European Green Week

The European Green week 2008 is coming up in Brussels from June 3 to June 6 2008.

This year, Greenweek 2008 will take a closer look at the sustainable use of natural resources, focusing on waste management, sustainable consumption and production.

A long list of experts on all concerned aspects of sustainable living are coming to Brussels. Don’t miss it !

Further information can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenweek/home.html

Unforeseen effects of biofuels, again…

Flemish minister Van Brempt reacted to continuing reports on the environmental impact of biofuels. She announced that the use of biofuels on Flemish busses will be stopped immediately. Here the climate effect was not the issue, but the sustainability of the biofuel production.

This is not the first time a broader view on sustainability halts new bio-energy projects. Recently two permits for new palmoil electricity plants in Antwerp have been refused. The reasons were again that the palm plantations and the oil production were not sustainable.

This positive evolution ensures that biofuel projects in Belgium do not cause disasters somewhere else.

However, it seems like small disasters can happen closer to home with biofuel. Reports from the UK mention bacteria which love tanks in fuel stations. The large tanks contain deposits, dirt, water and now quantities of biofuel. This is more than enough for large cultures of bacteria to start forming. The solid parts of these cultures can clog car filters, tanks and can even cause breakdown and expensive repairs.

The UK authorities say the problem is mostly found in rural fuel outlets with only few customers. Regular cleaning of the tanks can solve this problem quite easily.

We did not hear any news on this kind of problem in Belgium, … yet.

Further information : http://www.mobielvlaanderen.be/persberichten/artikel.php?id=320

Making Carbon Visible

Overcoming barriers and unlocking actions to tackle climate change is a real challenge. Making carbon visible is one way amongst others.

The Vulcan Project is a NASA/DOE funded effort under the North American Carbon Program (NACP)to quantify North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions at space and time scales much finer than has been achieved in the past. The detail and scope of the Vulcan CO₂ inventory has made it a valuable tool for policymakers, demographers and social scientists.

Like a heart pulsation, this animation shows the intensity of carbon emissions over a year. Worth seeing!

Carbon tax vs Cap-and-Trade

Two recent papers highlight the old debate between lawmakers favoring a Cap & Trade system and economists preferring a Carbon Tax. This divide is now exacerbated by the fact that the international community need to clarify its position on the post-Kyoto commitments (after 2012).

• N. Gregory Mankiw, One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax, NY Times, 9/16, 2007
• Solomon, Deborah, Climate Change’s Great Divide, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2007

High performance building costs overestimated shows study

While many companies are increasingly integrating green building into their practice in order to foster their competitiveness, a new survey has found that most key players in real estate and construction overestimate the cost of green buildings by up to 300%.

.
The study, carried out by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and based on a global survey of 1,400 individuals active in the property industry, reveals that most property professionals assume building “green” means spending around 17% more on materials and construction. But this is more than three times more than the average extra cost for significantly reducing energy waste in buildings in most developed countries, claims the WBCSD.

“Key players in real estate and construction misjudge the costs and benefits of ‘green’ buildings, creating a major barrier to more energy efficiency in the building sector,” according to the WBCSD, a CEO-led grouping of 200 multinational corporations.

According to the study, among member states, Germany has the highest involvement of building professionals in green building projects, followed by Spain and France.

The Commission estimates that proper implementation of EU legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings “will permit a gain estimated at some 40 Mtoe (Megatons of oil equivalent) between now and 2020″. But most member states have delayed implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD - see our LinksDossier), citing a lack of professionals qualified to produce the building energy certificates required by the Directive.

Energy-efficiency buildings can be of a major importance for companies seeking increases in their profitability. It reduces operating costs and exposure to fossil fuel price volatility & higher water rates. Moreover, it favors employee productivity and health as well as provides faster lease-up rates and higher building values. Finally, it allows to credibly and publicy demonstrate environmental responsibility. Build green isn’t a sacrifice of profits but a real chance to gain competitive advantage in a carbon-constrained economy.

Competitive Advantage in a Warming Planet

“Quantify your company’s carbon footprint; assess your carbon-related risks and opportunities; adapt your business; and do it better than your rivals”. These are the main steps towards your company’s competitive advantage in a warming planet report Jonathan Lash, World Resources Institute president, and Fred Wellington, WRI senior financial analyst in the last issue of the famous Harvard Business Review.

.
This worth reading article is presented as a “guide for identifying the ways in which climate change can affect your business and for creating a strategy that will help you manage the risks and pursue the opportunities”.

The authors write that companies’ management of climate change is really different from other environmental issues from a risk perspective – it is not simply about regulatory compliance, potential liability from industrial accidents, and pollutant release mitigation. Climate risk is different because the impact is global, the problem is short-middle and long-term, and the harm is essentially irreversible. Moreover, it’s not simply a risk for energy-intensive industries such as utilities and chemical manufacturing.

Lash and Wellington describe six types of climate-related risk:

• regulatory risk: the impact of emissions caps or carbon taxes;
• supply chain risk: disruptions or price hikes in materials or energy, in many cases because of the huge distances such supplies are shipped;
• product and technology risk: companies’ varying ability to identify ways to exploit new market opportunities for climate-friendly products and services;
• litigation risk: the threat of lawsuits for significant carbon generators, similar to the suits faced in the tobacco, pharmaceutical, and asbestos industries;
• reputation risk: companies found guilty in the court of public opinion for selling or using products, processes, or practices that have a negative impact on the climate; and
• physical risk: The direct impacts of droughts, floods, storms, rising sea levels, etc..

In fact, the most important distinctions to be made when considering environmental risk assessment aren’t between sectors but within sectors, where a company’s climate-related risk mitigation and product strategies can create competitive advantage.

To download the full article, click here

Further reading:
1. Corporate responsibility can give competitive advantage (The Age)
2. How companies are turning climate to their advantage (CEE Food Industry)

“Carbon Neutral”: Oxford Dictionary 2006 Word of the Year

The publishers of the Oxford American Dictionary have selected the word of the year for 2006: “carbon neutral”. What a surprise…or perhaps it’s not! It’s true that we are facing an impressive “media buzz” on climate change issues since September 2006. This is what we call: “the Al Gore – Stern – Hulot - IPCC effect”.

In fact, the rise of carbon neutral reflects the growing importance of the green movement in the EU and the US. According to Erin McKean, editor in chief of the New American Oxford Dictionary,

“The increasing use of the word “carbon neutral” reflects not just the greening of our culture, but the greening of our language. When you see first graders trying to make their classrooms carbon neutral, you know the word has become mainstream.”

But what is “carbon neutral” and how do you get there? Being carbon neutral involves calculating your total climate-damaging carbon emissions, reducing them where possible, and then balancing your remaining emissions, often by purchasing a carbon offset: paying to plant new trees or investing in “green” technologies such as solar and wind power.

Let’s take an example. As every individual, you release tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which contribute to global warming when, for example, you drive, take a flight or heat up/cool down your house. The first thing to do is to reduce your climate footprint by adopting new daily behaviors which often are cost-saving: Drive less, walk and bike more, drive smoothly, take public transportation when it is possible, turn down the heat, switch of your lights when you don’t need them, use energy-saving light bulbs, buy local, [...].The next step is to evaluate your remaining greenhouse gases and balance them by choosing a carbon offset provider.

Last year has seen a real explosion in the voluntary offset programs. Today, we count at least 50 companies or non profit organizations offering the use of carbon calculators and proposing projects that reduce emissions and promote sustainable development. Once you have calculated your remaining emissions, you can expect to pay €10 - €30 per ton of CO2 offset, depending on the company you choose. But price should not be the only factor that influences your choice of company or non profit organisation. Here are the questions you must address:

• Does the company invest in projects that truly reduce emissions and at the same time benefit the local population and ecosystems?
• Are your emissions calculated correctly?
• How is your used?
• Does the company work transparently?

At the end, Carbon offsetting is surely a second best choice (cut down on your own emissions before any else) but it can genuinely reduce emissions. Even more importantly, it can help provide funds now to kick start the development of low carbon technologies through innovation, which will be vital in the more fundamental transition to low carbon societies.