Can localised food systems be a silver bullet for some globalised humanitarian problems?

Cornucopia with which people in developed countries are endowed since mid-twentieth century results in collective complacency about food security. Along with irresistible commercial advertisements and health consultations, we have been ‘brainwashed’ to believe in the credendum of a globalised, trade-dependent food system and industrial agriculture as the solution to food demands worldwide while derogating local agricultural productions. Our global food system[1]  today is characterised by an unprecedented scale of centralisation, intensification and concentration. Its record-high food yield is supposed to suffice the mouths of six billion and, thus, make optimistic progress towards the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of halving the proportion of undernourished people by 2015.[2] Nonetheless, we are even very far from the World Food Summit (WFS) target aiming to halve the number of hungry people.[3]

Financing ‘energy localism’, how does legal structure matter?

The message from the energy prices summit last October was only “check, switch and insulate”. Why not “generate”? Amid the threats of soaring energy prices and global climate change, it gives us every reason to go ahead with ‘energy localism’ – community sustainable energy projects – which can fuel local green growth. Unless you are lucky enough to have a hidden goldmine in your community, it is often the financiers, not the business angels, who can give an energy project green light.  

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 4)

The road to Qatar and beyond

We are now on a ‘climate mortgage’ to borrow from our future generations. The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1990s was just the ‘deposit’. Kyoto II is an ‘instalment’ long overdue and the Durban deal is only part of it. The lack of quantitative emissions reduction targets year after year means that our ‘mortgage’ now is subject to ‘penalty’ or a higher ‘interest rate’ equivalent to 1-2% of the world’s GDP this year rising to 19% in 2030 (according to the EU’s report – “The Economics of Climate Change Adaptation in EU Coastal Areas”). The Durban deal this year left a lot of questions, including the extent of emissions reductions in the Kyoto Protocol’s extension period as well as the specific amounts and operation management of the Green Climate Fund, unanswered. There are, hence, numerous uncertainties looming over the carbon market and forest protection financing that are the world’s main drivers to a low-carbon economy.

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 3)

What shapes the Durban outcome

In a conference held for 36 hours longer than scheduled, the round-the-clock marathon-style negotiations culminated this agreement which is somewhat amphibolous after a close examination. Interesting is that we can see a ‘swap of roles’ between developed and developing countries in carbon emissions compared with the situation in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was passed. Today, ironically the reasons for developed countries asking developing ones to accept the Durban agreement is exactly what the former US President, George W. Bush, said when he refused to ratify the Protocol in 2001. After all, what are the factors shaping the Durban Package this year?

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 2)

Implications to the world’s transition to low-carbon economy

The economics of climate change or ‘climate economics’ is about how we price the world’s climate and the disasters induced by climate change in order to fit into the mainstream decision-making models. As climate change is attributable to anthropogenic carbon emissions, we have to look for ways to reduce and absorb excessive carbon dioxide on the planet. Before the technology of carbon capture and storage becomes mature, we need to attach a price to the emissions from economic activities through the creation of carbon permits for trading and to our carbon-sinking forests through financial incentives for stopping deforestation such as the UN’s REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programme. The implications of climate deals reached in annual summits to these two ‘commodities’ do matter because they currently form the twin pillars supporting the global transition to low-carbon economy. Let us take a look at forest protection financing and carbon market development.

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 1)

In Durban the stunning landscape did not bless the United Nations climate change conference (COP 17) with a beautiful ending but did make again spurning escape for polluters. After an overnight’s wrangle on the very last day of ‘extra time’, it came up with a ‘compromised’ deal which was based upon a proposal by Brazil. The last-minute deal commits the European Union and a few wealthy countries to a second commitment period after the main provisions of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012; all countries to negotiating a new “[global] protocol… or outcome with legal force” effective by 2020; and developed nations to financing the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that helps developing ones with climate change adaptation and is slated to be operational by the same year. Only transitional in nature, it is a solution that seeks to fill the vacuum period before Kyoto II. But given the poor track record of previous summits, would this deal again be another ‘dud cheque’ as are the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap? What are the implications to driving the world to a period of low-carbon growth? A closer look at this deal can tell us how many critical questions remain unanswered. It is indeed a deal studded with uncertainties.

How much is the devastation of climate change worth? Can traditional economics tell?

In July, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said climate change was a real threat to international peace and security urging developed countries to lead concerted efforts to mitigate and adapt to its detrimental effects, with emerging economies shouldering their fair share of the responsibility, when he spoke to the journalists after a Security Council meeting. Climate scientists have warned the world that our addiction to fossil fuels is triggering a global warming catastrophe that could end up costing the Earth dearly.

Significant reductions in anthropogenic greenhouse gas output are expected of rational people and governments worldwide, but the latest emissions figures appear to prove the problem is exacerbating. Are they telling us there is limited appeal in taking short-term costly action to counteract a long-term threat - particularly one by its nature being hard to calibrate? Convincing businesses to take necessary action to combat economic activity-driven climate change does require an economic argument. The matter at issue here is how we price the world’s climate and the disasters which are induced by global warming.

Briefing: The arrival of renewables era

Fossil fuels being the main source of climate-changing emissions are known to many. Over the first decade of the 21^st century, the world has seen an exponential increase in the use of renewable energy resources, which means the era of renewables has arrived. Renewable energy refers to replenishable or inexhaustible power source, namely solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, biofuels, tidal and hydro-power.  As science has confirmed that the increase of greenhouse gases that causes global climate change is in proportion of fossil fuel consumption, different countries have to deliver carbon-reduction promises in the international framework.  Emissions reduction can be achieved through increasing energy efficiency and using more renewable energy resources.  Recently, Greenpeace International has released a report on global electricity market development that shows renewables have become the world’s new favourite.  In 2010, the market share of renewables was the largest in history.  Since the end of 1990s, the development pace of wind and solar power has surpassed that of all the other power-generating technologies.  The world has added the total installed capacity of renewables by 430 million kilowatts, equivalent of 45% of China’s current installation power capacity.  Last year, globally the use of renewables grew by 87 million kilowatts, surpassing the development of coal-fired power for the first time. 

In fact, unlike fossil fuels and nuclear energy, most of the renewables are not that controversial. It is only the availability of appropriate technologies which is a matter of wider discussions. The following sections will briefly introduce and evaluate major types of renewables.