treedoo blog

Quand l'Europe se chauffera au soleil du Sahara...

Sebimus — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:56:00 +0100

Convertir le soleil des déserts en électricité : c'est autour de cet ambitieux projet que devait se constituer, lundi 13 juillet, à Munich, un consortium sous l'égide du réassureur allemand Munich Re. Les entreprises fondatrices - parmi lesquelles le conglomérat Siemens, les électriciens Eon et RWE, et la Deutsche Bank - réfléchissent à la construction d'une centrale solaire géante, dans le nord de l'Afrique et du Proche-Orient, qui permettrait d'approvisionner l'Europe en énergie propre. Cette initiative industrielle s'appuie sur le projet Desertec, développé par la branche allemande du Club de Rome, une organisation non gouvernementale spécialisée dans le développement durable. D'après ce concept, des installations solaires thermiques réparties sur plusieurs milliers de kilomètres carrés en plein désert pourraient couvrir jusqu'à 15 % des besoins en électricité européens d'ici à 2025, avec des premières livraisons dans dix ans. Coût estimé : 400 milliards d'euros sur une période de quarante ans, selon les calculs du Centre aéronautique et spatial allemand (DLR). L'idée est fortement soutenue par le gouvernement allemand : « Ce projet visionnaire présente un fort potentiel pour accroître la coopération régionale à travers toute l'Afrique du Nord, entre des Etats qui ont toujours des frontières fermées », a défendu, vendredi 10 juillet, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, le ministre des affaires étrangères. L'enthousiasme est même plus large. Lors d'une récente conférence réunissant des cadres du secteur énergétique, la chancelière allemande, Angela Merkel, et le président de la Commission européenne, José Manuel Barroso, ont eux aussi fait l'éloge de l'initiative Desertec. Pour les nouveaux partenaires industriels, il s'agit maintenant d'en étudier la faisabilité. « Non pas tant d'un point de vue technique que politique et économique », précise-t-on chez Munich Re. L'un des principaux défis consiste à sécuriser ces investissements colossaux, notamment grâce à d'éventuelles aides publiques, allemandes ou européennes. Sous forme de prix garantis, par exemple. « Nous espérons pouvoir présenter des plans concrets d'ici deux à trois ans », dit-on chez l'assureur. Dans l'intervalle, le consortium souhaite s'élargir à d'autres entreprises européennes et du bassin méditerranéen. Sont d'ores et déjà associés aux négociations le conglomérat suisse ABB, l'espagnol Abengoa Solar, ou encore le groupe algérien Cevital. A ce stade, le projet soulève encore beaucoup de questions. Concernant l'implantation des sites d'abord. Sceptiques, certains industriels ont pointé le danger de construire des centrales dans des régions aux régimes politiques instables. « On pourrait avoir le même problème de dépendance qu'avec le pétrole », a, par exemple, estimé Frank Asbeck, le PDG du fabricant allemand de panneaux solaires Solarworld. Et que se passera-t-il en cas de guerre ou d'attaques terroristes ? s'est interrogé à son tour le patron de l'électricien Vattenfall, Lars Josefsson. « Tout ne sera pas regroupé au même endroit, rétorque Hans Müller-Steinhagen, directeur du DLR, étroitement associé au projet. Le concept initial prévoit de répartir les installations solaires dans différents pays et d'exploiter pas moins d'une vingtaine de lignes à haute tension. Ainsi on minimise les risques. » Outre le débat géopolitique, le projet prête aussi le flanc à la critique au plan éthique, puisqu'il vise à exporter une partie de l'électricité produite vers l'Europe. « Le problème prioritaire, c'est de répondre aux besoins énergétiques des pays du Sud », souligne Houda Ben Jannet Allal, directrice du développement stratégique à l'Observatoire méditerranéen de l'énergie (OME), qui regroupe les principales compagnies énergétiques de la région. A l'exception de l'Algérie, de l'Egypte et de la Libye, qui disposent de ressources fossiles, les pays du Sud de la Méditerranée sont en situation de dépendance énergétique. Selon certains scénarios, leurs besoins vont augmenter de 70 % dans les vingt ans à venir. Avec un fort impact sur les émissions de CO2 de ces Etats, déjà parmi les plus menacés par les risques de désertification et de pénurie d'eau liés au changement climatique. Même si le soleil est une ressource illimitée, fait remarquer Mme Ben Jannet Allal, les sites les mieux adaptés à l'installation de centrales ne seront plus disponibles pour ces pays, le jour où ils posséderont leur propre technologie solaire. L'OME considère que Desertec doit s'inscrire dans un programme plus fédérateur, privilégiant l'efficacité énergétique dans les pays du Sud et mixant toutes les filières renouvelables, photovoltaïque et éolien compris. A l'instar du Plan solaire Méditerranée qui, dans le cadre de l'Union pour la Méditerranée (UPM), prévoit de produire dans cette zone 20 gigawatts à partir d'énergies renouvelables, à l'horizon 2020. Les responsables du consortium affirment, au contraire, poursuivre une stratégie qui profite à tout le monde. « Cela ne peut fonctionner que dans un rapport de réciprocité », expliquait, fin juin, Peter Höppe, en charge du département de recherche sur les risques naturels chez Munich Re. « Selon moi, les centrales devront d'abord servir à combler les besoins de ces pays. L'Europe ne serait approvisionnée qu'ensuite », précisait-il. D'autant que le potentiel énergétique des déserts du nord de l'Afrique est considérable. Selon les experts de Siemens, une surface de 300 kilomètres carrés au Sahara, équipée de miroirs paraboliques, suffirait théoriquement à couvrir les besoins en énergie de la planète entière.

Source : Le Monde

Desertec, un projet réaliste, mais qui a un coût élevé

Sebimus — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:53:00 +0100

Indépendamment de son coût – 400 milliards d'euros – et des accords géopolitiques qu'il implique, le projet Desertec n'est pas irréaliste. "Les technologies sont connues depuis plus de vingt ans et elles ont démontré leur fiabilité", observe Philippe Malbranche, responsable des programmes de recherche à l'Institut national de l'énergie solaire (INES) de Savoie, qui juge "le concept extrêmement intéressant". Le dispositif prévu comprend, d'abord, des centrales thermiques solaires à concentration. Celles-ci sont formées de batteries de miroirs – ils peuvent être alignés sur plusieurs kilomètres – qui, de forme cylindro-parabolique, réfléchissent la lumière du soleil dont ils suivent le déplacement, en la concentrant vers un tube contenant de l'huile de synthèse. Porté à 400°C, ce fluide caloporteur chauffe des circuits d'eau, générant ainsi de la vapeur qui actionne des turbines produisant de l'électricité. L'excès de chaleur emmagasiné durant la journée est suffisant pour faire tourner les turbines une partie de la nuit ou répondre à une pointe de consommation. La plus grande centrale thermique solaire au monde, en service depuis le milieu des années 1980, se trouve dans le désert de Californie, à Kramer Junction. D'autres installations ont été récemment créées, dans le Nevada et en Espagne, à Almeria. "CONCURRENTIEL D'ICI À DIX ANS" Le système nécessite, ensuite, des lignes de transmission de courant continu haute tension. De telles liaisons, qui peuvent être aériennes ou enterrées – dans le cas présent, posées au fond de la Méditerranée –, sont déjà exploitées depuis longtemps, la plus longue du monde (1 400km) reliant le Mozambique à l'Afrique du Sud. L'électricité d'origine thermosolaire a toutefois un défaut, souligne M. Malbranche : son prix. Le kilowattheure produit coûte aujourd'hui entre 10 et 20 centimes d'euros, contre de 3 à 5 centimes d'euros pour le kilowattheure nucléaire ou fossile. Des progrès technologiques (échangeurs thermiques plus performants, miroirs plus simples), ainsi qu'une fabrication en série, pourraient cependant faire baisser la facture. Le réassureur Munich Re, qui pilote le consortium autour du projet Desertec, estime, de son côté, que "le courant produit pourrait être concurrentiel d'ici à dix à quinze ans".

Source :Le Monde

Les réseaux intelligents révolutionnent l'électricité

Sebimus — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:50:00 +0100

Ce mode de gestion permet de réduire la consommation et de multiplier les sources d'énergies renouvelables

La révolution de l'électricité est en marche. Les réseaux électriques intelligents, ou «smart grids», s'apprêtent à bouleverser notre manière de produire, de distribuer et de consommer l'énergie. L'enjeu écologique est triple : les smart grids sont le sésame pour réduire la consommation globale d'électricité, limiter le recours aux centrales les plus polluantes et intégrer des millions de sources d'énergies renouvelables.

Ce mode de gestion permet de réduire la consommation et de multiplier les sources d'énergies renouvelables

A la clé: des investissements colossaux qui attirent les géants de l'électricité, mais aussi d'Internet, de l'informatique ou du secteur des télécommunications. Car la recette du smart grid, c'est le mariage de tous ces réseaux pour tisser une toile gigantesque aux multiples ramifications.

Imaginez: au lieu de consommer en aveugle une électricité dont la quantité et le coût n'apparaissent qu'à la réception de la facture, vous disposez d'un compteur «intelligent». Ce tableau de commandes communique en temps réel la consommation de chaque appareil, non seulement à l'abonné, mais aussi au fournisseur d'électricité. Surtout, il permet de programmer l'installation ou de la gérer à distance, par Internet ou via un mobile.

«Le simple fait d'informer les ménages sur le détail de leur consommation leur fait réaliser entre 5% et 10% d'économies, indique Jean-Marc Ollagnier, responsable pour l'Europe du secteur de l'énergie au cabinet de conseil Accenture. Avec les compteurs intelligents, on pourra aller beaucoup plus loin. Les particuliers, voire les fournisseurs eux-mêmes, seront capables d'arrêter ou de démarrer chaque appareil individuellement selon l'état du réseau et le prix de l'électricité.»

Les consommateurs joueront-ils le jeu d'un réseau qui entre à ce point dans le détail de leur vie privée? «Le danger, ce n'est pas Big Brother, c'est nos émissions de CO2», répond Laurent Blanchard, vice-président pour l'Europe de l'équipementier américain des télécommunications Cisco. L'intérêt écologique de ces économies est majeur : la production d'électricité est l'un des premiers secteurs d'émission de CO2 dans le monde.

QUI DOIT PAYER?

Et les smart grids devraient permettre d'éviter les pics de consommation, qui obligent à mettre en route les centrales électriques de secours, souvent les plus polluantes. Ce en débranchant provisoirement, dans des millions de logements, les appareils dispensables, mais aussi en donnant aux centres de distribution les moyens d'une gestion plus fine.

«L'enjeu est de mieux synchroniser l'offre et la demande d'électricité, sachant qu'on ne peut pas stocker celle-ci, explique M.Blanchard Il faut, à chaque étape de la distribution, avoir la même approche que dans la gestion d'Internet : réorienter les flux, couper des pans entiers du réseau, en fonction des informations qui remontent.»

Projetons-nous encore un peu plus loin, quand des millions de bâtiments, équipés de panneaux solaires, d'éoliennes ou de pompes à chaleur, auront transformé particuliers et entreprises en producteurs d'électricité. «On ne pourra pas faire que des grands champs d'éoliennes et des usines solaires, estime M. Ollagnier. Or le smart grid est le seul moyen de gérer cette production décentralisée.» «L'apport des énergies renouvelables est d'autant plus crucial qu'une nouvelle source de consommation massive se profile : la voiture électrique», ajoute M. Blanchard.

Le chargement quotidien de millions de batteries risque de multiplier les pics. Le smart grid permettra, non seulement, d'amortir cette consommation, mais aussi d'utiliser les voitures pour relever le défi du stockage de l'électricité. En clair, le gestionnaire du réseau pourra à tout moment inverser le flux et puiser dans les batteries branchées une partie du courant nécessaire au passage d'un pic.

Longtemps laissé à quelques start-up, ce marché attire désormais des entreprises du calibre de Google, Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, General Electric, SAP, Siemens, Schneider ou Accenture. Ces groupes se livrent à une course de vitesse pour inventer les applications du smart grid et imposer leurs normes de communication entre appareils. Dernier arrivé en date, Cisco a annoncé, en mai, un vaste plan de développement dans ce secteur, dans lequel le groupe prévoit de gagner 100milliards de dollars (72 milliards d'euros) en cinq ans.

Tout va très vite. «En 2020, 80% des foyers seront connectés à des réseaux intelligents», prédit Jean-Marc Ollagnier. Soixante-seize millions de compteurs intelligents auraient déjà été installés dans le monde, selon l'institut ABI Research. Et ce chiffre devrait doubler d'ici à 2013.

Aux Etats-Unis, où les coupures de courant coûtent chaque année 80 milliards de dollars (58millions d'euros), l'administration Obama a affecté 4,5 milliards de dollars (3,2 milliards d'euros) de son plan de relance verte aux smart grids. La Californie doit dépenser 1,6 milliard de dollars de subventions pour installer 5,3 millions de compteurs intelligents d'ici à 2012. Et la Floride vient de décider un investissement de 220 millions de dollars pour poser un million de compteurs intelligents à Miami.

En France, un programme pilote d'ERDF, la filiale réseaux d'EDF, prévoit l'installation de 300 000 appareils à Lyon et à Tours. Remplacer les 35 millions de compteurs mécaniques de l'Hexagone d'ici à 2015 coûterait de 4 à 5 milliards d'euros.

Qui doit payer? Les fournisseurs, qui optimisent leur réseau, les consommateurs qui maîtrisent leur facture ou les pouvoirs publics, qui préservent l'environnment? «Il y a un vrai problème de bilan économique», analyse Jean-Marc Ollagnier. Et le plus dur est à venir : l'investissement nécessaire pour équiper la totalité du réseau haute et basse tension sera jusqu'à six fois supérieur au prix des seuls compteurs.

Source :Le Monde

Biochar: Black is the new green

Sebimus — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:13:00 +0100

Locking carbon up in soil makes more sense than storing it in plants and trees that eventually decompose:

To meet the challenges of global climate change, greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced. Emissions from fossil fuels are the largest contributor to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, so a reduction in fossil energy use is a clear priority1. Yet, because some emissions will be unavoidable, a responsible strategy also means actively withdrawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Locking carbon up in soil makes more sense than storing it in plants and trees that eventually decompose:

To meet the challenges of global climate change, greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced. Emissions from fossil fuels are the largest contributor to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, so a reduction in fossil energy use is a clear priority1. Yet, because some emissions will be unavoidable, a responsible strategy also means actively withdrawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such carbon sequestration faces multi-faceted challenges: the net withdrawal of carbon dioxide must be long term and substantial, the process must be accountable and must have a low risk of rapid or large-scale leakage. One near-term technology that can meet these requirements is biochar sequestration. When combined with bioenergy production, it is a clean energy technology that reduces emissions as well as sequesters carbon. It is therefore an attractive target for energy subsidies and for inclusion in the global carbon market.
An existing approach to removing carbon from the atmosphere is to grow plants that sequester carbon dioxide in their biomass or in soil organic matter (see graphic, overleaf).
Indeed, methods for sequestering carbon dioxide through afforestation have already been accepted as tradable ‘carbon offsets’ under the Kyoto Protocol. But this sequestration can be taken a step further by heating the plant biomass without oxygen (a process known as low-temperature pyrolysis). Pyrolysis converts trees, grasses or crop residues into biochar, with twofold higher carbon content than ordinary biomass. Moreover, biochar locks up rapidly decomposing carbon in plant biomass in amuch more durable form.

No limits

The precise duration of biochar’s storage time is under debate, with opinions ranging from millennial (as some dating of naturally occurring biochar suggests) to centennial timescales (as indicated by some field and laboratory trials)5. Whether biochar remains in soils for hundreds or thousands of years, it would be considered a long-term sink for the purposes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Moreover, the storage capacity of biochar is not limited in the same way as biomass sequestration through afforestation, conversion to grassland or no-tillage agriculture. Agricultural lands converted to no-tillage, for example, may cease to capture additional carbon after 15–20 years, and even forests eventually mature over decadal and centennial timescales and start to release as much carbon dioxide as they take up.
Biochar is a lower-risk strategy than other sequestration options, in which stored carbon can be released, say, by forest fires, by converting no-tillage back to conventional tillage, or by leaks from geological carbon storage. Once biochar is incorporated into soil, it is difficult to imagine any incident or change in practice that would cause a sudden loss of stored carbon. The bottom line is that plant biomass decomposes in a relatively short period of time, whereas biochar is orders of magnitudes more stable. So given a certain amount of carbon that cycles annually through plants, half of it can be taken out of its natural cycle and sequestered in a much slower biochar cycle.
By withdrawing organic carbon from the cycle of photosynthesis and decomposition, biochar sequestration directly removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Pyrolysis does have costs associated with the machinery and heating(around US$4 per gigajoule) and is dependent on a supply of cheap biomass. But the bigger question is whether this approach can be scaled up to national and regional, or even global, scales.
At the local or field scale, biocharcan usefully enhance existing sequestration approaches. It can be mixedwith manures or fertilizers and included in no-tillage methods, without the need for additional equipment. Biochar has been shown to improve the structure and fertility of soils, thereby improving biomass production3.
Biochar not only enhances the retention and therefore efficiency of fertilizers but may, by the same mechanism, also decrease fertilizer run-off. For biochar sequestration to work on a much larger scale, an important factor is combining low-temperature pyrolysis with simultaneous capture of the exhaust gases and converting them to energy as heat, electricity, biofuel or hydrogen. Depending on the feedstock used and bioenergy produced, low-temperature pyrolysis with gas capture (but no sequestration) can be a carbon-neutral energy source.
Most companies that generate bioenergy in this way view biochar merely as a byproduct that can itself be burned to offset fossil-fuel use and reduce costs. But our calculations suggest that emissions reductions can be 12–84% greater if biochar is put back into the soil instead of being burned to offset fossil-fuel use7. Biochar sequestration offers the chance to turn bioenergy into a carbon-negative industry.
The million-dollar question is: can biochar sequestration and the associated bioenergy production make a real difference to national and global carbon budgets?

Promising approaches

I have calculated emissions reductions for three separate biochar approaches that can each sequester about 10% of the annual US fossil-fuel emissions (1.6 billion tonnes of carbon in 2005)8. First, pyrolysis of forest residues (assuming 3.5 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) from 200 million hectares of US forests that are used for timber production; second, pyrolysis of fast-growing vegetation (20 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) grown on 30 million hectares of idle US cropland for this purpose; third, pyrolysis of crop residues (5.5 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) for 120 million hectares of harvested US cropland. In each case, the biochar generated by pyrolysis is returned to the soil and not burned to offset fossil-fuel use5. Even greater emissions reductions are possible if pyrolysis gases are captured for bioenergy production. Similar calculations for carbon sequestration by photosynthesis suggest that converting all US cropland to Conservation Reserve Programs — in which farmers are paid to plant their land with native grasses — or to no-tillage would sequester 3.6% of US emissions per year during the first few decades after conversion9; that is, just a third of what one of the above biochar approaches can theoretically achieve. Although these calculations highlight the potential of biochar, realistic projections will require rigorous economic and environmental analyses. Most, if not all, approaches to bioenergy, including corn ethanol production, are costly. Pyrolysis plants that use biochar to offset fossil fuel consumption are financially viable only when inexpensive feedstock is continuously available in sufficient quantities, for example animal wastes, clean municipal wastes or forest residues collected for fire prevention. But would returning biochar to the soil make more financial sense than burning it? There are some potential savings to be made by reduced fertilizer use and through possible gains in agricultural productivity, but the answer to this question depends largely on the value that carbon markets assign to emissions reductions. At present, the Chicago Climate Exchange is trading carbon dioxide at US$4 per tonne. These prices are expected to rise over the coming years to decades to US$25–85 per tonne, assuming that societies accept the social costs of climate change. We calculate that biochar sequestration in conjunction with bioenergy from pyrolysis becomes economically attractive, under one specific scenario, when the value of avoided carbon dioxide emissions reaches $37 per tonne. This calculation does not consider the indirect benefits associated with biochar — which do not currently have a dollar value — from reduced pollution of surface or groundwaters. Subsidies to support biochar sequestration, in conjunction with bioenergy production, would be sufficient to jump-start this technology. US Senator Ken Salazar is working on comprehensive legislation, as part of the 2007 Farm Bill, that would provide significant support for biochar research and development.

Easy to monitor

When it comes to including biochar in emissions-trading schemes, accountability is more straightforward than with other soil sequestration methods. Both the conversion of biomass into biochar and its application to soil are readily monitored, without additional costs. No complex predictive models or analytical tools are required, as is the case with other soil sequestration approaches. The source of biochar additions can easily be identified by soil analyses, if desired for verification under carbon-trading schemes. Tracing the source of carbon in soil back to a change in agricultural practice, or other photosynthetic source, is much more difficult, and therefore currently not accepted under the Kyoto Protocol.
Because these barriers do not exist for biochar sequestration, in my opinion there is no reason why the associated emission reductions should not be allowed into trading markets under current agreements. The consequences of climate change are already being felt and there is an urgency not only to identify but also to implement solutions. Biochar sequestration does not require a fundamental scientific advance and the underlying production technology is robust and simple, making it appropriate for many regions of the world. It does, however, require studies to optimize biochar properties and to evaluate the economic costs and benefits of large-scale deployment.

Source: Johannes Lehmann Nature Vol 447

Companies signed agreement to develop biggest Concentrated Solar Power Project ever

Sebimus — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:31:00 +0100

Munich – 12 companies today signed a Memorandum of Understanding in Munich to establish a DESERTEC Industrial Initiative (DII). The objective of this initiative is to analyse and develop the technical, economic, political, social and ecological framework for carbon-free power generation in the deserts of North Africa. The DESERTEC concept, developed by the TREC Initiative of the Club of Rome, describes the perspectives of a sustainable power supply for all regions of the world with access to the energy potential of deserts. The founder companies of the DII, whose regional focus is on Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), will be:

• ABB
• ABENGOA Solar
• Cevital
• Deutsche Bank
• E.ON
• HSH Nordbank
• MAN Solar Millennium
• Munich Re
• M+W Zander
• RWE
• SCHOTT Solar
• SIEMENS

The companies intend to establish a planning entity whose shareholders will include the DESERTEC Foundation. The Memorandum of Understanding was signed in the presence of high-ranking representatives from German and international politics.
Among the DII’s main goals are the drafting of concrete business plans and associated financing concepts, and the initiating of industrial preparations for building a large number of networked solar thermal power plants distributed throughout the MENA region. The aim is to produce sufficient power to meet around 15% of Europe’s electricity requirements and a substantial portion of the power needs of the producer countries. All of the DII's activities will be aimed at developing viable investment plans within three years of its establishment. The initiative’s clear focus on implementation is set out in the DII Principles for all future DII shareholders.
Besides the business opportunities for the companies, there are other economic, ecological and social potentials:

• Greater energy security in the EU/MENA countries
• Growth and development opportunities for the MENA region as a result of substantial private investment
• Safeguarding the future water supply in the MENA countries by utilising excess energy in seawater desalination plants
• Reducing carbon-dioxide emissions and thus making a significant contribution to achieving the climate change targets of the European Union and the German Federal Government

The DII planning entity is to be established as a GmbH (limited liability company) under German law by 31 October 2009. It is envisaged that other companies will join the DII once the company has been established. The aim is for the DII to include shareholders from a variety of different countries.

Source: Dersertec.org

Climate change affecting tourism

Doc Pico — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0100

Living with climate change

A surprising idea for "solving" climate change

Doc Pico — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:48:00 +0100

David Keith: A surprising idea for "solving" climate change

"Dove" activities involve deforestation

Doc Pico — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:34:00 +0100

Dove and deforestation

Africa and the global financial crisis

Doc Pico — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:27:00 +0100

The potential impact of these crises on the poorest is significant, but perhaps what is even more important to focus upon is not only what will happen to these countries if the world does not consider them in the solution, but what benefits could be reaped if the world does. Too often, developed countries have viewed developing countries as remote places that require attention for moral and humanitarian reasons alone but in this interconnected world, it becomes all the more apparent that a stable, vibrant developing world would offer significant benefits to all.
Developing countries offer untapped resources that could potentially help resolve some of the world‘s greatest current challenges. If brought into the conversation and viewed as an investment, these opportunities could be leveraged:

Africa as a solution to future food crises—Africa has the potential to feed its own citizens and others around the world. Cyclical food shortages and food crises like the most recent are realities partly because of underinvestment in agricultural productivity. With low cost investments in its vast agricultural potential, Africa could break from the cycle of food insecurity that can quickly undermine development gains. Indeed, the World Bank estimates that growth in the agricultural sector is twice as effective in reducing poverty as growth in other sectors.

Africa as an investment opportunity—Growth rates in Africa have continued at a strong pace over the last decade. In 2007, the World Bank reported that 18 non-oil producing countries have experienced average annual growth of 5.5% or more between1995-2005. In the last few years African stock markets have been amongst the fastest growing and in 2008, four African countries were named by the World Bank as the best business climate reformers in the world. While the most recent figures from the IMF2 have revealed inevitable reduction in predicted growth rates for 2009, a 3.5% growth rate is significantly higher than the global growth rate of 0.5%, and of individual advanced economies such as the United States (-1.6%), the United Kingdom (-2.8%), and Japan (-2.6%). These trends show the potential for African markets as potentially profitable investments that can yield returns for global investors. Increasingly, investors are seeing Africa as a good investment destination – investment in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in 2007 was $30 billion, up from $22 billion in 2006 and more than 7 times 1995 levels of $4 billion. Continued investments are critical to keeping these economies vibrant.

For more information, please see:

G20

Africa as a potential partner in the fight against climate change

Doc Pico — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:19:00 +0100

While Africa certainly has contributed least to the current climate challenges, the continent is expected to feel the ramifications ―first and worst. While this obviously poses yet another threat to recent gains made on development, there are untapped opportunities for partnering with Africa to stem further declines.
Africa‘s vast rainforests and natural resources could be invested in through re-forestation and agro-forestry programs to provide sustainable livelihoods and carbon storage/sequestration. Africa has large potential for solar, geothermal and even biomass energy production that is largely underutilised. For example, United Nation‘s Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) estimates that only 7% of hydroelectricity and less than 1% of geothermal potentials on the continent have been exploited. As technologies develop, these renewable energy sources available in Africa could be harnessed for regional use and export.

Africa as an energy resource:
In addition to the renewable mentioned above, there are untapped natural resources in Africa that can be leveraged for energy. According to John Ghazvinian‘s book ‗Untapped: The Scramble for Africa's Oil‘, one-third of the world's new oil discoveries since the year 2000 have taken place in Africa and between 2005 and 2010, 20% of the world's new production capacity is expected to come from Africa. The key challenge is to ensure that these energy resources are managed in a way that harness sustainable economic development at the individual country and regional levels and give due diligence to environmental concerns.

For more information, please see:

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE G20

Harvesting agricultural carbon in Kenya

Doc Pico — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:01:00 +0100

The BioCarbon Fund of the World Bank has identified large untapped greenhouse gas mitigation (GHG) potential in the smallholder agricultural sector in East Africa based on the adoption of SALM practices, which can contribute to climate change mitigation, generate revenue streams from carbon payments for environmental services, and maintain agrobiodiversity, while reducing farmers’ vulnerability to climate change. Carbon revenues have the potential to lower barriers to the adoption of SALM practices.

The Government of Kenya contacted the World Bank to support the country to access the global carbon market based on land use activities. ECOM Agroindustrial Corp (EAC), an international coffee trader, identifi ed the World Bank and German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) as implementation partners for an innovative carbon fi nance project in Kenya’s agricultural sector. EAC will support the Komothai Farmers Cooperative and two other Cooperatives to turn sun grown low quality coffee into specialty shade grown and bird friendly coffee. GTZ will support EAC with certification for climate-resilient coffee.

The World Bank provides technical assistance to generate the carbon asset and – through the BioCarbon Fund – it intends to purchase the emission reductions based on the adoption of SALM practices.

For more information, please see:

Focus

What is carbon trading?

Doc Pico — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:48:00 +0100

Carbon trading is effectively an interaction between buyers and sellers trading the right to emit greenhouse gases. Mandatory government schemes have been created as a result of the Kyoto protocol, and are known as the compliance market. The scope of legislative schemes is largely limited to heavy industry and power generating companies at present, although there are moves to increase the number and type of organisations that will be included in compliance schemes in future.

There are also an increasing number of organisations that wish to take action but are not legally required to do so. Engaging in voluntary schemes provides useful experience in measurement and strategic decision making, preparing an organisation for the time when government schemes expand and participation will become mandatory. These organisations trade through the voluntary market.

The type of scheme and credits that can be bought are determined by the need to meet mandatory compliance or voluntary targets. There are two distinct mechanisms at work to bring about a reduction in carbon emissions under a carbon trading market.

Allowance-based schemes are based on the right to produce a certain quantity of greenhouse gases. One allowance or credit equates to 1 tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted into the atmosphere. This is relatively easy to measure, and technology and expertise are available to validate the quantities produced, although levels are less easy to predict in advance. Tradable rights to emit, called allowances, are distributed to producers of carbon pollution. Companies are free to trade allowances on the carbon market.

Project-based schemes are based on credits certifying that 1 tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent has been removed or saved from emission into the atmosphere. Predicting and subsequently proving something has not happened is more complicated to measure, therefore elaborate control mechanisms have developed to verify these credits. The essential requirement is that the savings are additional to business as usual. For example, if an industry is legally required to reduce greenhouse gases, then any reductions made would be considered ‘business as usual’ and not generate credits. The easiest projects to classify are those that have no other income other than that generated by carbon credits, such as methane capture in landfill sites.

For more information, please see below:

Clown Fish Marketing

Human activity is the primary driver of changes in climate

Doc Pico — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:35:00 +0100

The recent Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leaves no doubt that human activity is the primary driver of changes in climate through emissions of greenhouse gases. The accumulation of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere strengthen the greenhouse effect, and are now at the highest level in history. According to the report, mean global temperatures are likely to rise between 1.1 and 6.4°C (with a best estimate of 1.8 to 4°C) above 1990 levels by the end of this century, depending on the level of emissions. Rising temperatures will trigger many other changes to the earth’s system: rising sea levels of between 20 and 60cm by the end of this century, continued melting of ice caps, glaciers and sea ice, changes in rainfall patterns, intensification of tropical cyclones and species extinction.

Food and water supplies, human health, biodiversity and the economy will be affected, although the scale of impacts will vary considerably by region and vulnerability. The extent and severity of negative impacts will rise with temperatures. It is estimated that once temperatures rise more than 2°C a ‘tipping point’ will be reached, triggering a chain of major effects over which we have no of control, such as the acidification of oceans.

What needs to be done?
In the absence of an effective international effort, emissions will continue to grow rapidly over the coming decades. To have a reasonable chance of keeping global temperature increases below 2°C, global emissions must peak in the next decade and then decline to roughly 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Such large-scale emissions reductions require a move away from fossil fuel, significant improvements in energy efficiency, preserving the world’s natural carbon sinks i.e. forests and a fundamental shift in government policies and economic practices.

UNEP: Melting Ice a Hot Topic

Doc Pico — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:42:00 +0100

UNEP: Melting Ice a Hot Topic

Truth about climate change

Doc Pico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:46:00 +0100

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Act on CO2 Calculator - DEFRA

Doc Pico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:44:00 +0100

Act on CO2 Calculator

Taking a head start to create a low carbon world economy

Doc Pico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:39:00 +0100

Taking a head start to create a low carbon world economy

Solar Tower Energy in Spain, Madrid

Doc Pico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:37:00 +0100

Solar Tower Energy in Spain, Madrid

Working with developing countries to tackle climate change

Doc Pico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:35:00 +0100

Working with developing countries to tackle climate change

20% renewable energy by 2020

Doc Pico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:33:00 +0100

20% renewable energy by 2020