeting its ‘net-zero emissions’ target

Ahead of the United Kingdom hosting the COP26 UN climate summit in November, the nature of the decline in 2020 shows how challenging it will be for the country to eliminate its remaining emissions.

The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 were 51 per cent below 1990 levels, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. This means the UK is now halfway to meeting its target of “net-zero” emissions by 2050.

The milestone was reached after a record-breaking 11 per cent fall in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, largely due to the coronavirus pandemic. Emissions are likely to rebound this year or next as the economy recovers.

The nature of the decline in 2020 shows how challenging it will be for the UK to eliminate its remaining emissions. It also illustrates the progress made so far, ahead of the UK hosting the COP26 UN climate summit in November.

Here, Carbon Brief sets out what contributed to the fall in emissions in 2020 and what it means for the next phase of the UK’s legally binding net-zero goal.

 

UK emissions are now halfway to net-zero

In 1990, the year Margaret Thatcher resigned after more than a decade as prime minister, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions stood at 794m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e).

This is conventionally taken as the baseline for the UK’s climate goals, including the net-zero target under its legally binding Climate Change Act and its international pledge to the Paris Agreement.

(Net-zero is formulated in law as cutting greenhouse gas emissions to “at least 100 per cent” below 1990 levels by 2050. As it stands, the target currently does not directly include emissions from international aviation and shipping, though the government’s climate advisers want this to change.)

It has taken 30 years for UK emissions to fall 51 per cent below 1990 levels, according to Carbon Brief’s new analysis of government data. This is halfway to net-zero, with another 30 years to reach the target. (Progress would have been slightly slower if including international aviation and expected changes to the UK’s greenhouse gas inventory. The target will not include emissions associated with UK consumption of goods and services imported from overseas.)

A look back to 1990 helps to explain why emissions have fallen so far in those intervening years – and what remains to be tackled on the road to net-zero.

Despite Thatcher’s clash with mining unions in the 1980s, coal still made up two-thirds of electricity in 1990, making the power sector the largest contributor to the nation’s emissions at that time.

The “dash for gas” had yet to reshape the electricity market – and oil power still made up 10 per cent of generation. Renewables made up just 2 per cent of the mix, almost exclusively from hydro.

Industrial processes released powerful greenhouse gases, such as halocarbons and nitrous oxide, with limited controls. Methane leaked from gas fields, landfill sites and coal mines.

By 2019, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions had been dramatically reduced, falling to 45 per cent below 1990 levels even as the economy grew by nearly 80 per cent.

Almost all of the fall in emissions between 1990 and 2019 had been due to major changes in just three areas, which together account for roughly 90 per cent of the decline:

  • Electricity supplies that no longer rely on coal (in round numbers, about 40 per cent);
  • Cleaner industry (40 per cent), including manufacturing and waste industry emissions controls on landfill methane, halocarbons and nitrous oxide (25 per cent), as well as more efficient industrial processes and a structural shift away from carbon-intensive manufacturing (15 per cent);
  • A smaller and cleaner fossil fuel supply industry, with lower methane emissions from coal mines and leaky gas distribution pipes (10 per cent).

Much slower progress had been made on the gas used to heat homes and offices, which by 2019 made up a fifth of the UK’s emissions, despite more efficient boilers and better insulation.

Meanwhile, almost no progress had been made in transport, which was by 2019 responsible for more than a quarter of the UK’s emissions and was the single largest contributor.

 

Emissions declined at the fastest rate on record in 2020

In 2020, the pattern of emissions reductions was very different to that seen in previous years, largely as a result of the unique impacts of the coronavirus pandemic.

Based on analysis of government energy use data, Carbon Brief estimates that UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 11 per cent in 2020. (See methodology note, below, for more details.)

This would be the largest percentage reduction since at least 1990, as the chart below shows, eclipsing the fall in the wake of the global financial crisis.

 

 

Looking at CO2 only, the estimated 13 per cent drop in 2020 would be the fastest annual decline on record in figures stretching back to 1850, excluding years with widespread industrial action.

The drop in 2020 marks a record eighth consecutive year of reductions in the UK.

(Notably, one of the largest recent annual increases came in 2010, as the economy rebounded after the financial crisis. The big jump in 2012 was due to a surge in coal power output, partly caused by cheap imports from the US in the wake of its shale-gas revolution.)

 

Oil demand crashed in the wake of Covid-19

Looking at the causes of the record fall in UK emissions in 2020, the largest contribution was from lower oil use, making up around 60 per cent of the overall reduction.

Oil demand crashed by 18 per cent year-on-year in 2020, largely as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Reduced petrol and diesel sales account for around 88 per cent of the fall in UK oil demand last year overall, with a further 4 per cent from the drop in domestic aviation. This contrasts with the situation up until 2019, where transport emissions had barely changed for 30 years.

The reduction in oil demand is clearly reflected in lower fuel duty receipts for 2020, which were down by a fifth compared to 2019 and by nearly three-fifths during the height of the first lockdown.

In total, this means that Covid-related lockdowns cost the Treasury around £5bn in lost revenues from petrol and diesel sales alone, as shown in the chart below.

 

 

Within the total for road transport fuels, different segments have been affected more or less strongly, as shown in the chart below. Cars saw the largest reductions in miles driven during the first three quarters of 2020, whereas deliveries by vans and trucks were less strongly hit.

 

 

Notably, the latest figures show government fuel-duty receipts remaining more than a fifth below normal levels during January 2021, as the UK’s Covid lockdowns continued.

Nevertheless, the fall in oil use can still be expected to reverse as restrictions unwind, because there have not been structural shifts to push transport away from its heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

The expected move towards greater home working and consequent reduced commuting by car may be counterbalanced by a reluctance to use public transport, for example, potentially meaning heavier use of private vehicles. Efforts to encourage cycling and walking will likely take time to bear fruit.

Meanwhile, although plug-in electric vehicles are seeing rapid growth and now account for more than 10 per cent of new UK car sales, they still make up less than 1 per cent of the 32m cars on the roads. This means they are, for now, having a negligible impact on transport emissions.

 

 

Gas use fell on warmer weather and cleaner power

The second-largest factor in 2020 was lower gas use, down 8 per cent due to a combination of warmer weather and reduced gas power output. More than half of UK CO2 emissions are now from gas.

Most of the fall in gas use – around three-fifths of the total – was due to lower gas-fired electricity generation. This is explored in more detail in the next section and was only partly Covid-related.

The other two-fifths of the fall in gas use was mainly down to reduced heating demand, as a result of warmer weather and Covid restrictions, which saw shops and hospitality closed for long periods.

In 2020, the number of “heating-degree days” – a measure of building heat demand – was 14 per cent below the long-term average for 1981-2010, as the chart below shows. But the 2020 figure – including a particularly mild January – was also 6 per cent lower than in 2019.

The long-term shift towards fewer heating degree days in the UK is due to the escalating impact of global warming. A year as warm as 2020 would historically have been expected only once every 90 years, whereas climate change has increased the likelihood to once every other year.

Nevertheless, the gas used to heat the majority of buildings in the UK will remain a major issue on the road to net-zero, as it still accounts for a fifth of overall emissions.

 

Renewable power outstripped fossil fuels for first time

The electricity sector is where the large majority of UK emissions cuts have occurred over the past decade, during which the country’s power supplies have been transformed.

In 2020, emissions in the power sector fell again, as its structural shift away from coal and gas continued. Lower coal power output pushed demand for the fuel down again, from already very low levels, meaning this made a relatively small contribution to the overall change in UK emissions.

Coal met just 1.6 per cent of generation and the UK went without coal power on 180 of the 366 days last year (49 per cent). This compares with just 83 days in 2019 and 21 days in 2018.

Last year also saw a marked 15 per cent drop in gas generation thanks to lower demand and another increase from renewables. The longer-term trend towards lower electricity demand continued and was accelerated by the impact of Covid lockdowns, with a 4 per cent reduction in 2020.

Since 2010, UK electricity demand has fallen by 58 terawatt hours (TWh, 15 per cent), an amount equivalent to more than two Hinkley Point C new nuclear plants (26TWh).

At the same time, the UK has significantly expanded its capacity of windfarms, solar parks and bioenergy plants, meaning the 43 per cent share of electricity generated by renewables was larger than from fossil fuels for the first time in 2020, as shown in the chart below.

Wind power alone contributed 25 per cent of electricity generation in 2020 after an 18 per cent annual increase, thanks to the completion of two new offshore windfarms, Hornsea One and East Anglia One. These added an extra 2 gigawatts (GW) and brought the total for offshore wind capacity to more than 10GW. The year was also windier than 2019, with average wind speeds up 10 per cent.

Bioenergy generated 13 per cent of electricity, rising by 6 per cent year-on-year. Note that the burning of wood pellets at Drax makes up only around a third of overall biomass electricity supplies.

A further third comes from smaller plants that burn plant biomass, most of which is also wood. These smaller plants – such as the Iggesund cardboard factory in Workington, Cumbria – typically rely on domestic sources and predominantly take low-value forestry streams or waste wood. The final third of biomass electricity comes from landfill gas, anaerobic digestion and sewage sludge.

Meanwhile, nuclear generation fell by 11 per cent due to prolonged outages at Dungeness, Hunterston and Hinkley Point B, but the sector still made up 16 per cent of the UK total. All but one of the UK’s remaining nuclear plants are due to retire by 2030.

 

Emissions likely to rebound in 2021 or 2022

The UK’s progress in cutting emissions has been built on structural shifts away from coal power and towards renewables, as well as a cleaner, less carbon-intensive industrial base.

Yet the reductions in 2020 were largely one-off and unique to the coronavirus pandemic, with lockdowns persisting through much of the year in the UK. As a result, the country’s economic output declined by an estimated 10 per cent, posting the biggest hit in the G20 group of nations.

The government’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast a bounceback in economic growth of 4 per cent this year and 7 per cent in 2022, naturally raising questions about the impact on emissions.

Since so much of the reduction in UK emissions last year was due to cars parked on driveways, an emissions rebound is also likely, though its timing and strength will depend on the pace of the recovery, the length of ongoing Covid restrictions and the impact of ongoing structural changes.

The chart below shows how UK greenhouse gas emissions have changed each year since 1990 (red dots) and the contributions to these changes from economic growth (grey bars) and from changes in the emissions associated with each unit of GDP (blue bars).

The chart also shows what would happen to emissions growth in 2021 and 2022, assuming GDP follows the OBR forecast and if the UK’s emissions intensity improves at the same rate as it has, on average, each year since 2000.

If these assumptions hold, then emissions might not increase this year – but 7 per cent GDP growth in 2022 would all but guarantee an emissions rebound. It is worth emphasising, however, that there are at least two reasons to doubt these assumptions will hold true.

First, the OBR’s GDP forecast has changed significantly since November and is likely to change again. Second, the chart shows that the UK’s emissions intensity failed to follow the historical trend during the recovery from the global financial crisis. Given the uniqueness of last year’s conditions, there is every reason to believe the trend could be broken again in the post-Covid recovery.

The likelihood of an emissions rebound as the economy recovers makes it all the more clear that the UK will need to focus on structural changes – rather than one-off events – if it is to meet its net-zero emissions target over the next 30 years.

 

UK CO2 emissions now lowest since 1879

As Carbon Brief has documented the decline in UK emissions over the past five years it has become traditional to compare the current total to the historical record.

In 2018, Carbon Brief analysis showed that UK CO2 emissions had fallen to levels last seen in 1890, during the late Victorian era, a point repeated in press reports and by ministers in parliament.

The record decline last year means the UK’s CO2 output in 2020 was the lowest since 1879, outside years affected by general strikes, as the chart below shows.

That year, Benjamin Disraeli was British prime minister, the country was at war with the Zulus and Thomas Edison had just applied to patent his lightbulb.

Intriguingly, the chart shows that the UK’s CO2 emissions in 2020 were lower than the amount released from coal burning alone in 1970. It also highlights how gas is the largest contributor to the total, with oil a close second and coal far behind after its near-elimination from the power sector.

Per capita UK emissions now close to world average

On a per-capita basis, given the UK population has more than doubled over the past century, CO2 emissions are now as low as they were in 1853.

At 4.5tCO2 per person, the average UK resident’s emissions are now roughly in line with the global average, as the chart below shows.

The UK’s per-capita emissions are now not only substantially lower than in the US, at 13.8tCO2 per person, but also the 7.5tCO2 for China. However, the UK’s per-capita figure remains around three times those for the average Indian.

At the global level, while the timing of net-zero is expected to vary between countries, overall human-caused greenhouse gas emissions must reach net-zero in order to stabilise the world’s temperature.

 

How Carbon Brief estimated UK emissions in 2020

Carbon Brief’s estimates of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are based on analysis of provisional energy use figures published by BEIS on 25 February 2021. The same approach has accurately estimated year-to-year changes in emissions in previous years (see table, below).

One large source of uncertainty is the provisional energy use data, which BEIS revises at the end of March each year and often again later on. Emissions data is also subject to revision in light of improvements in data collection and the methodology used.

The table above applies Carbon Brief’s emissions calculations to the latest energy use and emissions figures, which may differ from those published previously.

Another source of uncertainty is the fact that Carbon Brief’s approach to estimating the annual change in emissions differs from the methodology used for the BEIS provisional estimates. This is largely because BEIS has access to more granular data, which is not available for public use.

In Carbon Brief’s approach, UK CO2 emissions are estimated by multiplying the reported consumption of each fossil fuel, in energy terms, by its emissions factor. This is the amount of CO2 released for each unit of energy consumed and it varies for different fuels.

For example, diesel, petrol and jet fuel have different emissions factors and Carbon Brief’s analysis accounts for this where possible. This adjustment is based on the quantity of each fuel type used per year, drawn from separate BEIS figures covering oil, coal and gas.

Emissions from land use and forestry are assumed to remain at the same level as in the previous year. Carbon Brief also uses the same approach as the BEIS methodology for estimating the change in emissions from greenhouse gases other than CO2.

Note that the figures in this article are for emissions within the UK measured according to international guidelines. This means they exclude emissions associated with imported goods, including imported biomass, as well as the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published detailed comparisons between various different approaches to calculating UK emissions, on a territorial, consumption, environmental accounts or international accounting basis.

The UK’s consumption-based CO2 emissions increased between 1990 and 2007. Since then, however, they have fallen by a similar number of tonnes as emissions within the UK.

Bioenergy is a significant source of renewable energy in the UK and its climate benefits are disputed. Contrary to public perception, however, only around one quarter of bioenergy is imported.

International aviation is considered part of the UK’s carbon budgets and faces the prospect of tighter limits on its CO2 emissions. The international shipping sector has a target to at least halve its emissions by 2050, relative to 2008 levels.

This story was published with permission from Carbon Brief.

 

 

Source Eco Business

Bill Gates Sounds Alarm On Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption–Here’s Why Crypto Is Bad For Climate Change

Posted on by dishanth
Bill Gates Sounds Alarm On Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption–Here’s Why Crypto Is Bad For Climate Change

As bitcoin pushes toward new highs, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is sounding an alarm on the cryptocurrency’s strikingly high carbon footprint–which is only bound to worsen as mainstream adoption of the world’s largest cryptocurrency soars as expected.

 

KEY FACTS

“Bitcoin uses more electricity per transaction than any other method known to mankind,” Gates told the New York Times in a recent interview, calling himself a “bitcoin skeptic,” and adding that “it’s not a great climate thing.”

To Gates’ point, Alex de Vries, a data scientist at the Dutch Central Bank, estimates that each bitcoin transaction requires an average 300 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2)–equivalent to the carbon footprint produced by roughly 750,000 Visa swipes.

That’s because nearly all cryptocurrencies, bitcoin included, document every single transaction on what’s called a public ledger, which helps ensure transactions are transparent and safe from tampering, but continuously requires additional storage space, or “blocks.”

Blocks are created by miners, who are awarded bitcoin for their work, running code around the clock on special hardware called rigs–a process that consumes the same amount of energy annually (around 78.5 terawatt-hours) as nations like Chile, Austria and Finland.

Compounding the problem, mining networks are largely based in China, which sources much of its power from fossil fuels like coal, and as the cryptocurrency becomes more popular, its energy consumption has soared by a factor of 10 since just 2017.

“Adding cryptocurrencies to a portfolio will make it less green,” says Gerald Moser, the chief market strategist at Barclays Private Bank, adding that mining generates the same amount of electronic waste as countries like Luxembourg, given that mining equipment generally becomes obsolete every 18 months or so.

 

“Mining is a process that makes Bitcoin extremely energy-hungry by design, as the currency requires a huge amount of… calculations for its ultimate goal of processing financial transactions without intermediaries (peer-to-peer),” says de Vries, who created Digiconomist, a website that tracks bitcoin’s energy consumption, in 2014.

 

SURPRISING FACT

A single bitcoin transaction uses roughly 707.6 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy–equivalent to the power consumed by an average U.S. household over 24 days, according to Digiconomist. On a yearly basis, bitcoin consumes more energy than all but 38 countries, falling in line with countries like Finland, Chile and Austria.

 

TANGENT

China’s Inner Mongolia region plans to shut down its cryptocurrency mining projects by April after it failed to meet government-mandated goals for reduced energy consumption in 2019. The U.S. hasn’t cracked down federally, but some states–like New York and Washington–have issued restrictions on mining.

 

CHIEF CRITIC

“We believe that cryptocurrency will eventually be powered completely by clean power, eliminating its carbon footprint and driving adoption of renewables globally,” Square CEO Jack Dorsey said in December as the company announced the launch of its Bitcoin Clean Energy Investment Initiative, a $10 million fund for companies making bitcoin mining more energy-efficient.

 

 

By Jonathan Ponciano

 Source Forbes

Climate change: Jet fuel from waste ‘dramatically lowers’ emissions

Posted on by dishanth
Climate change: Jet fuel from waste ‘dramatically lowers’ emissions

A new approach to making jet fuel from food waste has the potential to massively reduce carbon emissions from flying, scientists say.

Currently, most of the food scraps that are used for energy around the world are converted into methane gas.

But researchers in the US have found a way of turning this waste into a type of paraffin that works in jet engines.

The authors of the new study say the fuel cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 165% compared to fossil energy.

This figure comes from the reduction in carbon emitted from airplanes plus the emissions that are avoided when food waste is diverted from landfill.

The aviation industry worldwide is facing some difficult decisions about how to combine increased demand for flying with the need to rapidly cut emissions from the sector.

 

Researchers at the NREL lab in the US distilling the new fuel. Source NREL

 

In the US, airlines currently use around 21 billion gallons of jet fuel every year, with demand expected to double by the middle of the century. At the same time, they have committed to cutting CO2 by 50%.

With the development of battery-powered airplanes for long haul flights a distant prospect at this point, much attention has focussed on replacing existing jet fuel with a sustainable alternative.

In fact the UK government has just announced a £15m competition to encourage companies to develop jet fuel from household waste products.

 

Making paraffin from wet-waste

Current methods of making green jet fuel are based on a similar approach to making biodiesel for cars and heavy goods vehicles.

It normally requires the use of virgin vegetable oils as well as waste fats, oil and grease to make the synthetic fuel.

At present, it is more economical to convert these oils and wastes into diesel as opposed to jet fuel – which requires an extra step in the process, driving up costs.

Now, researchers say that they have developed an alternative method able to turn food waste, animal manure and waste water into a competitive jet hydrocarbon.

Much of this material, termed wet-waste, is at present is turned into methane gas. However, the authors found a way of interrupting this process so it produced volatile fatty acids (VFA) instead of CH4.

The researchers were then able to use a form of catalytic conversion to upgrade the VFA to two different forms of sustainable paraffin.

 

Food waste is a global problem and a major cause of global warming emissions. Source GETTY IMAGES

 

When the two forms were combined they were able to blend 70% of the mixture with regular jet fuel, while still meeting the extremely strict quality criteria that Federal authorities impose on aircraft fuels.

“There’s exciting jet fuels that rely on burning trash and dry waste but this actually works for those wastes that have high water content, which we normally dispose of in landfill,” said Derek Vardon, a senior research engineer at the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the lead author on the study.

“Being able to show that you can take these volatile fatty acids, and that there’s a really elegant, simple way to turn it into jet fuel – that’s where I see the broader applicability of this one, and folks can continue to develop and refine it.”

The new fuel has a potentially significant impact on emissions as it not only limits the CO2 that comes from fossil sources used by the airlines, but it also gets rid of the methane that would bubble up from landfill if the waste food was just dumped.

Another major advantage is that this new fuel produces around 34% less soot than current standards. This is important because soot plays a key role in the formation of contrails from airplanes which adds a powerful warming effect to CO2 coming from the engines.

 

Emissions from flying are set to rise rapidly over the next two decades. Source ALEXANDER SHCHERBAK

 

“That’s where we see the most potential for this technology is that you’re preventing methane emissions, and dramatically lowering the carbon footprint of jet fuel. And you just can’t do that with fossil fuels without getting into things like offsets,” said Derek Vardon.

The research team say they are planning to scale up the production of the new fuel and aim to have test flights with Southwest Airlines in 2023.

Many environmental groups are sceptical about attempts to develop sustainable aviation fuels, believing that it amounts to green-washing. They argue that people should just fly less.

“Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet,” Derek Vardon says.

“So we do want to definitely emphasise that reduction is the most important and most significant change you can make. But there’s also pragmatism and need for aviation solutions now, so that’s where we want to strike a balance as we need a basket of measures, to really start getting our carbon footprint down in a variety of sectors, including aviation.”

The study has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Follow Matt on Twitter.

 

 

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

Source BBC