Along the lines of the United Nations and other various bilateral or World organisations the failure at Copenhagen has shown yet again that a conglomerate of interests/nations just doesn´t work. Only bilateral action can be relied upon to make any meaningful steps to halting our march towards climate disaster.

It’s now time for individual nations, bilaterally or not, to make their own commitment to abating climate change and move forward by themselves.  Waiting on any world body to decide anything meaningful has no track record of working. Look at Rwanda, Darfur, Croatia etc  the UN has proven a political and economic hole that soaks up billions of dollars in money that could be better used creating jobs in the green economy.

The planet needs individual action not world in-action.  Globalisation for want of a better word is dead, experience shows us it doesn’t function.

•  United States has 5% of the worlds population but its people consum 25% of the worlds paper products and they leave 30% of the worlds waste.
• The average person comsumes 50% more then 50 years ago.
• They use 75,000 trees to print the New York Times Sunday edition.
• 60% of the materials taken from the earth are used in construction.
• The average car emits 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
• A latex condom takes 5 years to biodegrade.
• 10-15% of travellers made the decision based on ecotourism.
• Despite all the technology 95% of companies continue to use paper to save documents.
• Personal computers use 115,000, 000,000 pieces of paper per year.
• In all of the Amazon 2000 trees are destroyed each MINUTE; thats the equivalent of 7 footbal fields.
• By 2100 the worlds population will be triple what it is today.
• By 2050 its estimated that 40% of the Amazon will cease to exist. (2,400,000 of its 6,000,000 km2)

The numbers are easy to read and forget, its the responsibility of each of us to be conscious of our environmental impact. Conscious of the fact that our world is changing faster than we would like.

Instead of analysing these numbers do something for the planet, go to our website and support one of our projects deisgned to halt climate change and save our nature. Go to ColombiaVerde.Net and see what can be done.

Inform your friends about these numbers, maybe they can help too!

AEU´s = Australian Energy Units. With all the various type of carbon markets now functioning in many disperse parts of the world a Unit or Credit is always equal to 1 tonne of CO2. For Australia this is the unit being used to trade carbon and represents tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.

Each unit has a value, like a share, which moves up and down for various reasons. Just like shares too!! The current market price is A$17.00 per unit, or per tonne of carbon dioxide. Still with me??

Ok so each affected industry, those that emit large quantities of carbon, will be given a yearly limit of units. e.g. I am a coal producer that has been given a limit of 200 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions p/year by the govt. Now if indeed I emit 250 tonnes, the only way I can comply with my obligations is to buy the extra 50 tonnes in the Australian Energy Unit market (carbon credit market), at a cost.

Hence we now have a carbon market of buyers and sellers (sellers are those companies that emit less then the 200 tonne limit for example and therefore have “extra” units to sell). Effectively capitalising carbon dioxide emissions.

The politics and environmental arguments about the various merits of the Australain system I will leave for another time, at the very least Australia will now have a transparent system of managing polluters and producers of greenhouse gases.

It’s a start! Please email me if you would like to discuss the topic further… Or of course join the blog discussion.

Forgetting for a minute all the arguments about replacing food crops with bio-fuel crops and possible reducing world food production, let’s just focus on the pure economic considerations of Bio-fuels. Given that the cost of production for many bio-fuels is between $30-$80, you could be forgiven for thinking that without a crude oil price above the $70-80 dollar range; many bio-fuels are going to struggle to be competitive.

The one huge factor, we all need to take into account is government subsidies for bio-fuels and alternative energy. Industry experts believe alternative fuels like jatropha (used in aviation fuel, much like ethanol is used in gasoline for cars), are still 5 years away from a sufficient supply level to be an economically viable alternative, and until then will need government subsidies to compete on price with crude oil.

However, the Brazilian example with ethanol should prove the way forward ( Brazil is considered to have the world’s first sustainable bio-fuels economy and the bio-fuel industry leader , as after some years under government subsidies, the sugar cane (ethanol) industry is now not only self-sufficient in Brazil but is exporting much of its product to the United States and Europe.

This is the solution, short term government subsidies to achieve the long-term desired goal of energy self-sufficiency and sustainability. Eliminating the reliance on fossil fuels, and therefore much of the human environmental impact on the environment, is in my view the number one battle in the fight to win the climate change war. Lets be clear about one thing, this is a war…..both to change social, political, and environmental views and stimulate real change in how we move forward  from here.

There are many bio-fuels and other alternative energy options available out there. Companies like Terasol Energy are focusing on plant science and developing crops like ” jatropha (jatropha curcas) and next generation short cycle crops, such as crambe, that maximize the use of degraded or marginal lands that are otherwise unsuitable for food crop cultivation”…   All we need to do is support these efforts; directly or indirectly through our pressure on governments and local politicians to continue the push toward alternative energy and economically viable bio-fuels.

Sound like an environmental campaigner on a soapbox? Far from it; I am an ex-banker with bail-out fatigue. If we are going to support or bail-out anything these days it needs to be our future…..the green economy.

Bio-fuels are one part of the solution, regardless of the price of crude, we need to focus our efforts on sustainable alternatives which will provide the jobs and economic growth we so desperately need.  The high price of crude stimulated the search for alternatives….lets find the solutions before the price rises again.

Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan and many other countries already have some sort of emissions restriction system in place, we are all just waiting to see what the United States will do. Will it be a Cap and Trade system or a simpler tax on carbon emissions?  Looks like the cap and trade will win the day.

What is cap and trade ? Lets look at both terms

CAP = a limit placed on industry in terms of carbon emissions. e.g  a pulp mill is designated (normally by government) an emission limit of 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide per/year.

TRADE = If the above mentioned pulp mill only emits 80 tonnes during the year, that means it has 20 tonnes of CO2 left over to sell into the market, or trade. Of course the reverse would apply the pul mill emitted 130 tonnes of CO2, meaning it would need to buy back the excess 30 tonnes from the market, or trade them with another company that is under the cap.

Whereas a simple tax on carbon emissions means, all emitters of CO2 will pay a tax of some sort based on the amount of carbon emitted each year. I prefer this system as its far simpler and less open for, lets say coercion. However it appears the Obama government will continue with its plans for a Cap and Trade system after all.

In any case, be it Cap and Trade or a carbon tax, we are all about to come into a new era of environmental regulation and comliance.  It will begin by affecting the large polluters, but eventually will affect all of us.

Are you, your company, or your accountant ready for the new economy?

Green (not greed) is good!

The key words are indeed “CLIMATE CHANGE”, because that is what happens in the short term. We loose our well defined seasons, we get crazy weather patterns, colder winters, warmer summers, polar ice melts, and snow in Madrid etc  a global “WARMING” as such is not evident in every corner of the earth all the time.

The naysayers on climate change, latch onto this misnomer of short term warming and try to explain away dramatic climate changes as natural short term events, while pointing to recent cold weather in the US and Europe as being contradictory signs, and certainly not warming at all….

Let´s be a bit smarter, and understand that global warming is only the catch phrase for the Climate Change debate, focusing on semantics is only a distraction. “Warming” may not be visible in the short term, and as such may not be the indicator of climate change.

However, erratic weather patterns and polar ice melts are indeed signs of long-term climate shifts and a warming by degree´s in the earth´s core atmosphere….lets end the debate, lets start acting on real issue´s now.

When talking about the subject we should use the term climate change, because that fact is self-evident, the climate is indeed changing.

Stay Green…

As evidenced in Siberia recently, where a frozen peat the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

Scientists say this sort of event is irreversible and is clearly contributable to global warming. Recent similar news from the British Antarctic Society highlighting Antartic polar ice melt, massive fires in the Australian Southern states, and arctic sea lanes opening for the first time in centuries all point to the polar regions perhaps reaching or even passing these tipping points in the last few years.

It appears the world faces a very stark choice on climate change at a moment when the money and therefore political will to do so is ebbing away.

I think the only way we, as a society, can impact climate change, is to do it through economically viable means. Not only alternative energy, but clean energy is required, urgently and without all the red tape usually associated with alternatives of any kind.

Only by providing an economic incentive, not an economic burden, can we successfully address the world’s climate change problem.

Some regional tipping points may have been reached already; the scientific debate about the global tipping point is still raging…..when will it be reached (10 years, 50 years, the estimated are being lowered everyday), or have we already passed it?

Do something today, to help reduce your personal impact on the planet, reduce your energy use in anyway you can. There are many websites dedicated to the subject. In the meantime pressure your local or national governments to step up efforts to replace fossil fuels with clean energy alternatives. The economic times may not be ideal, but economic ups and downs generally last a few years, the last time the planet when through this type of “cycle” was over 10,000 years ago.

Think Green, Use Green Energy.

Are the developing nations of the world as good climate custodians as perhaps Germany, Denmark or the UK?

This therefore brings the question, if indeed we see a wealth shift from the U.S. and Europe to Asia, the Middle East and India, does this mean climate change efforts will be left out in the cold? It’s true that the developed world has polluted the planet the most in the last 50 years, but they have also led climate change efforts, and promoted global awareness of the environmental impact our energy use has on the planet.

Will countries like India and China continue these efforts or will they be a more concerned with economic issues, while climate change will only be considered when the citizens have a standard of living high enough to think about more than just daily survival. It’s true that individual disposable income has been the main financial force of climate change efforts to date. How long will it take before enough people in China reach this stage of relative financial freedom?

Not only do we need to worry about the environmental credibility of developing nations but also the ability of developed nations to continue supporting carbon reduction strategies in light of the global economic slowdown or crisis. It remains to be seen if the developed nations are indeed willing to contribute more financially, in terms of carbon emission concessions to Asia and Africa, while placing stricter environmental caps on their own industry, an industry already under immense pressure from the global slowdown, further reducing their global competitiveness.

A global wealth shift means a global environmental shift as well. Without developed nation’s efforts to slow the effects of global warming, who will lead the charge? Will Saudi Arabia make the same alternative energy decisions as perhaps Barack Obama?

As we approach or pass the climates “Tipping Point” in terms of global warming, what does a wealth shift from the U.S. to Asia mean for the planet and our future? I believe it means our efforts will be put back maybe 10 or 20 years, years which the planet and us as citizens just cannot afford to spare.

Am I, as an individual, willing to spend non-disposable income on the planet?  Or is that a luxury only afforded to wealthy countries from this point on?
Think Green!

Why? Because developed nations are largely responsible for the current levels of climate change through GHG emissions over the last 50 years or so.

The question is with climate change starting to reach or pass the “tipping point”, a point of accelerated consequences for the planet, and the next round of climate debate scheduled to be held in Denmark, December 2009.

Are we acting fast enough to make any difference?

“A vast expanse of western Siberia is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres – the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.” …guardian UK

The politicians’ can talk and talk, each one of them seeking to benefit/protect their own country from over-burdensome regulations, and maintain the competitive advantage in terms of global trade. E.g. India and China

With the global economic crisis threatening to shift global wealth from the US and Europe to the developing world of Asia, it remains to be seen if the developed nations are indeed willing to contribute more (essentially subsidizing Asia and Africa) financially in terms of carbon concessions to Asia/Africa and stricter environmental caps on their own industry, an industry already under immense pressure from the global slowdown.

Personally I think some/all of the politicking and self-interest needs to come second to a new global citizenship dedicated to the development of a global plan to combat climate change. We need to work together to achieve the changes required. Its not important where or by whom carbon emissions are emitted into the atmosphere, we all share the same atmosphere and a carbon reduction in Argentina has the same carbon reducing effect as a reduction in Australia, Japan, India or Germany.

Think globally, act locally!

Stay Green.

I remember thinking at the time, and now even more so, the only real issue is what happens to the waste after the uranium has been extracted. Doesn´t it remain radio-active for thousands of years ? and basically means where-ever it is dumped/stored (often government financed places in under-developed nations, desperate for money, regardless of the price) becomes a no go zone for the next 5 thousand years.

So given the debate among our politoco´s and business leaders, about the need for more nuclear energy, they state it is a clean energy!! (obviously only factoring in the input processes in that assessment, not the output), and that we need to ramp up the implementation of more nuclear power plants, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels; I wonder have we forgotten the consequences of nuclear power , the waste?

Are vested interests within the business community and governments controlling the debate and the final decisions or has the latest economic crisis blinded us all to the long term dire consequences with nuclear power. My opinion is that its allot of the first and some of the second…..

In terms of the global warming debate and the relevance of this, when as a society did we stop thinking about future generations and become so short sighted. So selfish!

There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that nuclear power is not the most cost effective energy producing alternative we have available and that the long-term costs are not being included in financial evaluations when it comes to this particular energy source.

There is allot of nonsense in the world at the moment, so say there is allot of nonsense when it comes to the debate on climate change. It is my humble opinion that one of the biggest pieces of decision making NONSENSE when it comes to alternative energy is the nuclear NONSENSE we are currently debating.

Take some time out of your busy schedule and write your local head honcho, whoever that maybe, about this issue. Lets be a little less selfish, a little less short sighted and think about how the decisions of today have an impact for tomorrow.

Stay Green!