Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Singapore renewable energy finance firm Positive Energy scales back as Covid stymies investment

Singapore renewable energy finance firm Positive Energy scales back as Covid stymies investment

The startup endured a tough 2020, shed staff and its co-founder relocated to the Netherlands as the firm’s only remaining employee. The startup’s struggles reflect the difficulties of renewables entrepreneurship in the Covid era.

Singapore-based renewable energy financing company Positive Energy has scaled back operations after enduring a difficult year impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Positive Energy is a digital platform that connects renewable energy projects to investors, and aims to simplify and speed-up renewable energy project financing. Founded in 2017, the Asia-focused firm makes money by taking a cut of deals made on its platform.

Having raised seed funding and launched the platform in 2019, the firm ran into difficulties after failing to secure further financing in 2020. The platform was suspended late last year, and the company let go employees in Singapore, where it was headquartered, as well as business heads in Vietnam and India.

Co-founder and chief finance officer Vincent Bakker joined another firm at the start of this year. Co-founder and chief executive Nicolas Payen is now the sole employee, and has relocated from Singapore to the Netherlands.

Positive Energy recently landed a waste-to-energy deal that saved the company, and the platform is up and running again, Payen told Eco-Business.

Positive Energy is not the only player in the renewables space to face difficulties over the last year. The pandemic has applied the brakes to development capital, and investors have pulled back in emerging markets, meaning fewer potential deals to run on Positive Energy’s platform. The Covid-induced fall in electricity demand has also slowed the planning and execution of energy deals.

Payen said that although 2021 still presented uncertainties, if Covid vaccinations are rolled out quickly, a return to peak energy demand would follow, and that would mean a need for additional clean energy generation and investment.

“We have seen a number of countries declare net zero ambitions, and a lot of investment will be oriented towards climate friendly technology. So the fundamentals of our business are very strong,” he said.

“We will see growing momentum among climate technology venture capitalists this year. If we get the capital support we need, we can play our role in the energy transition.”

Payen said he remained focused on the company’s mission — rethinking the energy funding process to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy assets globally.

 


Super-charged: How Australia’s biggest renewables project will change the energy game

Super-charged: How Australia’s biggest renewables project will change the energy game

Australia doesn’t yet export renewable energy. But the writing is on the wall: demand for Australia’s fossil fuel exports is likely to dwindle soon, and we must replace it at massive scale.

The proposed Asian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH) will be a huge step forward. It would eventually comprise 26,000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar energy, generated in Western Australia’s Pilbara region. Once complete, it would be Australia’s biggest renewable energy development, and potentially the largest of its type in the world.

Late last week, the federal government granted AREH “major project” status, meaning it will be fast-tracked through the approvals process. And in another significant step, the WA government this month gave environmental approval for the project’s first stage.

The mega-venture still faces sizeable challenges. But it promises to be a game-changer for Australia’s lucrative energy export business and will reshape the local renewables sector.

 

The projects promise enormous clean development opportunities for Australia’s north and will create thousands of jobs in Australia – especially in high-tech manufacturing.

 

Writing on the wall

Australia’s coal and gas exports have been growing for decades, and in 2019-20 reached almost A$110 billion. Much of this energy has fuelled Asia’s rapid growth. However, in recent weeks, two of Australia’s largest Asian energy markets announced big moves away from fossil fuels.

China adopted a target of net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2060. Japan will retire its fleet of old coal-fired generation by 2030, and will introduce legally binding targets to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

There are signs other Asian nations are also moving. Singapore has weak climate targets, but on Monday inked a deal with Australia to cooperate on low-emissions technologies.

 

Export evolution

The Asian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH) would be built across 6,500 square kilometres in the East Pilbara. The first stage involves a 10,000MW wind farm plus 5,000MW of solar generation – which the federal government says would make it the world’s largest wind and solar electricity plant.

The first stage would be capable of generating 100 terawatt-hours of renewable electricity each year. That equates to about 40 per cent of Australia’s total electricity generation in 2019. AREH recently expanded its longer term plans to 26,000MW.

The project is backed by a consortium of global renewables developers. Most energy from AREH will be used to produce green hydrogen and ammonia to be used both domestically, and for shipping to export markets. Some energy from AREH will also be exported as electricity, carried by an undersea electrical cable.

Another Australian project is also seeking to export renewable power to Asia. The 10-gigawatt Sun Cable project, backed by tech entrepreneur Mike Cannon-Brookes, involves a solar farm across 15,000 hectares near Tennant Creek, in the Northern Territory. Power generated will supply Darwin and be exported to Singapore via a 3,800km electrical cable along the sea floor.

The export markets for both AREH and Sun Cable are there. For example, both South Korea and Japan have indicated strong interest in Australia’s green hydrogen to decarbonise their economies and secure energy supplies.

But we should not underestimate the obstacles standing in the way of the projects. Both will require massive investment. Sun Cable, for example, will cost an estimated A$20 billion to build. The Asian Renewable Energy Hub will reportedly require as much as A$50 billion.

The projects are also at the cutting edge of technology, in terms of the assembly of the solar array, the wind turbines and batteries. Transport of hydrogen by ship is still at the pilot stage, and commercially unproven. And the projects must navigate complex approvals and regulatory processes, in both Australia and Asia.

But the projects have good strategic leadership, and a clear mission to put Australian green energy exports on the map.

 

Shifting winds

Together, the AREH and Sun Cable projects do not yet make a trend. But they clearly indicate a shift in mindset on the part of investors.

The projects promise enormous clean development opportunities for Australia’s north, and will create thousands of jobs in Australia – especially in high-tech manufacturing. As we look to rebuild the economy after the Covid-19 pandemic, such stimulus will be key. All up, AREH is expected to support more than 20,000 jobs during a decade of construction, and 3,000 jobs when fully operating.

To make smart policies and investments, the federal government must have a clear view of the future global economy. Patterns of energy consumption in Asia are shifting away from fossil fuels, and Australia’s exports must move with them.

John A. Mathews is Professor Emeritus in the Macquarie Business School at Macquarie University. Elizabeth Thurbon is Scientia Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences at UNSW Sydney. Hao Tan is Associate Professor with the Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle. Sung-Young Kim (김성용) is Senior Lecturer in the Macquarie School of Social Sciences at Macquarie University. This article was originally published on The Conversation.

 


 

By John Mathews and Elizabeth Thurbon and Hao Tan, Sung-Young Kim

Source: Eco Business

Has Covid-19 helped ease air pollution?

Has Covid-19 helped ease air pollution?

The two-month drop in pollution may have saved more lives in China than the global death toll from the Covid-19 virus, but it should not be considered a “silver lining” of the pandemic, an expert warns.

Air pollution has significantly decreased over China amid the economic slowdown caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, signaling unanticipated implications for human health.

“Given the huge amount of evidence that breathing dirty air contributes heavily to premature mortality, a natural — if admittedly strange — question is whether the lives saved from this reduction in pollution caused by economic disruption from Covid-19 exceeds the death toll from the virus itself,” Stanford University environmental resource economist Marshall Burke wrote in the global food, environment and economic dynamics blog, G-FEED.

“Even under very conservative assumptions, I think the answer is a clear ‘yes,’” he added.

Following China’s actions to control the spread of the virus via mandatory quarantine, NASA and European Space Agency (ESA) pollution monitoring satellites detected a reduction of nitrogen dioxide (NO2)—a gas emitted when fossil fuels such as oil, gas or coal are burned—over China.

Other analyses have reported a reduction of ground-based concentrations of fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, also a harmful pollutant.

Using this data, as well as estimates of the economic disruption caused by Covid-19, Burke ran some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the potential number of lives that could be saved by this drop in air pollution.

The two-month pollution drop, Burke estimates, has saved the lives of 4,000 children under the age of 5 and 73,000 adults over the age of 70 in China — significantly more than the global death toll from the Covid-19 pandemic at the time of calculation.

“Even under these more conservative assumptions,” Burke wrote, “the lives saved due to the pollution reductions are roughly 20x the number of lives that have been directly lost to the virus (based on March 8 estimates of 3,100 Chinese Covid-19 deaths, taken from here).”

The European Society of Cardiology has called air pollution itself a pandemic, responsible for shortening lives on a scale greater than malaria, war and violence, HIV/AIDS, and smoking combined. Air pollution disproportionally affects children under 5 and the elderly.

recent study estimated that air pollution caused an extra 8.8 million premature deaths globally per year, representing an average of a three-year shortening of life expectancy across the human population.

 

If there is any environmental lesson, it’s perhaps the useful reminder of the often-hidden health consequences of the status quo like the substantial costs that our current way of doing things exacts on our health and livelihoods absent a pandemic.

Marshall Burke, environmental resource economist, Stanford University

 

“About two-thirds of premature deaths are attributable to human-made air pollution, mainly from fossil fuel use; this goes up to 80 per cent in high-income countries,” Thomas Münzel, of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Department of Cardiology of the University Medical Centre in Mainz, Germany, said in a statement.

Images released by NASA show a dramatic reduction of NO2 during the quarantines in China (Feb. 10-25) compared to before the quarantines (Jan. 1-20). The NO2 pollution reduction appeared first near the city of Wuhan, where the virus is believed to have originated and a strict quarantine was put in place beginning on Jan. 23.

Though it is typical to see some decrease in air pollution as factories and businesses close during the Lunar New Year celebrations in China (which this year ran from the end of January into early February), researchers say they believe this is more than a holiday effect. The rates have not rebounded, as they would in a typical year.

“This is the first time I have seen such a dramatic drop-off over such a wide area for a specific event,” said Fei Liu, an air quality researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

While the economic disruption caused by Covid-19 might have reduced air pollution, Burke said we should not think of this as a “silver lining” or a “benefit” of the pandemic. The pandemic is harmful to health directly and the broader disruption it is causing — lost incomes, inability to receive care for non-Covid-19 illnesses and injuries, etc. — could have far-reaching implications.

“None of my calculations support any idea that pandemics are good for health,” Burke writes. “The effects I calculate just represent health benefits from the air pollution changes wrought by the economic disruption, and do not account for the many other short or long-term negative consequences of this disruption on health or other outcomes; these harms likely vastly exceed any health benefits from reduced air pollution.”

The pandemic is forcing many to experiment with different ways of doing things. Substituting remote and online work for commuting and travel, for example, reduces fossil fuel emissions. Some of these changes could have meaningful environmental benefits that could, in turn, benefit human health.

“If there is any environmental lesson, it’s perhaps the useful reminder of the often-hidden health consequences of the status quo … i.e. the substantial costs that our current way of doing things exacts on our health and livelihoods absent a pandemic,” Burke told Mongabay.

“I know my own carbon footprint is going to go down by probably 75 per cent this year. Hopefully, we can translate these experiments into more durable changes in how we do things, once (hopefully) the epidemic is under control.”

This story was published with permission from Mongabay.com.

 


 

Source: www.eco-business.com

Fossil fuel funding by world’s biggest banks has grown every year since the Paris Agreement, report finds

Fossil fuel funding by world’s biggest banks has grown every year since the Paris Agreement, report finds

America’s JP Morgan Chase has pumped more than the GDP of Finland into fossil fuels expansion since the Paris climate accord of 2015, while Japan’s and China’s mega banks have also been ‘failing miserably’ in their response to climate change over the last four years, a report from a coalition of NGOs has shown.

 

It’s as if the penny hasn’t dropped for the financial services industry that climate change is not only an increasingly disruptive environmental phenomenon, but a grave risk to the stability of the global economy.

Financial support for the fossil fuel industry has increased every year since the Paris Agreement came into being in 2015, according to a new report, Banking on Climate Change 2020, from a collective of environmental groups including Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack and Indigenous Environmental Network.

The Paris Agreement recommended that global warming be capped at 2°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change. To do so, scientists say greenhouse gas emissions, the bulk of which come from the burning of fossil fuels, must be slashed.

However, the report found that 35 global banks have not only been maintaining but expanding the fossil fuels sector, with more than US$2.7 trillion in investments made since 2015.

 

It is unconscionable for banks to be approving new loans and raising capital for the companies that are pushing hardest to increase carbon emissions.

Alison Kirsch, climate and energy leader researcher, Rainforest Action Network

 

United States-headquartered banks JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America have accounted for 30 per cent of all fossil fuel financing from the major global banks since the Paris accord.

JPMorgan Chase, which recently announced it will close one-fifth of its branches in the US in response to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, pumped US$269 billion—more than the gross domestic product of Finland—into the fossil fuels sector over the last four years, notably in fossil fuel expansion, Arctic oil and gas, offshore oil and gas, and fracking.

In Asia, Tokyo-headquartered Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) was the region’s biggest fossil fuel financer and the world’s sixth-biggest financier, investing US$119 billion since 2015.

 

The investments in fossil fuels made by the world’s biggest 35 banking institutions between 2016 and 2019. Source: Banking on climate change report.

 

Counting out coal

China’s mega banks were found to be world’s biggest financiers of coal—the single biggest driver of greenhouse gas emissions—since the Paris Agreement. China Construction Bank and Bank of China are the biggest bankers of coal mining, pumping US$25 billion into the sector between them. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China were the heaviest funders of coal power globally, investing US$42 billion combined, according to the report.

However, financial support for the carbon-intensive fuel is dwindling globally, the report noted. Finance to the top 30 coal mining companies fell by 6 per cent between 2016 and 2019, while finance to the top 30 coal power companies shrank by 13 per cent.

Though China’s banks are a noteable exception, the report found that 26 of the 35 banks in the report now have policies restricting coal finance, which has helped to push the finance sector away from coal. China’s big four banks do not have any climate policies in place.

A growing minority of the world’s biggest banks—now 16—now also restrict finance to some oil and gas sectors. The report said European banks have the toughest fossil fuel lending restrictions. France’s Crédit Agricole, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Italy’s Unicredit are said to have the most progressive climate policies.

 

Banking on Paris

The majority of the world’s top banks are signatories of frameworks such as the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Banking and the Equator Principles, which commit banks to align their business strategies with the Paris Agreement.

But because potential emissions from the coal, oil and natural gas already in production exhaust the carbon budget for the 2°C warming limit of the Paris Agreement, any bank that supports the further expansion of the fossil fuel sector is Paris-incompatible, the report noted.

Alison Kirsch, climate and energy leader researcher, Rainforest Action Network, said that it is “crystal clear” that banks are “failing miserably” in their response to climate change and the decarbonisation of the global economy.

“As the toll of death and destruction from unprecedented floods, droughts, fires and storms grows, it is unconscionable and outrageous for banks to be approving new loans and raising capital for the companies that are pushing hardest to increase carbon emissions,” she said.

The report emerges at a time when the ongoing Covid-19 coronavirus is threatening to derail investment in renewable energy, according to the International Energy Agency.

 


Source: https://www.eco-business.com/

Trump claims climate change is important to him!

Trump claims climate change is important to him!

United States president Donald Trump has described climate change as important to him, saying clean air and clean water were top of his environmental agenda.

“Climate change is very important to me,” the US president said, speaking at a press conference ahead of NATO’s 70th-anniversary summit in London yesterday. “I believe very strongly in very crystal-clear, clean water and clean air. That’s a big part of climate change.”

Asked whether he was not concerned about rising seas, Trump changed the subject, saying he was “also concerned about nuclear proliferation.”

Notorious for his attempts to mock global warming and international mitigation efforts, Trump has often demonstrated a lack of knowledge and awareness on climate change, which denotes a long-term change in the earth’s climate with impacts on average weather conditions, encompassing changes in temperature, shifts in precipitation, increased likelihood of severe weather events.

When severe cold and record amounts of snow swept across the nation’s east coast two years ago, the president confused weather with climate, calling for global warming to counteract the icy temperatures.

Trump once even dismissed climate change as a hoax created by the Chinese to destroy American jobs.

Two years ago, Trump announced he would remove the United States—the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases—from the Paris Agreement signed and ratified by Obama, citing concerns that the accord aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions could undermine the nation’s economy.

In April this year, his administration followed through on Trump’s statement of intent, beginning the formal process of withdrawing from the climate deal.

The US’ original emissions reduction pledge set down in the accord accounted for a fifth of the global emissions to be avoided by 2030. This means the nation’s absence from international efforts to cut carbon emissions would help push the global temperature rise to well beyond 2C.

Trump has made a name for himself as a vigorous opponent to environmental protection, steadily rolling back conservation laws implemented by the previous administration, including pollution regulations for drilling companiesrules protecting wetlands and streams, and other regulations on air pollution, toxic substances and the safeguarding of endangered species.

Last year, the US’ carbon emissions saw the largest spike in years, driven by the nation’s soaring power demand, growing fuel consumption and increased air travel.

Experts have pointed out that climate change will hurt the American economy, put society at risk and threaten national security, with wildfires, extreme heat, droughts and coastal flooding expected to cause growing losses to infrastructure and impede economic growth, particularly in regions dependent on tourism and agriculture, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some of the nation’s biggest cities, including New York, Miami and Boston, rank among those vulnerable to coastal flooding as sea levels rise. In New York alone, over 400,000 people are projected to be at risk of being affected by rising seas by 2050.

At yesterday’s press conference, Trump also voiced his concerns over plastic pollution, which is already impacting marine life off the country’s coast, saying “certain countries are dumping unlimited loads of things in the ocean.”

A recent report revealed the US to be the biggest driver of the world’s waste crisis. The country generates 12 per cent of global municipal waste—three times the global average—but adequately recycles only 35 per cent, the study showed.

 


 

By Tim Daubach

www.eco-business.com

Got eco anxiety? Here are 10 reasons for climate optimism.

Got eco anxiety? Here are 10 reasons for climate optimism.

Last week, a report from the World Meteorological Organisation found that the world is warming faster than previously believed, and could warm by between three to five degrees Celsius by the end of the century—that’s almost three times the goal set by the Paris climate agreement.

But amid the doom and gloom, there are reasons for us to be optimistic. Even Assaad Razzouk, the outspoken chief executive of Singapore-based renewables firm Sindicatum, has started to believe there is hope for the planet. On his podcast Angry Clean Energy Guy, recorded on Thursday, Razzouk highlighted 10 reasons for climate optimism. Those reasons are as follows:

 

Climate action is intensifying

The corporate response to climate change is growing ever stronger, and governments are finally responding too, prompted by a global upswell in climate activism.

“Do you think the point of the Extinction Rebellion protests is to close roads? Or that Greta Thunberg travels by boat because she wants to save fuel? Of course not. The point is to increase awareness about the climate emergency. And, boy, have they been successful,” said Razzouk on his podcast.

 

Cost reductions [of renewables] have basically taken fossil fuel power out of the game. It’s just that some countries don’t know that yet.
Assaad Razzouk, chief executive, Sindicatum Sustainable Resources

 

Among the big corporates to think harder about reducing their impact are Kellogg’s, the cereal company, which aims to train 500,000 American farmers in techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions, and the big tech giants Facebook, Google and Apple, which want to only use renewables to power their energy-guzzling data centres.

In Southeast Asia, the only region in the world where coal is growing in the energy mix, the regional bloc’s three biggest banks, UOB, DBS and OCBC, all declared in an unprecedented 11 days for corporate climate action in May that they would all stop funding new coal-fired power plants.

As for consumers, the demand for green products is another reason for the eco anxious to quit the Xanax. According to study by market research group Nielsen, a quarter of all store sales in the United States will be from sustainable products by 2021.

Meanwhile, governments including Ireland, the United Kingdom, California and the European Union, which recently declared a state of climate emergency, have taken bold leaps to curb emissions. In Asia Pacific, the leader is New Zealand. The government has passed a law to cut carbon emissions to almost zero by 2050, go 100 per cent renewables by 2035, plant one billion trees and invest $15 billion in transit, biking and walking infrastructure.

Oil and gas cost of capital is rising

The cost of capital for oil and gas is growing, which has meant that the market value of America’s energy sector not only fell this year, but the whole sector is now worth less than Apple’s stock, Razzouk said.

He pointed to the downgrading of the credit rating of Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s biggest (mostly oil) energy companies, as a result of the rising cost of gas extraction, and the nose-dive in market value of fracking giant Chesapeake over the last decade (down 98 per cent), as signs that the era of fossil fuels dominance is coming to an end.

“Over the next few years, Big Oil will find it increasingly hard and increasingly expensive to finance new projects,” said Razzouk.

Renewables costs are still falling

The costs for renewable energy tech fell to a record low last year, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency, with the biggest fall in solar, down by 26 per cent.

Razzouk pointed to bids to build solar parks in Dubai, which have seen costs plummet by 71 per cent in five years, and a 31 per cent fall in the cost of offshore wind—now the cleanest and cheapest baseload power in the world—in the UK in two years, as evidence that costs are continuing to fall for clean energy.

“These cost reductions have basically taken fossil fuel power out of the game. It’s just that some countries don’t know that yet,” said Razzouk.

Transport is going electric—fast

The number of public charging points for electric vehicles has increased five-fold in four years, from less than 200,000 in 2015 to 1m in 2019, the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 87 per cent in a decade, and cities are being redesigned away for electric vehicles, Razzouk noted.

And automative manufacturers have finally caught on. According to Razzouk’s calculations, 84 models are being rolled out over the next two years from the likes of Volkswagen (VW), Audi, Porsche, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Range Rover and Jaguar, and automakers such as BMW, VW, General Motors and Peugeot are now offering electric scooters and electric bicycles, not just cars.

 

We are winning [the climate fight]. For now, slowly, slowly, but soon we’re going to be winning all of a sudden.

 

“The transition to electric cars would have been a lot less painful for the car industry if it had spent the last decade preparing for it instead of fighting it. So today they’re laying off people when they shouldn’t have, had they been thinking.”

But the electric mobility revolution is not just about cars. Taiwanese electric bicycle firm Giant is selling 600,000 units a year, while there are 100 different electric planes in development.

Perhaps most promising of all is that new technology enables electric vehicles to supply energy back to the grid, rather than suck from it.

“There’s an emerging technology called vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and that allows a plug-in vehicle to act as a form of energy storage. So the batteries in your car can be used to let electricity flow from the car to the distribution network and back,” Razzouk said.

Climate litigation

According to Columbia Law School, there are 1,640 lawsuits fighting fossil fuel companies and governments over climate change right now.

“Even though we are in a planetary emergency, we are fighting back,” said Razzouk, who noted that climate lawsuits are exposing the “misinformation and obfuscation” of Big Oil, which has long known of the impact of their operations on the climate.

“The wheels of justice are slow and sadly, justice maybe cannot be guaranteed to prevail in some countries, but the sheer number of lawsuits and the dedication, commitment, and passion I’ve seen from those launching them is a big cause for optimism,” Razzouk said.

Banks are waking up to the climate reality

Beyond credit ratings agency Moody’s considering stripping Exxon Mobil of its triple-A rating, the European Central Bank is considering including climate considerations in how it conducts its monetary policy. “Now that would be a huge move because central banks are by far the biggest influence on financial markets,” said Razzouk.

Monetary policies, Razzouk explained, have an implicit “carbon bias” because carbon exposure is almost irrelevent for normal credit ratings. If that changed, financial markets would stop mispricing climate risks—which would be a huge lever for change, he said.

The war on plastic

A report from the International Energy Agency, released in October 2018, found that plastic and other petrochemicals are becoming the biggest driver of global oil demand—ahead of cars, planes and trucks—and will make up nearly half of oil demand by 2050.

But the global fight against plastic pollution could put a big dent in oil demand, Razzouk said.

This drop in demand will have consequences for the cost of capital of oil and gas companies. This means that they will be able to do no more new oil and gas exploration and close down, gradually, Razzouk suggested.

Reforestation

Though forest fires have raged in Indonesia, the Amazon, California and Australia this year, many countries around the world are building forest fortresses to lock in carbon and safeguard water resources, and there are now more protected nature and marine areas than at any time in history.

China, India and Pakistan are rolling out massive tree-planting schemes, Ethiopia recently planted 350 million trees in a single day as part of an initiative to plant four billion trees, and in Western Europe, forests have grown by an area larger than Switzerland in a decade.

Peak emissions

After increasing at the fastest rate for seven years in 2018, global carbon emissions are set to rise much more slowly this year, according to data from the Global Carbon Project.

The global economy grew by 3.5 percent per year, but emissions grew by only 0.8 per cent per year, Razzouk pointed out. “Now that’s still a disaster because they [emissions] are growing. But the growth phase is slower. We’ve seen a 1.5 per cent increase in 2017, 2.1 per cent in 2018 and now it’s dropped to 0.8 per cent.”

“One more push by all of us, and we will set off on a downward slope for emissions,” he said.

Citizen activism

Even just a year ago, it couldn’t reasonably be believed that much of the world really cared about the climate crisis, Razzouk said.

Now though, he said, he sees much more commitment to tackle the climate emergency.

“We have activist lawyers, activist teachers, activist unionists, activist engineers, activist consultants, and activist politicians. We even have some activist bankers. We even have some activist oil and gas professionals working at changing the oil and gas fat cats from the inside. And most important of all, we have activist citizens everywhere I look.”

Clilmate solutions are available, and slowly but surely, they are being implemented, and soon they will be as ubiquitous as our mobile phones, he said.

“We are winning [the climate fight]. For now, slowly, slowly, but soon we’re going to be winning all of a sudden,” said  Razzouk, who started his podcast by declaring that a friend recently unfollowed him on Twitter, because he found his tweets to be “too depressing.”

Singapore-based renewables executive Assaad Razzouk is the creator of the Angry Clean Energy Guy podcast series, and has 137,000 followers of his environment-themed Twitter account.

 


 

By Robin Hicks

www.eco-business.com