Posted by: Mark Scott on June 29
Ahead of the post-Kyoto meetings in Copenhagen later this year, a lot has been made of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) -- a United Nations-backed program that would compensate emerging economies for protecting their forests. (For a good overview, check out The Economist's article, and the UN's REDD Web Site). In short, countries that look after their forests would receive carbon dioxide credits, which could then be sold in the world's cap-and-trade CO2 schemes for a profit.
A similar scheme, called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), is already up and running, and has primarily focused on Western companies building renewables projects in the developing world. Many view REDD as a possible replacement for the CDM, which has been plagued by bureaucratic problems and allegations of abuse and corruption. REDD's proponents also believe the forestation program could have a larger -- and, importantly, more cost effective -- impact in the fight against global warming.
Yet for those championing REDD, lessons can be learned from the CDM. In an interesting report, Barclays Capital estimate four countries (Brazil, India, China, and Korea) currently generate 92% of all the credits created through CDM projects. Even more importantly, 75 of the largest projects (from a total of 512 worldwide) represent 90% of the CDM credits, which were subsequently sold in the world's cap-and-trade markets. That's not exactly a large number of countries/projects for the UN-backed CDM -- particularly as it was designed to give as many countries as possible technical expertise and access to foreign direct investment.
For sure, REDD certainly will differ from CDM (apologies for all the acronyms), and you could say focusing investment on large projects offers the highest environmental impact for the cheapest price. But one thing is certain: to get developing countries to accept binding carbon dioxide targets (as the U.S. and other developed countries hope to do), policy-makers will have to show REDD, unlike the current CDM, offers benefits to all -- and not just the largest developing countries.
Posted by: Mark Scott on June 25
In a classic case of 'whatever you can do, I can do better,' Scotland has announced the world's most ambitious greenhouse gas targets -- the home of Braveheart, kilts, and haggis plans to cut its emissions by a staggering 42% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. That outdoes the previous record, set by Germany which had promised a 40% reduction. Overall, the European Union has set a 20% cut by 2020, while the U.S. Congress is still bartering over a 17% cut over the same period -- but based on 2005 levels.
Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure Scotland will be able to meet its 'world-breaking' target. Sure, the country (which although part of Britain -- which plans a 34% reduction by 2020 -- has autonomy to set stricter limits) has ample scope for wind power, and maybe marine energy in the coming years. But the Scots (and fellow Brits and Europeans, for that matter) are struggling to meet the European Union's existing targets. You have to ask yourself how policymakers in Edinburgh expect to more than double the '20% by 2020' reduction already mandated by their Brussels-based counterparts.
Posted by: Adam Aston on June 24
There's a fascinating, deep-dive on one home owner's experience with solar energy over at ExtremeTech.com (see link below).
Loyd Case installed about 6 kw or about 27 panels on his rooftop in northern California. He writes about the installation process and what the power bill looks like: after about three weeks, it totals $11.34 and is likely to end the month at $16. If so, that will be just 5% of his $300 bill from a year before.
I get scores of questions from readers and friends in New York asking about the process of installing solar panels and what the finances look like. This write up answers a lot of those questions well. Admittedly, it's California -- one of the most aggressive markets in terms of incentives such as time of day pricing for solar. But many states including New Jersey, New York and in the South West are adopting similar policies.
Are you thinking about installing solar? If so, what's the biggest barrier preventing you from doing so: A lack of information? Or a lack of skilled installers? Or is it the high upfront costs?
"Going Solar Power: One Month Later" by Loyd Case
Posted by: Mark Scott on June 23
Last week, I was in Geneva attending a cleantech summit that brought together Europe's top venture capitalists and entrepreneurs looking for investment. One theme kept emerging: VCs are moving their money away from energy generation projects, such as wind-farm and solar-parks. The reason? Funding those types of businesses is just too expensive for investors already struggling from the global downturn.
That message was reinforced on June 23 when consultants New Energy Finance released preliminary results about cleantech investment. Not surprising, they also found VCs were steering clear of energy generation projects. In the first half of 2009, venture capital and private equity firms forked out $3 billion globally for clean energy companies -- a 56% drop compared to the same period last year.
What are the reasons behind the decline?
Continue reading "Major Shift in Cleantech Investment"
Posted by: Mark Scott on June 15
Setting up a cap-and-trade carbon market isn't easy. Throw in a global economic crisis and continued domestic and international wrangling over policy and it becomes almost impossible. Yet in an interesting article, Timothy Gardner over at Reuters highlights one way to get around all of this:
"Rich countries may act on their own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing a carbon market they hope will lure in poor nations even if U.N. climate talks get bogged down…
"The rich world, including the European Union and the United States, may form a carbon market outside or parallel to the U.N. talks. Rapidly developing countries like China may be inspired to join the market to sell emissions offsets such as clean energy projects."
That may sound like pie-in-the-sky stuff, but the chances of linking CO2 trading between the world's largest industrial countries are better than you might think.
Continue reading "A Global Carbon Market is Closer Than You Think"
