Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Indigenous Seaweed Farming: Kwiakah First Nation

Indigenous Seaweed Farming: Kwiakah First Nation

Indigenous Seaweed Farming

There are several reasons why the Kwiakah are taking this approach. First, they want to ensure that kelp forests are available for future generations. Second, they want to protect the marine environment. Third, they want to create a sustainable economic future for their community.

The Kwiakah’s approach to indigenous seaweed farming is based on their traditional knowledge and values. The band has a long history of living off the land and sea. They know the importance of protecting the environment, and they are committed to creating a sustainable future for their community.

Kelp cultivation has a number of environmental benefits. Kelp forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to mitigate climate change. Kelp also provides a habitat for a variety of marine life. In addition, kelp can be used to produce various products, including food, fertilizer, and biofuel.

Kelp forests are facing a number of challenges, including climate change, pollution, and overfishing. Climate change is causing the ocean to become warmer and more acidic, which is making it difficult for kelp to grow. Pollution from runoff from farms and cities is also harming kelp forests. Overfishing is another major threat to kelp forests.

But despite these challenges, growing and harvesting kelp is worth the struggle for the economic benefits it provides.

 

Jobs and Economic Opportunities

The Kwiakah are using their unique approach to indigenous seaweed farming to create a sustainable future for their community. The band is repurposing an old fish farm into a kelp farm. The farm will be used to grow kelp for food, fertilizer, and biofuel. The Kwiakah are also working to educate the public about the importance of kelp forests and the need to conserve them.

Kelp cultivation creates jobs and economic opportunities for Indigenous communities. Indigenous seaweed farming is a relatively new industry, but it is growing rapidly. As the demand for kelp products increases, more people will be needed to grow, harvest, and process kelp. This could provide much-needed jobs for Indigenous communities, many of which have high unemployment rates.

On Eastern Long Island in New York, Shinnecock First Nation kelp farmers began planting kelp in December of 2021. They started small, with a manageable 20 spools of kelp and a year later, they had harvested 100 pounds. Most of the first batch was dried and sold as a natural fertilizer. They then donated excess spores to be used to help start other kelp farms. They have now expanded their operations from 20 spools of kelp to 200.

Since beginning operations, Shinnecock First Nation members have noticed that the water appears clearer, and wildlife are now returning. The group plans on hiring additional farmers from the nation bringing economic prosperity and stability to people that have been marginalized for too long.

 

Additional Thoughts

In addition to the environmental benefits of kelp cultivation, the Kwiakah’s approach also has the potential to create jobs and economic opportunities for Indigenous communities. Indigenous seaweed farming is a relatively new industry, but it is growing rapidly. As the demand for kelp products increases, more people will be needed to grow, harvest, and process kelp. This could provide much-needed jobs for Indigenous communities, many of which have high unemployment rates.

The Kwiakah’s approach to indigenous seaweed farming is an example of how Indigenous communities can use their traditional knowledge and values to create a sustainable future. By taking a slow, intentional approach and focusing on conservation, the Kwiakah ensure that kelp forests will be available for future generations. This is an important lesson for other Indigenous communities who are considering entering the kelp cultivation industry.

 

 


 

 

Source  Happy Eco News

ADB announces coal exit in draft energy policy

ADB announces coal exit in draft energy policy

After decades of pressure from environmental groups, the Asian Development Bank said it would ‘no longer finance new coal-fired capacity’. But activists charge that its new policy will pave the way for fossil gas development.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will cease financing new coal-fired power stations, it announced through its draft energy policy on Friday (7 May).

The multi-lateral lender’s new policy stated that it “will withdraw from financing new coal power and heat plants” and support its developing member-countries “to achieve a planned and rapid phase-out of coal in the Asia and Pacific region.”

According to the draft policy, the bank will not finance coal mining, oil and natural gas field exploration, drilling, or extraction activities.

In ADB’s last energy policy released in 2009, it said it would prioritise energy security and poverty reduction even if it meant tapping coal and natural gas-based power generation.

The revision of ADB’s policy comes 10 months after its management conceded that its energy policy “is no longer adequately aligned with the global consensus on climate change, ongoing global transformation of the energy sector, and operational priorities of ADB’s new Strategy 2030.”

 

While this new policy puts the brakes on coal financing, it still opens doors for fossil gas development.
Jasper Inventor, programme director, Greenpeace Southeast Asia

 

ADB’s independent evaluation department recommended in August 2020 that it formally withdraw from financing new coal-fired energy projects, a year after the bank’s former president Takehiko Nakao said that it was not yet ready to quit coal. The evaluation was based on an assessment of the bank’s energy policy over the past 10 years.

The evaluation report found that while the Philippines-headquartered bank has refrained from investing in coal-fired power plants, it now needs to align its policy to this practice and clarify its institutional position.

ADB last approved a coal power project eight years ago converting Pakistan’s Jamshoro plant to run on coal instead of heavy fuel oil.

It has also contributed to the funding of the 4,000 megawatt (MW) Tata Mundra coal-fired project in India, the 600MW Visayas Baseload and Masinloc coal project in the Philippines, and the 1,320MW Jamshoro coal project in Pakistan.

The bank declared in 2018 a shift to clean energy, backing US$2 billion worth of investment into renewable energy and energy efficiency, to meet a US$3 billion target for 2020. In March, it also set a target of US$80 billion worth of climate financing by 2030.

The draft new policy states that the lender will help developing nations to “mitigate the health and environmental impact of existing coal-fired power plants and district heating systems through financing of emission control technologies.”

 

Bank’s support for fossil gas remains 

Environmentalists see the new policy as a landmark decision, but are also pushing for the bank to declare that it will abandon funding of other fossil fuels in its final draft.

The draft policy serves as the basis for further consultations with ADB shareholders and the public until June 2021, before the finalised version will be submitted to the board of directors in October.

Glenn Ymata, energy campaigner of NGO Forum on ADB, said the bank is still gridlocked to liquified natural gas and gas finance, as well as harmful waste-to-energy incinerator projects, which all contribute to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are expecting that the ADB will continue involving the civil society in finalising the draft because of the climate, environmental, social, and human rights imperatives,” Ymata said.

Greenpeace added ADB must not provide a loophole and opportunities for businesses to impede the transition to renewable energy by replacing coal with fossil gas.

“ADB’s new policy to stop coal financing is a long-delayed and incremental move. Communities throughout Asia have struggled for decades to demand ADB to stop financing dirty energy. While this new policy puts the brakes on coal financing, it still opens doors for fossil gas development,” said Jasper Inventor, programme director, Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

The bank has spent US$4.7 billion financing gas projects in the region, the majority allocated for gas-fired power plants (44 per cent), exploration and extraction (21 per cent), according to the analysis by the Fossil Free ADB coalition and Oil Change International.

Gas expansion was found by scientists to have played a larger role in increasing global emissions than coal in every year between 2013 and 2019.


By Hannah Alcoseba Fernandez

Source Eco Business

Company directors in Singapore urged to take climate change seriously or risk personal liability

Company directors in Singapore urged to take climate change seriously or risk personal liability

The risks that climate change poses to companies are now undeniable. Company directors are expected to factor these risks in their business activities and decisions, or may be personally responsible, a new legal opinion warns.

 

Singapore corporate directors are required to consider climate change risks as part of their duties to act in the best interests of the company, and failure to do so can result in legal action for their companies and themselves personally. 

As climate change poses both physical and transitional risks to companies, directors should understand the activities of their companies that may impact, or be impacted by climate change and take necessary action to ensure that these issues are addressed. 

These are the main findings of a new legal opinion by a team of independent legal counsel, titled Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change under Singapore Law. A legal opinion is an opinion from lawyers issued in letter form expressing legal conclusions on a matter.

“Given the seriousness and public concern over climate change, directors of Singapore companies must be aware that they will incur criminal and civil liabilities if they do not inform themselves on how their companies impact or are impacted by climate change and factor these into their decisions as directors,” said Jeffrey Chan, senior director of TSMP Law Corporation and lead author of the opinion.

Commissioned by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI), the main aim of the legal opinion is to examine the legal basis for directors and trustees to take account of climate change risks, and societal responses to climate change risks.

 

The background to the new legal opinion is the landmark Hutley opinion written in 2016, which discusses how Australian law requires company directors to consider, disclose and respond to climate change.

The Hutley opinion rose to significance as it shifted the Australian company directors’ understanding of climate change as a financial risk issue rather than just an environmental issue. It was subsequently endorsed by the Australian monetary authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

Ernest Lim, associate professor of NUS Law and co-author of the opinion explained: “As the impacts of climate change on Singapore become more visible, and legislative and regulatory responses strengthen, this affects the standards of conduct directors must meet to fulfil their duties.”

“Just last year the Monetary Authority of Singapore issued environmental risk management guidelines, setting out their expectations that directors and senior management of financial institutions should maintain oversight of environmental risk management and be assigned specific responsibilities in this regard. The legal opinion draws on these and other developments to find that climate issues are within directors’ responsibilities,” Lim added.

As the governance of a company, directors must ensure that their companies comply with all regulatory prescriptions relating to climate change. At the minimum, they should disclose the risks that climate change poses to the business of their companies, as required by the Singapore Stock Exchange Listing Rules.

Directors of Singapore companies must also be prepared for the possibility that they may be taken to court to compel them to take action to ensure that the business activities of their companies do not contribute to climate change, or if such activities are in progress, to terminate such activities.

 

Transitional business models are an imperative

Apart from legal action, companies that do not have a transitional business model to achieve net zero by 2050 risk stranded assets and erosion of shareholder value, warned Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara, executive director and chief executive of Temasek International at the launch event of the legal opinion.

“If you don’t start today, you might find that your business model may no longer be relevant in the context of what a greener world may expect from companies,” he said.

Citing the example of the carbon pricing needed to limit global warming aligned with the Paris Agreement, he said that companies that do not factor in the possible increase in carbon tax will be greatly impacted down the road.

Although Singapore announced a carbon tax for this decade of S$5 to S$15 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, the government has said that they are going to reassess the carbon pricing.

“To achieve a 2 degree-world or even a 1.5-degree world, you need to have carbon pricing of between US$40-80 as of now, and then US$50-100 by 2030, assuming that you can half carbon emissions by then,” Pillay said.

“So if you’re not changing your business model to cater to a potential carbon pricing of that magnitude, you are going to see an erosion of value of your company. That could have serious implications across the different stakeholders that you’re engaged with,” he said.

In addition, nine out of 10 of the asset managers in the world have decided to put in place environmental, social and governance (ESG) frameworks to measure the performance of each company.

“Climate change risks are going to factor into the asset managers’ decisions about whether to invest in a company or not. If you’re not thinking about it, you might find that capital markets will punish you down the road,” he said.

“It’s very difficult for boards to consider all the risks that they face. But if you can get through the Covid-19 situation, you still have climate risk as the biggest existential problem with your business model. So directors have to come up with proper transition plans,” he warned.

 


How big data and open data can advance environmental sustainability

How big data and open data can advance environmental sustainability

The industrial revolution brought many advances, including improved living standards, for many (but not all) people around the globe. But it has also led to environmental degradation, and is responsible in part for the climate crisis we now find ourselves living in.

One potential contributor to solving this environmental crisis is the use of open environmental data, available to all, that can be analysed and used in ways that maximise sustainability. The only problem is that there are not, at present, global environmental open data resources – although many jurisdictions do have open data projects focused on the natural and built environments.

 

Open data and big data – the opportunities and challenges

Open data is just as it sounds: data sets collected by agencies that are made freely available to anyone that wants to use them. The Australian government has its own open data program available at data.gov.au. Data.gov.au has collected open data from all levels of government and all types of data. From an environment standpoint it covers everything from tree planting to garbage bin locations, collection schedules and contents.

It’s true this open data project doesn’t sound particularly sexy. But it’s the possibilities that this vast data resource opens up that are the most interesting aspects of the program. Suddenly, there’s information available about what’s happening in the local environment, all available in a format that is easily digestible by common data analytics programs.

 

The use cases for open data

Where governments can use open data is in developing policies designed to ensure better environmental regulation.

The potential for data collection is also limitless. It’s not just restricted to satellite data but is also open to everything from home weather stations, citizen activist activities like counting bird populations or tracking the growth of bush and forests, through to advanced “internet of things” sensors.

These IoT devices can capture just about any sort of data imaginable. Want to know how much sunlight fell on a particular field over a certain period of time? An IoT sensor can tell you.

This latest sensor technology offers real-time reporting of environmental data. And that data can be used to create open databases available for anyone to use.

Organisations can also use open data, and the IoT to track their own sustainability efforts. Miners, for example, can understand how much CO2 their operations are creating, and then use that data to create carbon offsets in a bid to meet net zero emissions – as many Australian organisations, including mining giants like BHP, have committed to.

A critical part of the open data movement, however, is the analytics associated with finding insights and answers about our environment.

 

The importance of analytics

Analytics works in two ways. First, it can derive insights into what has happened and why. But more importantly, it can also provide insights into what will happen, when it will happen, and what are the contributing factors for that particular outcome.

Business and government needs to use this open data, and analytics, to create new models around sustainability. That’s because until recently, the environment was treated as an externality – that is, something to be used (and abused) but which wasn’t factored into calculations about the bottom line.

With the shift towards sustainability, more and more companies are taking environmental inputs and outcomes into their ledger books, and calculating profit based on their environmental performance. These calculations are all powered by data, and the insights from advanced analytics.

Without data and analytics, we’re going to repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to environmental issues. The tragedy of the commons is real, but by using open data sets, we can map a future where business, government and the environment are moving forward for the betterment of the earth – and humanity.

 


 

By Paul Leahy, Country Manager, ANZ, Qlik

Source Eco Voice