Here is an article over integrating climate and environment into agriculture and vice-versa:
1) The lack of integration of agendas is proving to be costly in developing countries.
Agriculture is both the victim and villain of climate change. Small-holders will suffer if there aren't any measures against the negative impacts of climate change (f.e. drought), while agriculture is the cause of deforestation and plays a large role in emissions.
2) Still a long way to go into integrating climate and environment with agriculture.
3) A clearer message is needed of opportunity in sustainable agriculture.
Best-practice approaches in agriculture are often described in terms of trade-off between feeding the planet or environmental sustainability. This is a false choice in the long term. Improving agriculture, reach poverty objectives as well as protecting the environment at the same time is possible (examples: Integrated Pest Management, sustainable agricultural intensification, multifunctional agriculture) . Sustainable agriculture is only sustainable as long as the environment and people's (basic) needs are respected.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Jatropha curcas
Here we find a revealing article over Jatropha curcas, a plant with high biofuel potential.
Jatropha was presented as one of the solutions to the oscillation of oil prices and climate change problems. Its biofuel is "biodegradable, offers energy security and produce cleaner and lower emissions in comparison to classical fossil fuels. As a result an increasing number of investments have been made in this sector."
"In January 2009, Time Magazine described the Jatropha as the potentially next big biofuel as it has a crucial advantage in alleviating rural poverty: "unlike corn and other biofuel sources, the Jatropha doesn’t have to compete with food crops for arable land. Even in the worst of soils, it grows like weeds""
However, according to a report of the World Agroforestry Center, caution is needed:
"Through a survey literally conducted on the 'field', hundreds of small farmers have been interviewed about the yields of Jatropha. The study has shown a dramatically different reality to what has been enthusiastically claimed. Jatropha has low yields and uneconomical costs of production. What is more this crop needs a large amount of irrigation or rainfall and has a low performance in dry zones. Contrary to what has been stated, Jatropha is vulnerable to a significant number of pests and diseases. In the lights of these results, the report suggests that “Jatropha should not be promoted among smallholder farmers as a monoculture or intercropped plantation crop […] We recommend that all stakeholders re-evaluate their activities promoting Jatropha among smallholder farmers”." Keep in mind that this is a study based in Kenya. As far as I know, Jatropha is hugely succesful in South-Asian countries such as Indonesia (where rainfall is large!).
The World Agroforestry Center furthermore reports that "Jatropha could become a complementary component of a diverse livelihood strategy that contributes to overall increased agricultural productivity. However, the lack of scientific knowledge on agronomy, such as high-yielding seeds, best management practices, and optimum soil fertility, inhibits the delivery of effective farmer extension services. Another obstacle is that most growers are geographically dispersed and have yet to produce large enough quantities of seeds to achieve the economies of scale necessary for efficient biofuels processing.". I find the last sentence interesting: biofuel (produced by any plant, not just Jatropha) is not economically viable as long as there is no big enough market for it. However big the potential may be, it still needs to be commercially effective.
"A final problem involves whether smallholder farmers with little access to capital can afford to wait the years it will take to recoup their investment and start making a profit.". This is not only a problem with Jathropa, but this problems is dealt with all trees. Not all farmers are willing to take risks and unfortunately most of the farmers in developing countries will not or can not look further than short-term profit.
Ultimately, the author of the article rightly concludes that "biofuels have potential for the future of combustible energy but sometimes they have been promoted too easily without investigating the possible consequences. Taking into account that the majority of bioenergy crops are settled in developing countries, even more cautiousness is needed. Before investing in biofuel itself, promoters should devote financial resources towards researching the possible environmental impacts, effects on food production and the economic consequences for the interested region."
The infamous disadvantages of biofuel production, such as competing with food production and the effects on food prices, are quite clear. But it is also a myth that biofuel use and production is CO2 emission-free, as explained in simple terms by this article of Wetlands International. Although a car using biofuel has less impact on the environment than the same car using diesel, the production of the biofuel itself is not emission-free and may have a big impact on the environment, as explained by the article. Basically, to correctly calculate emission by biofuel production, its whole lifecycle must be taken into account. This is where a Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) plays a role.
---------------------------------------
I would like to go deeper into the earlier report as there are some more interesting conclusions taken there. Castor, Croton and other oilseeds have promising potential in Kenya:
"Castor has great potential, but is lacking commercial investment in Kenya. Superior, high yielding seed varieties and extensive agronomic knowledge exist globally, but must be developed at the local level. Field trials to assess cost of production and yields under different management regimes are also important in order to identify the most profitable business models. Local processors must also
import the machinery required to process high-quality Castor oil.
There are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Croton trees growing wildly and in agroforestry systems throughout Kenya. Some of the critical obstacles for the development of Croton for biodiesel production include a lack of knowledge on the best silvicultural practices, such as spacing, pruning, and the correlation between fertilization of trees and yields. Seed harvesting and post-harvest handling techniques also have not been established and standardized. Nonetheless the potential for production, processing and utilization of Croton seeds for biofuels is substantial.
There is a need to design and establish agronomic research trials for determining best practices and
identifying superior, seed-producing trees. There is also an urgent need to undertake countrywide
census of different age classes of Croton trees and to determine accurate seed yield estimates. A final
recommendation, mainly aimed at the private sector, is to design and mainstream an integrated
model of production, processing, utilization, and marketing for Croton-based biofuel systems."
In conclusion, more local research (notice the emphasis of field trials), heavy agricultural extension and business designs are needed.
Jatropha was presented as one of the solutions to the oscillation of oil prices and climate change problems. Its biofuel is "biodegradable, offers energy security and produce cleaner and lower emissions in comparison to classical fossil fuels. As a result an increasing number of investments have been made in this sector."
"In January 2009, Time Magazine described the Jatropha as the potentially next big biofuel as it has a crucial advantage in alleviating rural poverty: "unlike corn and other biofuel sources, the Jatropha doesn’t have to compete with food crops for arable land. Even in the worst of soils, it grows like weeds""
However, according to a report of the World Agroforestry Center, caution is needed:
"Through a survey literally conducted on the 'field', hundreds of small farmers have been interviewed about the yields of Jatropha. The study has shown a dramatically different reality to what has been enthusiastically claimed. Jatropha has low yields and uneconomical costs of production. What is more this crop needs a large amount of irrigation or rainfall and has a low performance in dry zones. Contrary to what has been stated, Jatropha is vulnerable to a significant number of pests and diseases. In the lights of these results, the report suggests that “Jatropha should not be promoted among smallholder farmers as a monoculture or intercropped plantation crop […] We recommend that all stakeholders re-evaluate their activities promoting Jatropha among smallholder farmers”." Keep in mind that this is a study based in Kenya. As far as I know, Jatropha is hugely succesful in South-Asian countries such as Indonesia (where rainfall is large!).
The World Agroforestry Center furthermore reports that "Jatropha could become a complementary component of a diverse livelihood strategy that contributes to overall increased agricultural productivity. However, the lack of scientific knowledge on agronomy, such as high-yielding seeds, best management practices, and optimum soil fertility, inhibits the delivery of effective farmer extension services. Another obstacle is that most growers are geographically dispersed and have yet to produce large enough quantities of seeds to achieve the economies of scale necessary for efficient biofuels processing.". I find the last sentence interesting: biofuel (produced by any plant, not just Jatropha) is not economically viable as long as there is no big enough market for it. However big the potential may be, it still needs to be commercially effective.
"A final problem involves whether smallholder farmers with little access to capital can afford to wait the years it will take to recoup their investment and start making a profit.". This is not only a problem with Jathropa, but this problems is dealt with all trees. Not all farmers are willing to take risks and unfortunately most of the farmers in developing countries will not or can not look further than short-term profit.
Ultimately, the author of the article rightly concludes that "biofuels have potential for the future of combustible energy but sometimes they have been promoted too easily without investigating the possible consequences. Taking into account that the majority of bioenergy crops are settled in developing countries, even more cautiousness is needed. Before investing in biofuel itself, promoters should devote financial resources towards researching the possible environmental impacts, effects on food production and the economic consequences for the interested region."
The infamous disadvantages of biofuel production, such as competing with food production and the effects on food prices, are quite clear. But it is also a myth that biofuel use and production is CO2 emission-free, as explained in simple terms by this article of Wetlands International. Although a car using biofuel has less impact on the environment than the same car using diesel, the production of the biofuel itself is not emission-free and may have a big impact on the environment, as explained by the article. Basically, to correctly calculate emission by biofuel production, its whole lifecycle must be taken into account. This is where a Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) plays a role.
---------------------------------------
I would like to go deeper into the earlier report as there are some more interesting conclusions taken there. Castor, Croton and other oilseeds have promising potential in Kenya:
"Castor has great potential, but is lacking commercial investment in Kenya. Superior, high yielding seed varieties and extensive agronomic knowledge exist globally, but must be developed at the local level. Field trials to assess cost of production and yields under different management regimes are also important in order to identify the most profitable business models. Local processors must also
import the machinery required to process high-quality Castor oil.
There are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Croton trees growing wildly and in agroforestry systems throughout Kenya. Some of the critical obstacles for the development of Croton for biodiesel production include a lack of knowledge on the best silvicultural practices, such as spacing, pruning, and the correlation between fertilization of trees and yields. Seed harvesting and post-harvest handling techniques also have not been established and standardized. Nonetheless the potential for production, processing and utilization of Croton seeds for biofuels is substantial.
There is a need to design and establish agronomic research trials for determining best practices and
identifying superior, seed-producing trees. There is also an urgent need to undertake countrywide
census of different age classes of Croton trees and to determine accurate seed yield estimates. A final
recommendation, mainly aimed at the private sector, is to design and mainstream an integrated
model of production, processing, utilization, and marketing for Croton-based biofuel systems."
In conclusion, more local research (notice the emphasis of field trials), heavy agricultural extension and business designs are needed.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Changing Climate for Development
Here is an intriguing presentation of Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, co-director of the World Development Report 2010.
The presentation is focused on climate change and how the developing world can grow (significantly) while adapting to the climate. This she calls a "climate-smart" world. However, to reach this phase; the world must:
ACT NOW, because 1) today's actions determine what options are left for tomorrow; and 2) or the 2°C trajectory (as opposed to an increase of 5°C in global temperature over the following 100 years. Dr. Bierbaum explains earlier in the presentation that there is a huge significant difference of impact between these two trajectories).
ACT TOGETHER, because 1) all have a role to play to manage (research, mitigation and adaptation) costs, although high-income countries need to take the lead; 2) cooperation helps buffer shocks (such as climate change causing a global food crisis).
ACT DIFFERENTLY, as 1) we need to radically transform energy systems thereby moving from a fossil-fuel focused energy system to biomass and carbon-capture-and-storage based energy system; 2) we need to make robust rather than optimal decisions, giving the best outcome for a range of outcomes (such as developing seed varieties that perform well droughts or heat situations); 3) we need to manage contingencies better; 4) we need to manage for multiple stresses (that appear simultaneously in various places).
To make it all happen, Dr. Bierbaum proposes:
- increase funding for adaptation and mitigation now and over the years, which would cost for about 0.4% of GDP until 2100.
- challenge immediate needs, such as reforming carbon markets
- new instruments that support communities and decision-makers
- increasing the pace of innovation
- supporting financial policies leading to more efficient energy, renewable energy and new technology.
- new pressures to turn awareness into the needed actions
In conclusion, this was definitely a good and clear presentation which included some ideas that were new to me. It is a nice introduction into how the whole world can cope with and adapt to the changing climate. Everything was well argumented and there's a certain optimism that I would love to share with Dr. Bierbaum.
However, the presentation is superficial. It only touches the surface and the details aren't discussed, which is understandable as one can only do so much. Despite the fact that I like the motto of the presentation "act now, act together and act differently", it is all easier said than done. Firstly, it will already be a very difficult task to convince even the majority of all governments of the developed world to support the policies that Dr. Bierbaum suggests. Secondly, it is not certain that the new policies and reforms will have an (positive) effect on the people that need it the most (because of e.g. corruption). Therefore I find it a shame that there is a lack of ideas that effect communities directly and/or the link between the community and the government.
But I don't want to end on a negative point. As I've said before, the presentation is definitely interesting and is a good read.
I'll close this post with a link for anyone who's interested:
Blog: Development in a Changing Climate
The presentation is focused on climate change and how the developing world can grow (significantly) while adapting to the climate. This she calls a "climate-smart" world. However, to reach this phase; the world must:
ACT NOW, because 1) today's actions determine what options are left for tomorrow; and 2) or the 2°C trajectory (as opposed to an increase of 5°C in global temperature over the following 100 years. Dr. Bierbaum explains earlier in the presentation that there is a huge significant difference of impact between these two trajectories).
ACT TOGETHER, because 1) all have a role to play to manage (research, mitigation and adaptation) costs, although high-income countries need to take the lead; 2) cooperation helps buffer shocks (such as climate change causing a global food crisis).
ACT DIFFERENTLY, as 1) we need to radically transform energy systems thereby moving from a fossil-fuel focused energy system to biomass and carbon-capture-and-storage based energy system; 2) we need to make robust rather than optimal decisions, giving the best outcome for a range of outcomes (such as developing seed varieties that perform well droughts or heat situations); 3) we need to manage contingencies better; 4) we need to manage for multiple stresses (that appear simultaneously in various places).
To make it all happen, Dr. Bierbaum proposes:
- increase funding for adaptation and mitigation now and over the years, which would cost for about 0.4% of GDP until 2100.
- challenge immediate needs, such as reforming carbon markets
- new instruments that support communities and decision-makers
- increasing the pace of innovation
- supporting financial policies leading to more efficient energy, renewable energy and new technology.
- new pressures to turn awareness into the needed actions
In conclusion, this was definitely a good and clear presentation which included some ideas that were new to me. It is a nice introduction into how the whole world can cope with and adapt to the changing climate. Everything was well argumented and there's a certain optimism that I would love to share with Dr. Bierbaum.
However, the presentation is superficial. It only touches the surface and the details aren't discussed, which is understandable as one can only do so much. Despite the fact that I like the motto of the presentation "act now, act together and act differently", it is all easier said than done. Firstly, it will already be a very difficult task to convince even the majority of all governments of the developed world to support the policies that Dr. Bierbaum suggests. Secondly, it is not certain that the new policies and reforms will have an (positive) effect on the people that need it the most (because of e.g. corruption). Therefore I find it a shame that there is a lack of ideas that effect communities directly and/or the link between the community and the government.
But I don't want to end on a negative point. As I've said before, the presentation is definitely interesting and is a good read.
I'll close this post with a link for anyone who's interested:
Blog: Development in a Changing Climate
Friday, September 3, 2010
Why Sustainability Is Now The Key Driver
"There’s no alternative to sustainable development.
Even so, many companies are convinced that the more environment-friendly they become, the more the effort will erode their competitiveness. They believe it will add to costs and will not deliver immediate financial benefits.
Talk long enough to CEOs, particularly in the United States or Europe, and their concerns will pour out: Making our operations sustainable and developing “green” products places us at a disadvantage vis-à-vis rivals in developing countries that don’t face the same pressures. Suppliers can’t provide green inputs or transparency; sustainable manufacturing will demand new equipment and processes; and customers will not pay more for eco-friendly products during a recession. That’s why most executives treat the need to become sustainable as a corporate social responsibility, divorced from business objectives.
Not surprisingly, the fight to save the planet has turned into a pitched battle between governments and companies, between companies and consumer activists, and sometimes between consumer activists and governments. It resembles a three-legged race, in which you move forward with the two untied legs but the tied third leg holds you back. One solution, mooted by policy experts and environmental activists, is more and increasingly tougher regulation. They argue that voluntary action is unlikely to be enough. Another group suggests educating and organizing consumers so that they will force businesses to become sustainable. Although both legislation and education are necessary, they may not be able to solve the problem quickly or completely.
Executives behave as though they have to choose between the largely social benefits of developing sustainable products or processes and the financial costs of doing so. But that’s simply not true. We’ve been studying the sustainability initiatives of 30 large corporations for some time. Our research shows that sustainability is a mother lode of organizational and technological innovations that yield both bottom-line and top-line returns. Becoming environment-friendly lowers costs because companies end up reducing the inputs they use. In addition, the process generates additional revenues from better products or enables companies to create new businesses. In fact, because those are the goals of corporate innovation, we find that smart companies now treat sustainability as innovation’s new frontier.
Indeed, the quest for sustainability is already starting to transform the competitive landscape, which will force companies to change the way they think about products, technologies, processes, and business models. The key to progress, particularly in times of economic crisis, is innovation. Just as some internet companies survived the bust in 2000 to challenge incumbents, so, too, will sustainable corporations emerge from today’s recession to upset the status quo. By treating sustainability as a goal today, early movers will develop competencies that rivals will be hard-pressed to match. That competitive advantage will stand them in good stead, because sustainability will always be an integral part of development.
It isn’t going to be easy. Enterprises that have started the journey, our study shows, go through five distinct stages of change. They face different challenges at each stage and must develop new capabilities to tackle them, as we will show in the following pages. Mapping the road ahead will save companies time—and that could be critical, because the clock is ticking."
(source: http://hbr.org/2009/09/why-sustainability-is-now-the-key-driver-of-innovation/ar/1)
Even so, many companies are convinced that the more environment-friendly they become, the more the effort will erode their competitiveness. They believe it will add to costs and will not deliver immediate financial benefits.
Talk long enough to CEOs, particularly in the United States or Europe, and their concerns will pour out: Making our operations sustainable and developing “green” products places us at a disadvantage vis-à-vis rivals in developing countries that don’t face the same pressures. Suppliers can’t provide green inputs or transparency; sustainable manufacturing will demand new equipment and processes; and customers will not pay more for eco-friendly products during a recession. That’s why most executives treat the need to become sustainable as a corporate social responsibility, divorced from business objectives.
Not surprisingly, the fight to save the planet has turned into a pitched battle between governments and companies, between companies and consumer activists, and sometimes between consumer activists and governments. It resembles a three-legged race, in which you move forward with the two untied legs but the tied third leg holds you back. One solution, mooted by policy experts and environmental activists, is more and increasingly tougher regulation. They argue that voluntary action is unlikely to be enough. Another group suggests educating and organizing consumers so that they will force businesses to become sustainable. Although both legislation and education are necessary, they may not be able to solve the problem quickly or completely.
Executives behave as though they have to choose between the largely social benefits of developing sustainable products or processes and the financial costs of doing so. But that’s simply not true. We’ve been studying the sustainability initiatives of 30 large corporations for some time. Our research shows that sustainability is a mother lode of organizational and technological innovations that yield both bottom-line and top-line returns. Becoming environment-friendly lowers costs because companies end up reducing the inputs they use. In addition, the process generates additional revenues from better products or enables companies to create new businesses. In fact, because those are the goals of corporate innovation, we find that smart companies now treat sustainability as innovation’s new frontier.
Indeed, the quest for sustainability is already starting to transform the competitive landscape, which will force companies to change the way they think about products, technologies, processes, and business models. The key to progress, particularly in times of economic crisis, is innovation. Just as some internet companies survived the bust in 2000 to challenge incumbents, so, too, will sustainable corporations emerge from today’s recession to upset the status quo. By treating sustainability as a goal today, early movers will develop competencies that rivals will be hard-pressed to match. That competitive advantage will stand them in good stead, because sustainability will always be an integral part of development.
It isn’t going to be easy. Enterprises that have started the journey, our study shows, go through five distinct stages of change. They face different challenges at each stage and must develop new capabilities to tackle them, as we will show in the following pages. Mapping the road ahead will save companies time—and that could be critical, because the clock is ticking."
(source: http://hbr.org/2009/09/why-sustainability-is-now-the-key-driver-of-innovation/ar/1)
Want to Curb Litter? Tax the bag
"In 2005, Botswana joined countries like Denmark, Italy, South Africa, and Ireland in regulating the design and use of plastic bags – emulating many countries and municipalities that have taken measures to cut the environmental eyesore of plastic bag litter. The legislation set a minimum manufacturing standard, punishment for those who did not follow those standards and forced retailers to be transparent when determining the costs of plastic shopping bags. In 2007, Botswana imposed a tax on each bag used.
In a new Environment for Development discussion paper, Behavioral Response to Plastic Bag Legislation in Botswana, authors Johane Dikgang and Martine Visser analyze the success of the legislation and conclude—at least in the short-term—that the bag policies are working.
During the 18 months after the legislation was passed, plastic bag consumption fell by 50 percent when compared to pre-tax consumption. “The partial success of the Botswana levy was due to the constant high prices of the plastic bags,” Dikgang and Visser write. “Even after the initial significant decline in consumption, prices of bags continued to increase.” Compared to other countries with similar legislation, Dikgang and Visser believe Botswana will continue to see positive results.
“Unlike South Africa, plastic bag consumption in Botswana fell sharply and remained significantly low 18 months after charging for them began,” the authors write. “It suggests that South Africa’s attempt to use taxes to regulate plastic bag consumption failed because the initial price that was too low. “Whether the Botswana levy will result in sustained lower consumption, as in Ireland, remains to be seen. However, based on the Irish experience, we predict that as long as the price remains high the levy in Botswana will continue to be effective over time.”"
(source: http://www.efdinitiative.org/centers/south-africa/news-press/news-archive/2010/want-to-curb-litter-tax-the-bag)
This article led me to the interesting nonprofit research organization Resource For the Future:
"RFF is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that conducts independent research – rooted primarily in economics and other social sciences – on environmental, energy, natural resource and public health issues.
....
For more than 50 years, RFF has pioneered the application of economics as a tool to develop more effective policy about the use and conservation of natural resources. Its scholars continue to analyze critical issues concerning pollution control, energy and transportation policy, land and water use, hazardous waste, climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem management, public health, and the environmental challenges of developing countries."
In a new Environment for Development discussion paper, Behavioral Response to Plastic Bag Legislation in Botswana, authors Johane Dikgang and Martine Visser analyze the success of the legislation and conclude—at least in the short-term—that the bag policies are working.
During the 18 months after the legislation was passed, plastic bag consumption fell by 50 percent when compared to pre-tax consumption. “The partial success of the Botswana levy was due to the constant high prices of the plastic bags,” Dikgang and Visser write. “Even after the initial significant decline in consumption, prices of bags continued to increase.” Compared to other countries with similar legislation, Dikgang and Visser believe Botswana will continue to see positive results.
“Unlike South Africa, plastic bag consumption in Botswana fell sharply and remained significantly low 18 months after charging for them began,” the authors write. “It suggests that South Africa’s attempt to use taxes to regulate plastic bag consumption failed because the initial price that was too low. “Whether the Botswana levy will result in sustained lower consumption, as in Ireland, remains to be seen. However, based on the Irish experience, we predict that as long as the price remains high the levy in Botswana will continue to be effective over time.”"
(source: http://www.efdinitiative.org/centers/south-africa/news-press/news-archive/2010/want-to-curb-litter-tax-the-bag)
This article led me to the interesting nonprofit research organization Resource For the Future:
"RFF is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that conducts independent research – rooted primarily in economics and other social sciences – on environmental, energy, natural resource and public health issues.
....
For more than 50 years, RFF has pioneered the application of economics as a tool to develop more effective policy about the use and conservation of natural resources. Its scholars continue to analyze critical issues concerning pollution control, energy and transportation policy, land and water use, hazardous waste, climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem management, public health, and the environmental challenges of developing countries."
Monday, August 23, 2010
Green Economy
Following the previous articles, here are two useful links:
- Chalmers Climate Calculator: with this calculator you can generate your own graphs of CO2 emission and temperature over the following decades. By playing with the parameters (including emission percentages of Annex 1 countries to climate sensitivity) you can change the paths of the curves and generate your own scenario.
- The Green Economy Initiative: "The Green Economy Initiative (GEI) is designed to assist governments in “greening” their economies by reshaping and refocusing policies, investments and spending towards a range of sectors, such as clean technologies, renewable energies, water services, green transportation, waste management, green buildings and sustainable agriculture and forests."
- Chalmers Climate Calculator: with this calculator you can generate your own graphs of CO2 emission and temperature over the following decades. By playing with the parameters (including emission percentages of Annex 1 countries to climate sensitivity) you can change the paths of the curves and generate your own scenario.
- The Green Economy Initiative: "The Green Economy Initiative (GEI) is designed to assist governments in “greening” their economies by reshaping and refocusing policies, investments and spending towards a range of sectors, such as clean technologies, renewable energies, water services, green transportation, waste management, green buildings and sustainable agriculture and forests."
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Voluntary Pledges and Green Growth in the Post Copenhagen climate
Here's an abstract of the article, written by professor of environmental economics Thomas Sterner (whose bio you may find here):
"A number of features set climate change apart from most environmental problems: It spans several generations forcing us to think in new ways about intergenerational fairness. Even more importantly, it involves a delicate problem of coordination between countries and other agents at a truly global scale. As long as it is very profitable to use fossil fuels, policy coordination must include basically all major economies. The costs are sufficiently sizeable to make it important that the policy instruments chosen encourage efficiency in abatement. Ultimately this means striving towards a single market for carbon. The importance of getting near-universal adhesion to a treaty makes fairness and procedure important but we know how difficult it is to build a truly global agreement. Some people, both environmentalists and business leaders see green growth as the magic bullet: we should stop talking about who gets to use fossil fuels and instead focus on who will lead us into the green valleys of the future and there reap all the benefits of being first. This sounds good but who is going to stop laggards from simply continuing to burn coal? This paper discusses the necessary ingredients for a long run Global Climate Strategy. At the end we will dwell on the “short run” issue of what policies to pursue in the mean time. As we wait for the final (and maybe elusive) Worldwide treaty, we must have a policy that makes sense and in fact is not only compatible with, but hopefully facilitates the development of this worldwide agreement! The last section will focus on what forms of “green growth” strategy are reasonable for this intermediate period that we are in and which may be end up being more long than short."
Read the full article here.
"A number of features set climate change apart from most environmental problems: It spans several generations forcing us to think in new ways about intergenerational fairness. Even more importantly, it involves a delicate problem of coordination between countries and other agents at a truly global scale. As long as it is very profitable to use fossil fuels, policy coordination must include basically all major economies. The costs are sufficiently sizeable to make it important that the policy instruments chosen encourage efficiency in abatement. Ultimately this means striving towards a single market for carbon. The importance of getting near-universal adhesion to a treaty makes fairness and procedure important but we know how difficult it is to build a truly global agreement. Some people, both environmentalists and business leaders see green growth as the magic bullet: we should stop talking about who gets to use fossil fuels and instead focus on who will lead us into the green valleys of the future and there reap all the benefits of being first. This sounds good but who is going to stop laggards from simply continuing to burn coal? This paper discusses the necessary ingredients for a long run Global Climate Strategy. At the end we will dwell on the “short run” issue of what policies to pursue in the mean time. As we wait for the final (and maybe elusive) Worldwide treaty, we must have a policy that makes sense and in fact is not only compatible with, but hopefully facilitates the development of this worldwide agreement! The last section will focus on what forms of “green growth” strategy are reasonable for this intermediate period that we are in and which may be end up being more long than short."
Read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)