More than 100 countries have now agreed to the Copenhagen accord, including all major economies except for Russia.

The accord states the countries’ “aim” to keep the global temperature rise since industrialization to 2 degrees Celsius. It is not a formal UN document that can be used to craft a treaty, as the discussions for the accord took place at the last minute and outside formal talks. The document emerged from meetings between U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders from Brazil, China, India and South Africa, who met on the last day of the Summit to draft an accord.

China, India Sign On to Copenhagen Accord [BusinessWeek, 9 Mar 2010]
India to be listed in Copenhagen Accord preamble [Indian Expresss, 9 Mar 2010]
Full Text of the Copenhagen Accord [U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change]

The project, to target Sumatra’s Jambi province that has suffered rapid deforestation, is the second joint venture between the neighbouring countries keen to learn how to save forests by giving local communities incentives to keep the trees standing.

Australia and Indonesia are major supporters of a U.N. backed scheme that could potentially channel billions of dollars to developing nations that preserve and enhance their forests.

Called reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), developing countries would earn money from carbon credits sourced from forest preservation projects by selling them to rich nations that must meet mandated emission reduction targets.

The U.N. hopes the scheme will start from 2013 as part of a broader climate pact to succeed the existing Kyoto Protocol.

Source:

Indonesia, Australia launch A$30 mln forest CO2 project [Reuter India]

The Mekong River provides water supply, navigation, and irrigation along its route, and its record-low levels have affected northern Thailand, northern Laos and southern China.

Chief Executive Officer of the Mekong River Commission, Jeremy Bird, said that the current water levels and flows are the lowest in 20 years. More than 21 cargo boats in southern China have apparently been stranded due to the shallow waters.

Source:

Low Mekong River Poses Threat [AFP, 26 Feb 2010]

De Boer became known as “the crying Dutchman” after he broke down in tears at the end of the Bali UN climate conference in 2006. Many blamed Mr de Boer for the failure of the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that ended in a weak accord. But he is the world’s most experienced climate change negotiator and the UN faces a difficult task finding a replacement at this late stage in what have been called the most complex negotiations that have been attempted under the UN system. His departure will also be a blow to the UN at a time when the science behind climate change is increasingly under fire after a series of scandals.

However, his resignation also lead to hope that new blood may be able to reinvigorate the process in time for the next international meeting in Mexico in November, where it is hoped world governments will draw up a legally binding treaty on climate change.
Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7264258/Yvo-de-Boer-quits-climate-change-body.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-18/de-boer-quits-un-climate-post-in-sad-day-for-carbon-market.html

Chinese envoy Yu Qingtai accused rich countries of a “lack of sincerity” in meeting climate targets.

US envoy Todd Stern defended Obama’s climate policy, without openly criticizing China’s policy.

Climate change continues to be a sensitive issue between the US and emerging Asia. On his recent visit to Asia, President Obama pledged cooperation between US and Asia on climate change, but did not censure specific countries for their policies.

Source: AFP (hosted by Yahoo! News), “Developing nations clash over climate targets,” December 10, 2009.

“We cannot solve the climate challenge to mankind without China taking on leadership and responsibility,” Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in his capacity as EU president.

“So far our belief is the global effort put on the table for mitigation is not enough… more needs to be done,” he said at a post-summit address with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. Related article: Barroso calls for more effort

Reinfeldt did not specifically criticise a Chinese plan announced last week ahead of global climate talks in Copenhagen to slow growth in its carbon emissions.

Click here to read the full story

Source: AFP (through Channel NewsAsia), “EU urges China to show leadership on climate change,” December 1, 2009, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1021437/1/.html

Businesses around the globe are currently facing two of the most detrimental crises of the 21st century – a financial crisis and an environmental crisis. I believe focusing only on financial concerns will be a big historic mistake. Hence, global environmental issues and promoting sustainable economic growth should be an imperative worldwide agenda, constituting an important topic for discussion in many forums, organizations and cooperation, including Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

The essay begins by delving into the status quo related to climate change in the Asia-Pacific region. The environmental crisis will outlast the serious economic downturn that worsens the financial crisis in the region. Significant loss of marine, agricultural and industrial revenue and additional environmental costs will be both big burdens and obstacles for APEC economic activities.

To address the problems, this essay proposes APEC 5 GREEN steps. These include:

• Generating Climate Change Research in the Asia-Pacific Region
• Reinforcing Green Investment Officer
• Encouraging Green Investment and Funding
• Establishing Annual Asia-Pacific Green Economy Conference
• Navigating the Right Path for the Next Green Business Leader

APEC is beyond regional cooperation, it plays a global role and I am firmly certain that APEC can translate the environmental crisis into lucrative business opportunities. These strengths and opportunities can successfully tackle all major weaknesses and threats to the APEC 5 GREEN steps proposal. These will be briefly discussed through a SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat) analysis. Afterwards, this essay shows economy benefits that APEC 5 GREEN steps will bring to Asia-Pacific economies.

Finally, the essay comes to the conclusion that APEC 5 GREEN steps are convincingly feasible steps to enhance the role of APEC in promoting sustainable green economy and simultaneously facilitating lucrative business in the region.

The challenge of global warming has captured the attention of politicians around the world. The following article is part of a series leading up to the December U.N. conference in Copenhagen on how ordinary people in different countries view the issue:

When he first got sick, Samson Banda didn’t realize he had malaria. Only after he came down with a serious fever did he end up at a clinic in the Bauleni slum compound in Lusaka, Zambia. The clinic has just a few nurses and staff with basic medical skills. Locals can wait for an entire day to be seen.

Unchecked malaria is serious. Nine out of 10 of the world’s annual one million malaria-caused deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa. The disease—transmitted via mosquitoes—can cause low blood sugar, an enlarged spleen and liver, severe headaches, a shortage of oxygen to the brain, and renal failure. It can lead to coma and death. Twenty-seven year-old Samson was ill for six months before he started to recover.

Bauleni is an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes during the rainy season between November and April. The slum lacks any sanitation or sewer supply, so locals dig pit latrines. The waste overflows. Most adults have some long-term infection that tends to recur.

“Our conditions are pathetic—both the health clinics and the sanitation in this area,” Mr. Samson told a Copenhagen Consensus Center researcher.

Ask what he wants to see foreign donors’ money spent on, and he is quick to answer: better health care. When he is asked about global warming, Mr. Samson responds: “I have heard about it, but I don’t even know how it would affect me. If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?”

In the West, campaigners for carbon regulations point out that global warming will increase the number of malaria victims. This is often used as an argument for drastic, immediate carbon cuts.

Warmer, wetter weather will improve conditions for the malaria parasite. Most estimates suggest that global warming will put 3% more of the Earth’s population at risk of catching malaria by 2100. If we invest in the most efficient, global carbon cuts—designed to keep temperature rises under two degrees Celsius—we would spend a massive $40 trillion a year by 2100. In the best case scenario, we would reduce the at-risk population by only 3%.

In comparison, research commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center shows that spending $3 billion annually on mosquito nets, environmentally safe indoor DDT sprays, and subsidies for effective new combination therapies could halve the number of those infected with malaria within one decade. For the money it takes to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives. Mr. Samson has not done these calculations, but for him it is simple: “First things first,” he says. Malaria “is here right now and it kills a lot of people every day.”

Malaria is only weakly related to temperature; it is strongly related to poverty. It has risen in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 years not because of global warming, but because of failing medical response. The mainstay treatment, chloroquine, is becoming less and less effective. The malaria parasite is becoming resistant, and there is a need for new, effective combination treatments based on artemisinin, which is unfortunately about 10 times more expensive.

Mr. Samson is right to ask what spending money on global warming could do for him and his family. The truthful answer? Very little. For a lot less, we could achieve a lot more.

***

Bjørn Lomborg is the Director for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think-tank, and author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming”.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By Chong Siak Ching

While we need bold initiatives to address the threat of global warming and climate change dimming the prospects of a bright future, little steps and initiatives still count and should be encouraged. Collectively, these little steps add up and like a snowball, can gather momentum along the way to make a big difference.

At home, my 16-year old daughter has for the past few years been doing her bit to “save the environment” and, along the way, converting her parents. She has also decided to pursue a degree in environmental engineering sciences, and commit her future with the environment.

At my workplace, Ascendas, we have intensified investments in greening our buildings to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon footprint. Our latest project involves replacing the air-conditioning system of one of our buildings at the Singapore Science Park, from an air-cooled system to a water-cooled system, well ahead of its replacement life. This initiative is expected to save about 5,300 MWh of electricity and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 2,600 tonnes per year, which is equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by 200,000 trees in a year. Energy management systems have been installed to control and configure energy consumption to ensure optimal usage.

The project, which started in December 2008 and was completed in August 2009, is submitting its application as a Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (“CDM”) project, which will make it among the first in Singapore for a building-specific energy-efficient project when approved.

A simple initiative like this brings about energy savings of about 5.4 million KWH per year, translating to about S$1 million savings per year (more than 50% of the annual energy consumption), resulting in a short payback about 3.5 years. In addition, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of about 2,634 metric tonnes per year, giving a potential carbon credit of about $700,000 over 10 years.

This is just one of many “little steps” that Ascendas is doing and which other companies could do as well.

Collectively, we can all play our part to secure the future of our planet for future generations.

***

Chong Siak Ching is the chairperson of the organising committee for APEC CEO Summit 2009. She is also the President & CEO of Ascendas Pte Ltd.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Are global responses to the challenge of climate change compatible with future economic growth?

By Peter Löscher

Climate change is a fact. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are higher today than at any point during the last 350,000 years. If carbon dioxide emissions were to double by 2035, the temperature of our planet would rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees celsius – with catastrophic consequences for civilization and our entire biosphere. We cannot afford this. Sir Nicholas Stern has calculated the annual economic losses associated with climate change to be at least five percent of the annual global GDP. That’s equivalent to two times the losses caused by the economic crisis – and these losses would occur every year. If we continue to do business as usual, climate change will in effect neutralize economic growth. From a global macroeconomic point of view, fighting climate change is not only compatible with growth, it is essential to growth.

Even if climate change were not a reality, as some falsely claim, it would still make good economic sense to make the transition to sources of energy other than fossil fuels and to strive for greater energy efficiency. Most obviously, fossil fuels are finite. At some point in the distant future, the world’s fossil fuel reserves will be depleted. Yet even now, supply is not keeping pace with demand. As the global population booms and demand for electricity increases, energy prices will inevitably rise in the future. Denying the reality of climate change irresponsibly postpones the transition to a more diversified energy mix and ultimately to a more sustainable economy. The challenge we face is to meet the exploding global demand for energy while reducing emissions.

There are two good reasons to believe we can meet this challenge:

FIRST, the technologies needed to mitigate climate change are already available today; they just have to be deployed.

There’s no doubt that fossil fuel fired power plants will continue to generate the lion’s share of electrical power over the next decades. However, the efficiency of these power plants will improve dramatically. Upgrading all fossil-fuel fired power plants currently in operation worldwide to the best technology available today would save 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

Of course, the long-term objective is to increase renewable energy’s share of the mix. Currently, biomass, wind, geothermal and solar account for only three percent of the global energy mix. (Hydropower’s share is 15 percent.) But our projections and those of the InternationaI Energy Agency indicate that this share will grow to 14 percent by 2030. In absolute terms, that would be an increase from 600 billion kilowatt hours today to 5200 billion kilowatt hours in 2030, or nine times as much power from renewable sources.

In North Africa and the Middle East, three times as much solar power can be produced per area than in Central Europe, and this is the rationale behind Desertec, a visionary project in which power is generated in the desert regions of North Africa and the Middle East and transported to African and European countries. Here, another key technology is needed: High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) power distribution. This technology is capable of transporting power over long distances at a loss of just three percent per 1,000 kilometers. We are currently helping China build a 1,400-kilometer HVDC superhighway that will transport 5,000 megawatts of power from the country’s interior to its coastal cities.

SECOND, most investments in more energy-efficient technologies pay for themselves – and saving energy is the fastest and most effective way to reduce emissions.

Buildings account for about 40 percent of energy consumption worldwide and for approximately 21 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that more efficient technologies could reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of buildings by up to 40 percent by 2030. A large share of this reduction is attainable by implementing relatively simple measures, such as electricity-saving technologies, effective insulation, energy-saving lighting, and combined heat and power solutions that generate electricity and heat on site, as well as solutions that utilize sensors and building automation systems to create optimal air and light conditions.

The Shanghai CITIC Square project is an excellent example of how energy-efficient technology pays for itself. The project includes a chiller plant retrofit, chiller water optimization, a building envelope retrofit, a building automation system, and an elevator control system. All these improvements will trim energy costs by about RMB 1.4 million per year and reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 600 tons. Most importantly for the owners, the investment will amortize in five years.

Investments in green technology not only save energy and reduce emissions; they save money; and as energy costs steadily increase, that is perhaps the most compelling argument of all for investors.

This explains why the market for energy-efficient and environmental technologies is booming. According to recent forecasts, the global market for green technologies is expected to grow to a volume of €2.2 trillion by 2020. That’s more than seven times the revenue of the entire German auto industry.

At Siemens, we are benefiting from this growth. Our green portfolio as a whole generated €19 billion in fiscal 2008 – or about one quarter of our total annual revenue. We expect our revenue from green products to grow 10 percent annually and reach the €25 billion mark by 2011. Siemens and many other companies understand that the color of future economic growth is green. And we are ready for the green revolution.

Committing to emission reduction targets and time frames for meeting these targets is the most effective action the international community can take to fight climate change. Regulation should transcend national borders and mobilize all major economies and emitters; it should create a level global playing field for all industries; it should link industrialized and developed countries through strengthened global emission reduction mechanisms; finally it should recognize and support all technologies that are both energy-efficient and climate-effective, and this should include renewable energy, nuclear energy as well as clean coal technologies. Firm long-term commitments and uniform international regulation would add even more momentum to an already dynamic green market.

The silver lining in the global economic crisis is that it proved that national governments are indeed capable of joining forces to manage an emergency. The response of the international community to the crisis has been fast, appropriate and unified – and the magnitude of this response is unprecedented.

This is the kind of collective effort needed to meet the biggest challenge of our generation: climate change. And this is an effort we must make for the sake of future generations.

***

Peter Löscher is the President and CEO of Siemens AG