This afternoon I had to privilege to visit the Flemish Parliament to attend a discussion organised by Groen!, the Flemish Green party. Two scientists and two representatives from NGOs set out their ideas and views related to climate change and necessary actions in order to highlight, just before the conference in Copenhagen, that more ambition is needed.

One of them set out the current science concerning climate change. Although this is of course well-known, it is always refreshing to get a good overview of the latest science. The picture is not rosy: it appears that we are now in territory of increases in carbon levels and temperature rises that are not comparable with anything in the past. He also showed that the current carbon emissions have already set processes in motion that might soon become irreversible, e.g. the melting of the ice-cap in Greenland. Further, most of the current scenarios will not limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, which is however what politicians say they are aiming for.

The next speaker confirmed that story, but highlighted that telling it to citizens does not seem to have an effect. These doom scenarios, while realistic, are only frightening them or make them disillusioned. That might explain why a majority of the Americans does not (want to) believe that climate change is caused by our own actions. It is an inconvenient story at the least. Further, even the people that are convinced that action is necessary, often do not change their behaviour themselves.

It thus seems that other ways are necessary to achieve a wider support base for more ambitious action against climate change. One way is to highlight the secondary benefits from measures tackling climate change. For example, renewable energy like wind power creates jobs, many more than fossil and ten times more than nuclear energy. It also enhances our security of energy supply.

This is of course not a new insight: it is exactly the ‘Green Deal’ that the European Greens have advocated in the recent election campaign. However, it applies more widely than just to (renewable) energy. Unpopular messages such as lower meat consumption may come across more convincing when the health benefits from such diet are communicated as well. In fact, many necessary climate change actions have health benefits. Cycling as means of transport is of course the most obvious, but only one of them.

Such arguments will need to be used more highlighting that many of the measures tackling climate change taking are ‘no-regret’ options that will bring a sustainable economy closer, both from the environmental and the social viewpoint. Those are arguments that can help convincing citizens and build support for voluntary change of behaviour as well as more ambitious political action. It will be crucial to bring that message across to citizens not only via green politicians but also via alliances with consumer organisations, trade unions, etc.

In short, the Green Deal is not just about a deal in Copenhagen, it is a path towards a sustainable economy. It is a social deal as well as an environmental one.

Algumas das promessas do Green Deal verde já estão se mostrando viáveis. Uma delas é a geração de empregos com a economia limpa.

A indústria de energia eólica nos Estados Unidos acaba de ultrapassar a poderosa indústria do carvão em número de empregos gerados. As empresas que produzem, instalam e fazem manutenção dos cataventos passaram a empregar 85 mil pessoas em 2008. Enquanto o setor do carvão continuou gerando 81 mil postos de trabalho. Dos empregos gerados com a energia eólica, 13 mil foram em regiões que estavam sofrendo com o encolhimento de outras indústrias manufatureiras.

Isso é o resoltado de um investimento recente americano em energias limpas e renováveis, como forma de reduzir a dependência no petróleo e também diminuir as emissões poluentes. No ano passado, os EUA aumentaram em 50% a capacidade instalada dos geradores a vento. É um bom exemplo para o Brasil, onde a própria presidente da Comissão Mista Permanente sobre Mudanças Climáticas no Senado, Ideli Salvatti, defende o investimento em carvão. Como ela explica em entrevista à Época.

Enquanto isso, a ecologicamente correta Vale do Rio Doce insiste em termelétricas a carvão mineral em Barcarena, Estado do Pará, na Amazônia, o pulmão do mundo…

WITH the global economic recession, a broken financial system, job losses, fall in assets, drop in wealth, persistent poverty and growing environmental problems it is time to change our model of economic growth.

The global recession is an economic tsunami that sweeping across the planet destroying companies, banks, jobs and lives in its path. To recover from the global slump an economic stimulus is deemed necessary to kick-start production and consumption. The rebuilding of the global economy provides a unique opportunity to create a low-carbon economy that will provide jobs, stabilise the climate and ensure both financial and ecological sustainability.

The capitalist model of development has been to strive for ever more growth but it has failed to deliver greater happiness, freedom from poverty and sustainable use of the planet’s finite natural resources. Instead it has delivered prosperity for the few based on ecological destruction and social injustice. A report of the UK Sustainable Development Commission entitled Prosperity without Growth? claims that it is delusional if we think that the current capitalist economic model can stabilise the climate and protect resource scarcity. Improvements in energy intensity (carbon) have been offset by increases in the scale of economic activity. Global carbon emissions from energy use have increased by 40 per cent since 1990. There is no credible socially just, ecologically sustainable scenario for a growing incomes of 9 billion people.

The economic recovery will demand investment. At the G20 London Summit on 2 April 2009 leaders of the world’s largest economies agreed a global plan for economic recovery and reform. The twenty-nine point communiqué, included US$1.1 trillion for global economic recovery, but was weak on trade issues and a commitment to spend a substantial share of the economic stimulus on low-carbon recovery projects.

Many environmental groups are calling for a need for a global green deal to invest in a green economy. Targeting investment towards energy security, low-carbon infrastructures and ecological protection is vital if we are to achieve a green recovery. It has been suggested that at least two per cent of world GDP should be targeted to green investment and job-generating projects.

A report on pathways to a low carbon economy by McKinsey and Co claims that moving to a “green” global economy is affordable and can protect the planet from the worst effects of climate change by being kept global temperatures below the critical 2°C. The study lists more than 200 opportunities, spread across ten sectors and twenty-one geographical regions, which could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. That is if all the technology options were put into practice.

For a bargain price of less than half a per cent of global GDP greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced. This would be achieved by investment in wind, solar and other sustainable renewable energy which could by 2030 provide almost a third of all global power needs. Energy efficiency could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than a quarter and deforestation in developing countries could be almost fully halted.

This need for a green recovery is slowly trickling thorough to our political leaders. In an interview with The Independent newspaper, the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in a reference to green initiatives in the budget, which will be on Wednesday 22 April, Brown said: “This is a major part of our plan for recovery in the budget. We will set our proposals for greener economy.” This will enable Britain to become a market leader across the world for electric and hybrid cars. We wait to hear the measures that the UK government will take.

It is clear we cannot go back to our past ways of operating our economic system. The economic recovery has to deliver a different quality of economic growth that can deliver immediate and long-term benefits, reduce the effects of climate change, reduce energy insecurity and the depletion of natural resources.

A Green recovery is the only option.

© Gary Haq 2009

Dans son dernier message vidéo, Vivian Reding, membre de la Commission européenne responsable de la société de l’information et des médias, rappelle l’engagement de l’Union Européenne en matière de réduction énergétique. Et l’objectif est particulièrement clair : d’ici à 2020, l’Europe doit être en mesure de réduire de 20% sa consommation énergétique totale. Or, les efforts engagés aujourd’hui ne sont pas suffisants puisque sur la base de ce qui est mis en œuvre actuellement, seule une réduction de 13% sera atteinte. Pour Vivian Reding, la réponse est dans une meilleure utilisation des nouvelles technologies de l’information. Celles-ci, par exemple, pourraient aider les familles européennes à mieux contrôler leurs dépenses énergétiques, en mettant à leur disposition des outils de mesure efficaces. En conclusion de son message, Vivian Reding indique que les acteurs des NTIC ont la capacité de réduire leur propre consommation de 20% d’ici 2015, et montrer ainsi la voie au reste des industriels.

 700 billion dollars have already been allocated.  Total job losses in 2008 have hit over 1.9 million, but well-designed recovery programs could restore lost jobs and green our economy, AND once and for all put an end to the “clean coal technology” debate, which as Al Gore said yesterday on NPR, DOES NOT EXIST!

A  plethora of very valuable recommendations have been pouring in.  Both the Green Recoveryand the 2030 Blueprint provide the archetype needed to create the Keynesian New Deal that I suspect the new administration will follow.  Below is the summary for the 2030 Blueprint, with a tagline of a under $200 billion, not a lot of cash these days…

The 2030 Blueprint 

1.  Implement an immediate moratorium on the construction of any new conventional coal plants, and the gradual phasing out of all existing conventional coal plants by 2030 to: 

 • place an immediate cap on coal plant emissions while allowing time to retrain coal workers for new jobs. 

2.  Require that all developments using federal funds meet the 2030 Challenge targets to: 

 • create additional models of building energy efficiency for the marketplace. 

3.  Upgrade the National Energy Conservation Code Standard to the 2030 Challenge targets for residential 

and commercial buildings to: 

 • immediately stabilize and begin reducing energy demand in the Building Sector. 

4.  Invest $21.6 billion each year for five years in building energy efficiency measures through existing 

federal programs (i.e. New Markets Tax Credits; Low Income Housing Tax Credits; a five-year extension and 

increased funding for efficiency in the Energy Policy Act) and new energy efficiency incentives, tax credits 

and programs to: 

 • stimulate building construction 

 • reduce annual Building Sector energy consumption by 5 QBtu 

 • reduce annual U.S. CO 

2 emissions by 433.5 MMT 

 • save consumers $128 billion (which more than covers the cost of this solution), and 

 • create more than one million permanent new jobs 

5. Fund and implement a joint labor-management job training program for displaced coal industry jobs 

based on successful models developed over the past two decades in the tire/rubber, steel, automobile 

and communications industries. 

Congress is currently ‘casting about’ for solutions to both the climate crisis and the U.S. economic crisis. The 2030 Blueprint tackles both crises at once. For just a small portion of the $168 billion that Congress recently earmarked to inject into the struggling economy, the U.S. can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs and an economic stimulus package that ripples throughout the U.S. economy.

Dear all,

I have promised to write something optimistic in the spirit of Xmas. This year financial crisis would keep us more at home, with friends and family, watching DVD’s or TV and listening to more music. I suggest that all of you keep up with home parties and take advantage of every possible chance for entertainment. But i would like to share my predictions for 2009 with you. I will not complaint or play Kassandra’s role in an ancient tragedy. The opposite : I will highlight all the possible positive things for you.

Next year wil be amazing and positive. Why?

1) Obama, Brown and other world leaders, will find the sollution to boost economy, to improve environment through a new Green Agreement and will eliminate poverty and conflicts. Our PASOK leader George Papandreou will shift politics of the country and lead us to a new era of prosperity and peace.

2) Multinationals will distribute further global wealth and will apply a new code of ethics, based on the principle of limit profits in favour of social investment and better paid employment.

3) Microsoft and Google will take the decision to distribute for free hardware and software to all people IT illiterate in order to secure access to knowledge to all humans on earth on equal basis. Also will donate significant amounts to open source communities and as a result software will be distributed freely to all communities with limited financial sources.

4) Cinema and arts will gain more financial support globally. A new century of cultural production will begin with more people creating and producing their work, without financial burdens and expensive PR experts. Radio and Internet will be again the main media for information and knowledge distribution.

5) In 2009’s  world, Al Queida fighters will give up their weapons and will support an everlasting peace that was never experienced before by our planet. Democratic regimes with total respect of woman and human rights will emerge globally and the most important: without even a bullet to be shot.

6) In a sudden move, International Olympic Federation and all high level athletes would decide to eliminate doping from sports and sponsors will link their finance to develop massive programs of sports than to finance expensive PR events. A new era of sport’s industry would start based on people’s joy for sports and not to Media and Multinational’s interests.

7) In another sudden move big players in food industry would sign an agreement on consumer protection and “chemical clean” production. They would finance a huge restructuring program of farming and land cultivation, securing a bright nutritional future for all of us.

EU Commission decides to declare Europe as a Green area. So in a period of 5 years : all cars must have hybridic engines, stricter urban planning, massive housing projects for poor parts of population and every citizen must have equal and free access to education in all levels (academic institutions included…)

9) Governments will decide to pass to a different democratic system. Will pass more responsibilities and participatory mechanisms to society. Public information would be equally accessed by everyone in combination with point (3). Corruption will disappear because the new world would not need weapons or armies. All those military structures would be given to societies and huge numbers of employment would be created for recycling the useless weaponry. Automatically funds will be distributed to researchers and new scientists to draw teh new peaceful world. Human sciencies and health research would be really boosted. Pharmaceutical companies would offer medicines to eliminate diseases and to face new ones. Costs would be so low that countries in africa would be relieved by HIV or other killing agents…

10) My son will finish University on time, my friend Marcella will have a major success on her work and my other friend Sabina would be a world champion (i dont give last names…they know for what i’m talking about). My mother will be relieved by diabetes and I will get married again HAPILLY!!! All my other friends would be happy with their lives, breaking their current isolation, showing understanding to each other and never fight again.

If i was writing to Santa Clause that would be my letter….mor or less!!!

Happy Xmas to all.

The most amazing thing about this presidential election is the wave, the huge wave of energy that unfolded into Barak Obama’s campaign. It was the best organized election campaign I have ever seen: people from all walks of life first registered voters, then switched to canvassing undecided voters and then worked on the logistics of getting out the vote. For the past six months, thousands of people made the campaign the sole focus of their life.

The question I have is: Will the Obama administration manage to capitalize the enormous amount of Energy and Goodwill that poured into the Presidential Campaign and direct it toward moving the country out of the consumption society that is killing us and our environment?

I am not suggesting that we duplicate the type of projects that the Roosevelt administration organized. That was seventy years ago, or rather seventy light years away. Then we lived on a different planet than the one we live on now.
I am suggesting that we use this capital of Energy and Goodwill to move to a more sustainable Economy.

I am calling for a GREEN NEW DEAL that support Urban Farming, local recycling efforts, zero carbon energy production, alternative modes of transportation, higher Energy Efficiency and stronger local communities.

Here are a few examples:

- Organize neighborhood wide Solar Water Heating Buying and Installation Groups.

- Offer very low cost house insulation services for the thousands of Philadelphia row house owners.

- Create Recycling based companies such as The Recycle Bank and “TerraCycle”.

- Offer more efficient modes of transportation than the ubiquitous one person car that is cloging our streets and the air.

With this in mind, PhillyEcoCity is launching the PhillyEcoCity Information Hub

The PhillyEcoCity Information Hub is a dedicated website that you can access from the Information Hub page. The PhillyEcoCity Information Hub is a database supporting  information sharing among people in the Philadelphia area working toward building a more sustainable local economy.
The idea of this database is to help us help each other by sharing information and lessons learned from sustainability projects that have been implemented all around the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Please start sharing the lessons you learned while building your green roof or while installing your solar panels.

Time is short, do it now.

They are some of the fastest growing markets in the world and as Thomas Friedman writes in “Power of Green” (see here for post), if they copy western consumption patterns they are likely to compound our current drive to destroy the environment.  Yet, as today’s WSJ writes in “GM is Banking on China and India to Drive Growth” (Note: the title was later changed to “GM Retrenches in Europe, Shifts Gaze East”) to car companies, China and India are nothing more than the biggest untapped markets in the world.

Having recently been to both China and India, I feel very comfortable saying that of the many things these countries need, cars are not one of them.  If anything, India and China need less cars and more alternate modes of transportation.  After finishing my days travelling Delhi with black snot, after near-death incidents on country roads, and after suffering endless traffic jams and contamination in Beijing, it is appalling to think that we will continue to sell a car culture without being horrified.

Rick Wagoner, GM’s CEO, says, “We think, within a decade, India will emerge as the second-fastest growing automotive market in the world.” I can imagine Mr. Wagoner smiling as he says this.

Additionally, GM China President Kevin Wale says that by 2020, China will be the single biggest car market in the world.

As the WSJ reports, “The main goal of GMs emerging-markets strategy is to gain revenue and profit.  But the rapid moves to bulk up capacity and sales in Asia could also help GM to fend off Toyota’s challenge to GM’s six-decade reign as the world’s No. 1 car maker.”  In the entire article, the environmental damage from a more vibrant car industry is not mentioned once.

After countless developing countries around the world copied the car culture of the United States and in doing so, obtained the corresponding transportation and environmental issues, it is ridiculous that the car companies can push their product so unashamedly.  As Thomas Friedman writes, if current patterns of growth continues (and GM hopes they do), the results will be catastrophic:

“China currently has only one car for every 100 people, but [...] as it reaches American income levels, if it copies American consumption, it will have three cars for every four people, or 1.1 billion vehicles.  The total world fleet today is 800 million vehicles!”

In this last Sunday NYTimes Magazine, Thomas Friedman published “The Power of Green” his take on why going “green” should be the new national objective. Friedman makes the case for the Green Deal by arguing that it would be incredibly beneficial for national security objectives, to combat climate change (not surprisingly), to make the rise of China and India less environmentally catastrophic, and to put the United States back in a leadership mode in an increasingly competitive flat world.

In terms of national security, Friedman argues that by lowering our dependence on petroleum and thus lowering the price of oil, oil-dependent countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran will have to start developing their people and thus their economies which in turn will encourage democratic and otherwise good institutions. Friedman calls it the “first law of petropolitics” : oil price is inversely related to democracy.

While this argument is intutively appealing, particularly since resource abundant countries are so often very poorly governed, it doesn’t follow that taking away their source of current wealth will encourage them to develop their people. Friedman argues that the reason Iran’s reformist president in was elected was because of low oil prices and that the reason Bahrain allows free elections is because it ran out of oil. And conversely, Iran current President and a 9/11 causing Saudi Arabia are due to high oil prices – an easy source of wealth allows them to neglect developing their human capital. This strikes me as a bit simplistic.  Many of these countries have bad leaders that will not stop being bad (or authoritarian) with a change in oil prices.  One could argue that the leaders would be removed by popular sentiment if oil no longer supports the economy, but this assumes that current policies reflect their wishes which is just not true.  I can easily envision a country without oil that is not democratic and does not develop its people (although it arguably should if its leadership was rational) as well as countries that use their commodities skillfully (e.g., Botswana with diamonds). Additionally, the United States has benefited over the past 150 years from an increase in oil prices – 3 of the top 10 corporations in the United States are oil companies and the oil sector has been significant to the economy for the past 150 years – although you could argue that the higher oil prices do interfere with democracy here as well.

The second reason Friedman provides for national security is that an oil independent army is more efficient. “Green hawks” believe that a more energy efficient army is a better army. WW1 and WW2 lend considerable weight to this argument given that in both wars the United States had to spend considerable energy securing its oil supplies and the current targeting of supply routes by insurgents in Iraq leaves very little doubt that a more efficient army would be less vulnerable.

The second argument Friedman makes is in terms of global warming – needless to say, reducing oil dependence and finding alternative technologies is necessary to reduce climate change. However, he also makes clear that unless we come up with some new technology quickly, China and India’s rise into the world of western consumption will even further the environmental havoc.

And finally, Friedman argues that by engaging in the “Green Deal” with the help of government intervention/subsidies/encouragement, the United States can regain leadership in an increasingly competitive world. Friedman provides the example of GE Transportation’s locomotives which although made in the United States sells like hotcakes because they are so efficient and cheap in terms of life-cycle cost. The “Green Deal” will encourage a booming knowledge based industry and in the end a better world.

Friedman’s “Green Deal” is a great idea. The devil is in the details. It is obviously nice to think that we can make the world a better place without changing our lifestyle and life choices that somehow we can reproduce en masse GE Transportation’s locomotive for every part of our life. Over the long term I do not see why this can’t happen – but as with Jeffrey Sachs’ similar scheme to end poverty, simply saying that the overall economic benefits will be beneficial for all does not make it so. There will be economic winners from the shift to green and there will be losers. It is important to realize that there will be losers, and they are likely to be the idols of our past. GM, Ford, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips – 5 of the 10 largest companies in America will suffer if we move to oil independence and they are likely to go down fighting. The oil industry is one of the largest and most powerful industries in the world. This is not an insignificant or economically negligible detail.

However, vested interests are a horrible reason not to do something that is for the global good. I am glad Friedman is proposing the Green Deal and I hope it gains momentum.