Tag Archives: javascript
UN Carbon Market Health Depends On Global Ambition – JI Chair
20 June 2013, 3:49 pm By John Parnell – See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/…h.60MVdq16.dpuf Fixing carbon markets and mechanisms will do nothing to reduce emissions without ambitious climate policies from governments a senior climate diplomat has warned. Derrick Oderson, chair of the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC), said fixing the Joint Implementation (JI) programme was not the real long term goal. “The JI will be put to good use only when countries do what’s needed with respect to commitments to reduce. This is an extremely urgent matter, not to save the JI, but to avoid calamity,” he told RTCC in an emailed interview. The JI, part of the Kyoto Protocol, allows industrialised nations to invest in low carbon projects in economies in transition. Low carbon prices, partly a result of low greenhouse gas reduction targets, have damaged the scheme’s health. Oderson has been overseeing a review of the JI to get it back on its feet and is confident it will have a role to play when a new, global treaty replaces Kyoto in 2020. Read the full interview with Oderson below: Derrick Oderson, chair of the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (Source: UNFCCC) What effect has the new extended but streamlined Kyoto Protocol had on the JI in the 6 months since Doha finished? Agreeing a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol was a key success of Doha. In the six months since COP 18, the JI Supervisory Committee has been working to fine-tune its recommendations to the Parties on how to improve the JI for a stronger future. This JISC is hopeful that these recommendations will be adopted in Warsaw at the end of the year. That said, without increased ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mechanisms like JI have a limited role. With ambitious targets, mechanisms like JI become indispensable. It’s as simple as that. Low carbon prices and imbalances in supply and demand are being addressed in carbon markets, what is the best course of action in your opinion to address low prices in offset mechanisms? Again, countries need to increase their level of ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If countries committed to the level of abatement that is required to address climate change, then demand for tools like JI – and the clean development mechanism, and other mechanisms and approaches – would be immediate and substantial. Given the types of projects that JI invests in, energy efficiency for example, do you think it can argue more than others that participation has economic advantages? I think the strength of JI is that it can be used by countries to focus investment on whatever sector makes sense. However, the mechanism’s value is tied to countries’ efforts to reduce emissions. With prices for units so low, and emission reduction ambition well below what is needed to address climate change, the incentive is just not there. How important is ambitious climate action by governments in making tools like the JI effective? JI will be put to good use only when countries do what’s needed with respect to commitments to reduce. This is an extremely urgent matter, not to save the JI, but to avoid calamity. The JI exists, above all, as a mechanism to support least-cost options for climate change mitigation. Climate change is not going away. It is the JISC’s job to ensure that JI is there for countries when they do turn to reach for it. With the benefit of hindsight, what would change about the JI if you could redesign it? Joint implementation is a fully functioning tool that countries took a great deal of trouble to create. JI has shown that it works, but it has also shown that it could be improved. The JISC has invested a lot of effort into developing recommendations to do just that. The key feature of our recommendations is creating a single track for the oversight of JI projects, administered by an international body. Only then will people have the level of comfort in the mechanism that is required, with respect to the reliability of oversight and the quality of the emission reductions produced. The recommendations also include creating an aligned or unified accreditation process with the CDM, an appeals procedure and clear additionality requirements amongst other things. The full recommendations are on the UNFCCC website (JISC 30, Annex 1). How do you see the future of the JI in the new climate regime? National governments and the private sector see value in the JI mechanism. It works, helping countries to focus and incentivize investment. Parties could quite easily agree to the needed improvements in JI – these have already been before them for consideration – and they could (and should) come up with the bridging decisions that would carry JI to the next phase of international action. The challenge in coming up with recommendations for the future has been to devise a mechanism that has the benefits of flexibility and strong national involvement, but which can ensure a healthy, useful measure of broad, independent oversight. The JISC thinks it has done this in its recommendations for revisions to the JI guidelines. Continue reading
Fortum’s Biofuel-Fired CHP Plant Inaugurated In Järvenpää
FortumPress releaseFortum’s biofuel-fired CHP plant inaugurated in JärvenpääEspoo, Finland, 2013-06-14 14:30 CEST (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PRESS RELEASE 14 June 2013 Fortum’s new biofuel-fired plant has been commissioned in Järvenpää, Finland. The plant utilises biofuels to produce district heat for about 34,000 residents in Tuusula and Järvenpää as well as electricity for the national grid. The plant’s annual production is about 280 gigawatt-hours of heat and about 130 gigawatt-hours of electricity. The amount of heat production is equivalent to the annual heat consumption of about 31,000 average-sized Finnish households. Minister of Economic Affairs Jan Vapaavuori and Fortum’s Chief Financial Officer Markus Rauramo inaugurated the biofuel-fired CHP plant on Friday, June 14th, in Järvenpää. “One of the cornerstones of Fortum’s strategy is strong competence in combined heat and power (CHP) production. CHP production is a very energy efficient and low-emissions production form. Moreover, Fortum uses the most biomass for energy production in the Baltic Region. That is another reason why the Järvenpää CHP plant project aligns well with Fortum’s strategy. At the same time, the plant supports Finland’s emissions reduction targets and increases the use of renewable energy,” Fortum’s Chief Financial Officer Markus Rauramo noted in the inauguration speech. Normally, the plant uses only biofuel, mainly forest residues and forest industry by-products, like sawdust and bark. If needed, the plant can also be fuelled with peat and natural gas. Every weekday, some 35 truckloads of biofuel are transported to the Järvenpää plant. The fuel is locally sourced from an approximately 100-kilometer radius from the plant. Acquiring, handling and transporting the fuel provides employment for about 80 people. Fortum invested about 80 million euros in the Järvenpää biofuel-fired plant. During the past three years, Fortum has invested close to 300 million euros in low-emissions energy production in the Helsinki metropolitan area. These eco-friendly plant investments significantly decrease carbon dioxide emissions in the region. Emissions from heat production will decrease by about 70% in the region as a result of the investment. Fortum Corporation Corporate Communications Additional information: Jouni Haikarainen, Vice President, Fortum Heat Division, Finland, tel. +358 40 709 5690 Fortum media phone: +358 40 198 2843 Fortum Fortum’s purpose is to create energy that improves life for present and future generations. We provide sustainable solutions that fulfil the needs for low emissions, resource efficiency and energy security, and deliver excellent value to our shareholders. Our activities cover the generation, distribution and sales of electricity and heat as well as related expert services. Fortum’s operations focus on the Nordic countries, Russia, Poland and the Baltics. In the future, the integrating European and fast-growing Asian energy markets provide additional growth opportunities. In 2012, Fortum’s sales totalled EUR 6.2 billion and comparable operating profit was EUR 1.7 billion. We employ approximately 10,400 people. Fortum’s shares are quoted on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki. Additional information: www.fortum.com/fi Continue reading
G8 Leaders ‘Need To Go Further’ On Food Security In Africa
G8 leaders ‘need to go further’ on food security in Africa by Jonathan M. White 14 June 2013 When they meet at Lough Erne, G8 leaders will have to reconcile two competing visions of the New Alliance initiative started last year to lift millions of people out of poverty, says think-tank The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition – a joint initiative of African leaders, the private sector, and G8 governments – was launched at last year’s G8 Summit with the ambitious goal of lifting 50 million people out of poverty by 2022. Over the past 12 months, 91 per cent of G8 government commitments have been disbursed on time, and more than half of the private sector investments, worth a total of over $3bn, have commenced. From creating an electronic customs clearance system for agriculture commodities in Burkina Faso to a new seed law in Ghana, New Alliance policy actions could prove to be transformational and strengthen food security in participating countries, which also include Ethiopia, Tanzania, Côte d’Ivoire, and Mozambique. During a pre-G8 Summit event on nutrition last week, Nigeria, Benin and Malawi signed up as well. When they meet at Lough Erne, the G8 leaders will have to reconcile two competing visions of the New Alliance. Some argue that, although well intended, it will not result in sustainable or responsible investments. Big global companies only understand large-scale intensive single crop production models, which are often highly destructive to biodiversity and the social fabric of smallholder farming communities. While the flow of corporate investment and the adoption of modern farm management, skills, and technology will increase agricultural production, these benefits would come at a high cost. Investments will also go toward exportable products and not the local market, making smallholder farmers increasingly dependent on volatile international markets. Others contend that the New Alliance aligns public and private resources with country-led strategies that are consistent with host-country priorities and needs. The initiative is also supportive of multinational guidelines on the governance of land, fisheries, and forests, designed to guard against land grabs and social disruption. Proponents argue that corporate investors, non-governmental organisations, and development partners will assist smallholder farmers integrate into agriculture value chains by helping them organise into cooperatives and engage in contract farming Public-private partnerships and innovative business models will ensure both development and commercial goals are achieved. Which narrative is right? Each holds some merit. In at least four New Alliance countries, there is evidence that local communities have not been sufficiently consulted by investors or governments in land transactions. In two countries, the compensation to households affected by these land investments has been determined to be inadequate. While public-private partnerships are promising, it is clear that some companies simply do not understand how to engage with smallholder farmers. At the same time, the Grow Africa initiative, which is supporting the New Alliance, has reported that more than $60 million invested so far has incorporated smallholder farmers into market-based activities. Approximately 270,000 metric tonnes of commodities were sourced, generating $300m in sales for farmers. Nearly 800,000 smallholders have benefited from a mix of training, service provisions, and market access. While land grabs are a concern, the New Alliance is not dominated by large global corporations. Many sizeable investments are, in fact, driven by African firms and small and medium-sized enterprises. Grow Africa data covers New Alliance countries minus Côte d’Ivoire and plus Kenya and Rwanda. At the heart of the debate over these competing visions is the role of the private sector. Business and trade are often viewed as sources of plunder in Africa – the depletion of oil, gas, and natural resources through shadowy networks of business and government officials. Africa’s economic growth and rising middle class are promising, and African leaders have clearly committed to private sector development. Yet, this has not completely tipped the balance in local perceptions about the private sector. Weak governance and corruption further undermine trust in both governments and business. As the host of the upcoming G8 Summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron will have to navigate this thicket of issues. He is off to a good start, forming a ‘coalition of the willing’ to publish guidelines for land transactions and making progress on nutrition through the Global Nutrition for Growth compact and commitments . Transparency through the release of the 2013 New Alliance progress report will build confidence behind the initiative. But global leaders will need to go further. New Alliance dialogues must be embedded in local contexts, opening them more broadly to public debate through formal platforms or institutions. This means local public and private sector leaders will have to step up. Others can help, but it is these local actors who must ultimately build the mechanisms that will strengthen governance and reveal which investment models succeed or fail, so that we may learn along the way to enabling agricultural transformational in Africa. Jonathan M. White is a transatlantic fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, which first published this article in its Transatlantic Take series as Can the G8 Navigate Competing Visions for Food Security in Africa? Read more: http://www.publicser…a#ixzz2WrP1lKzS Continue reading




