The European Union (EU) has undoubtedly been one of the global leaders in spurring the advanced development and deployment of renewable energies worldwide. The vision set forth by the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC – a directive setting continent-wide targets for all EU-27 member states to increase their share of renewable energy in the national energy mix – continues to stand out as the primary example of a coordinated effort to lead a large-scale energy transformation. While renewable energy targets now exist in 118 countries worldwide, few regional commitments to renewable energy deployment exist, though this trend is beginning to change.

In recent years, certain EU member states have gone beyond what is required under the Directive to set even more ambitious national goals. Denmark, for instance, is now targeting 100 percent renewable energy across their entire energy supply by 2050. These efforts should be applauded and their lessons replicated around the world. However, these successes should not obscure the very serious gap that is emerging between current policies and mechanisms and the significant challenges still facing the European renewable energy sector.

A recent European Commission report has outlined the challenging road ahead for member states as they continue down the path towards their 2020 commitments. The Commission’s report sends a mixed message. On one hand, all but 2 countries – Latvia and Malta – met their first interim final energy targets defined under the Directive. In fact, 13 countries even outperformed the target by over 2 percent.

Unfortunately, while promising, the current rate of deployment seen to date is not sufficient to meet the 2020 goals. The EU targets as currently designed call for a strong uptick in deployment rates through the end of the decade.

As a result, a number of EU countries appear to be at risk of falling behind the goals set in their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs). As written, the plans call for an EU-27 wide renewable share of 33.9 percent in electricity, 21.4 percent in heating and cooling, and 11.7 percent in transportation by 2020, culminating in an overall 20.7 percent share of renewable energy in Europe.

While system-wide renewable energy developments were still on track to achieve short-term goals identified under the 2009 Renewables Directive, many countries are falling behind their own indicative sectoral targets set independently of the Directive in a number of key sectors. This hints at significant challenges facing the overall renewable energy sector and underscores the Commission’s assessment that the 2020 goals are at serious risk.  Fifteen Member States missed their indicative targets for electricity from renewable sources while 22 Member States missed their transportation targets. The future of the biofuels target itself is currently up for significant debate as many seek to limit the volume of first generation biofuels produced in Europe. Though no targets exist for heating and cooling, analysis of the sector suggests that the renewable share may, in fact, decline rather than increase over the near term. The Commission’s technology deployment projections also point to expected underperformance. The onshore and offshore wind, biomass, solar photovoltaic, and biofuels sectors may all fall short of the national goals set for 2020. The Commission warns that even the currently over-performing solar PV sector is at risk of falling behind by 2020 due to an unstable investment climate created by recent policy uncertainty.

It is important to note that because of the long investment lead time, estimated at eight to ten years, a weak investment climate today will impact production well into the future. From development through installation, a typical offshore wind project currently sees a project lead time of 6.5-9.5 years, highlighting the urgency of quickly establishing an enabling framework to allow additional new capacity to be operational by 2020. Overall, many of the observed shortfalls in the sector can be linked to a number of barriers to renewable energies that have proven more difficult than expected to remove.

Administrative challenges and a slow uptake in infrastructure developments pose a significant constraint to project developers, further slowing and discouraging the investment necessary to meet the 2020 goals. The lack of grid and storage developments must be addressed as greater shares of renewables are integrated into these networks. Of great concern is the admission that current policies and support schemes do not appear sufficient to meet national targets.

This comes at a challenging time for policy makers. While the Commissions’ recommendations suggest that additional policy support is needed in many EU countries, the opposite is quite often coming true in practice. Due to a number of factors, policy reductions are hitting the European renewable energy sector. Over the past few years a number of support schemes have been weakened across the continent, including particularly damaging retroactive cuts to feed-in tariffs in Greece and Spain. Another troubling development has seen taxes or grid access fees on renewable power recently introduced in Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, and Spain.

This policy uncertainty caused by these retroactive changes and unplanned reductions coupled with the low price of credits under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) has proven challenging to renewable energy developers and investors. It appears the combination of these factors is not sending the necessary market signals to fully encourage clean energy development. Though new capacity additions remained strong, total investments on the continent dropped by over US $30 billion to US $75.8 billion in 2012 as traditionally strong players such as Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom all saw investments decline. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has estimated that a cumulative US $400 billion will be necessary to meet the 2020 goals.

Though not intrinsically linked with declining renewable energy investments, many of these same countries are witnessing other troubling trends as well. While Europe as a whole saw an increase of 0.6 percent in the renewable share of electricity consumption, 12 member states saw their domestic share decline between 2010 and 2011, mainly due to significant hydropower reductions. The continent as a whole witnessed a “marked increase” in coal generation, with significant growth of 8 percent in Germany, 65 percent in Spain, and 35 percent in the United Kingdom. For the 2020 targets to be met, both of these trends must be reversed.

This is not a time for defeatism but rather a time for reflection and reform. Great potential still exists and the EU 2020 targets are still within reach if the appropriate measures are adopted. European policy makers should take this opportunity to reaffirm their commitments to the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies by enacting well designed renewable energy support mechanisms to overcome the unique barriers in Europe.

Go to Source

In the March online issue of Nature, a group of scientists argued plastic should be treated as hazardous waste. They specifically urge the biggest producers—USA, Europe and Japan—to take measures to modify the current production and consumption trends. In the US, the EPA estimates 45 percent of plastics are used as containers and packaging, and that only 12 percent of these are recycled. In 2012, 280 million metric tons of plastic were produced worldwide. These scientists project that a total of 33 billion metric tons will have been produced by 2050. Less than half of the discarded plastic ends up in the landfill; the rest ends up in the wind and sea. Currently, it is classified as solid waste, such as food or glass.

Food packaging is an important part of plastic production
Flickr/Creative Commons by James Offer

The scientists argue that “the physical dangers of plastic debris are well enough established, and the suggestions of chemical dangers sufficiently worrying” to take important actions. Indeed, plastic debris threatens wildlife directly—as choking and entanglement hazards—but also indirectly by being toxic or by absorbing other pollutants. According to a hazard-ranking model based on the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, chemical ingredients of more than 50 percent of plastics are hazardous¹. For instance, PVC can be carcinogenic. Some other plastics such as polyethylene—used to make plastic bags—are less dangerous, but can be dangerous when absorbing other pollutants such as pesticides. Scientists quote an unpublished study to argue that at least 78 percent of priority pollutants listed by the EPA and 61 percent by the European Union are “associated with plastic debris”, which means they are ingredients of plastic or absorbed.

Public institutions have tried to grapple with plastic pollution for decades. For instance, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was signed in 1973 to minimize pollution from dumping and exhaust pollution with a complete ban on the disposal of plastics at sea in 1988. Since then, problems such as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” have gotten worse. In the European Union, the REACH law to regulate hazardous chemicals is described as the most complex sets of rules in the EU’s history and could have a significant impact, though will take years to demonstrate its effects. Even stronger suggestions exist though, such as the Center for Biological Diversity petitioning the EPA to develop rules on plastic pollution under the Clean Water Act. Still, the situation is getting worse and governments seem unable or at least unwilling to tackle the issue.

Debris, Old Toys | Flickr/Creative Commons by Orin Zebest

The authors suggest using the example of one of the most successful international environmental agreements: the Montreal Protocol of 1989 that classifies CFCs as hazardous. Production of these refrigerants stopped within 7 years with 200 countries replacing 30 dangerous chemical groups with safer ones. A treaty focusing on just four plastics—PVC (construction, especially pipes), polystyrene (food packaging), polyurethane (furniture) and polycarbonate (electronics)—would be a “realistic first step.” These plastics represent about 30% of production, are difficult to recycle and are made of potentially toxic materials. The new classification would allow quick action using already existing legislation. They give the example of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 that would allow the EPA to clean the accumulation of plastic in land, freshwater and sea under US jurisdiction. They calculated that the new classification would reduce the 33 billion metric tons of additional plastic produced by 2050 to 4 billion.

They also condemn the preferential treatment offered to the plastic industry. While food or pharmaceutical industries have to prove that their products are safe, plastic producers ask governments to prove that plastic is not safe. The authors recognize the lack of research to make definitive statements on the risks of plastic toxicity, but there is enough to invoke the precautionary principle. Regulations need to be changed to head towards a closed-loop system where plastics are re-used and recycled, starting with the most dangerous one. To those arguing the plastic industry is an important sector during an economic crisis, the authors remind readers of the costs of dealing with plastic debris. For instance, the Division of Maintenance in the California Department of Transportation reports spending approximately $41 million a year just on litter removal. Some plastic manufacturers are already working on closed-loop systems and safer materials to boost innovation. Scientists call the biggest producers to “act now,” as plastic pollution is getting worse every day and the window to deal with it effectively is closing.

Mr. Macguire in The Graduate was right, “there is a great future in plastics.” Not in unregulated production of 280 million tons a year, but in changing policies to ban the worst of them; finding ways to limit consumption of them; redesigning plastics to be environmentally benign; and in developing a closed-loop production, consumption and recycling system to avoid a catastrophic accumulation of plastic in our environment.

By Eleanor Fausold

Sometimes the best things come in small packages. Camu camu (Myrciaria dubia) is a tiny fruit native to the Amazon region of South America that is rising in popularity, as both an element in local treats and a main component in dietary supplements. Although its high level of acidity once made it unpopular for consumption, the fruit is now valued for its exceptionally high vitamin C content and is, consequently, growing in demand in health-food stores around the world.

Camu-camu, a tiny, vitamin C-rich fruit native to the Amazon region of South America, is rising in popularity (Photo Credit: Youshi Guo)

Also known as camocamo in Peru and cacari in Brazil, among other names, the camu camu tree can grow up to 40 feet high. The species thrives in swamps along rivers and lakes such as the Rio Mazán near Iquitos, Peru, and in Amazonian Brazil and Venezuela. The base of the camu camu’s trunk is frequently underwater, and the tree’s lower branches are often submerged for long periods during the rainy season.

Despite its frequent submersion, the camu camu tree produces fragrant flowers with tiny white petals and tiny fruits that turn from yellow to a maroon or purple-black color as they ripen. In the right growing conditions, a single tree can produce as many as 1,000 fruits per year, which are harvested by boat.

Known for its extremely high vitamin C content (half-ripe fruits have been found to contain 1,950 to 2,700 milligrams per 100 grams of edible fruit, an amount greater than that found in 50 oranges), the camu camu fruit has a very acidic taste. In fact, until fairly recently, the fruit was used almost exclusively as fish bait and the tree, when dead, was used as a source of firewood.

Today, camu camu is growing in popularity. The fruit has become a common ingredient in drinks, popsicles, and candy, and the plant’s cortex (the outer layer of tissue) is also sometimes steeped in aguardiente, a strong alcoholic drink, producing a mixture that is believed to prevent rheumatism.

In addition, camu camu’s high concentration of vitamin C has made it appealing to the growing health-food market in countries around the world, including the United States and Japan. For use in supplements, the fruit is peeled and made into a juice, which is then dehydrated, resulting in a powder that can be used in health products. Because of the increasing demand for its export, large-scale planting of camu camu has begun throughout the Amazon, where the tree is frequently interplanted with cowpea, squash, cassava, and other annual crops.

Producing camu camu for widespread sale has its complications, however. Because the plant is not domesticated, camu camu’s level of Vitamin C can vary from tree to tree. The fruit must also be processed and used quickly and carefully—in even just one month of storage, the fruit can lose up to a quarter of its Vitamin C content, and the powdered form cannot be heated or stored for more than one year.

But camu camu still has vast potential to become a more mainstream component in both sugary treats and the global health foods market.  As demand grows and exports increase, this tiny South American fruit is likely to become even more well-known for its vitamin C strength.

Do you know of other nutritious fruits rising in popularity? Tell us about them below!

Eleanor Fausold is a former research intern with the Worldwatch Institute’s Food and Agriculture Program. 

To read about other crops native to the Amazon, see: Moringa: The Giving Tree, Tsamma Melons: Watermelon’s Wild Cousins, African rock fig: A fruit with historical significance and potential for the future, False Yam: A Famine Prevention Trifecta, and Manara Vanilla: Cultivating Delicate Flavor.

Go to Source

by Katerina Batzaki

Copenhagen

On the day that Worldwatch Institute launched State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? 69,578 cyclists crossed the Dronning Louise Bridge into the centre of Copenhagen providing a very simple answer to that very weighty environmental question. Of course sustainability is possible, if we make sustainable choices. In the Danish capital, hundreds of thousands of people have chosen the bicycle as their main mode of transport, turning Nørrebrogade, a main thoroughfare into the city, into Europe’s busiest road in terms of bicycle traffic.

Worldwatch president Robert Engelman kicked off the launch event by talking about the concept of “sustainability”. He asked whether the word itself is “sustainable” – coming to the conclusion that yes, it is possible, but that a lot of work needs to be done. In the spirit of the first section of the State of the World 2013 report, which he authored, Engelman explains that the book examines if there are market indicators that show us when we are surpassing sustainability in the different resources that we use, and in the second section whether we can use those methods to develop policies for a more sustainable state. The third section asks how we will have to adapt if we don’t manage to achieve a sustainable society.

Robert Engelman gave the opening talk of the afternoon

Is there a way to bring real prosperity and real quality to the world without having to overuse the earth’s resources, he asks. He explains the importance of moderating the amount of fossil fuels that are responsible for increasing temperatures which may potentially make the world uninhabitable by humans.

Engelman gave the example of Cuba becoming truly sustainable when it lost its main patron in 1989 – after the collapse of the Soviet Union – and was forced to become more self-sufficient and less dependant on fossil fuels. Cuba also started creating municipal gardens, and improving life and health indicators.

He said that we can not have environmental sustainability without social sustainability because it will not last. He highlighted the potential of using natural methods to absorb carbon and added that we cannot solve the problem of sustainability if we do not have national, international, and local governance. “Get the government to prioritize public interest over private well-being.” Engelmans says. The real question Engelman raises is how to make people think of the welfare of future generations when they live so well today, and concludes that the real work in sustainability will be made in the social sphere. “Time is the scarcest resource of all, but our minds, brains, hearts, and souls are the most abundant natural resources of all. We need to use them for this cause”.

The Danish Development Minister Christian Friis Bach followed by also talking about the importance of cutting down on fossil fuels. “If we got rid of fossil fuel subsidies we could cut global emissions by 13%”, and gave the example of the World Bank who offered Egypt a social protection scheme in return for cutting fossil fuel consumption. He says that the combination of less fossil fuels, energy efficient measures, together with tariffs for renewable energies and a social protection scheme would result in lower CO₂ emissions, less poverty, more growth, and improved welfare for the country. “That’s how one needs to tackle sustainability and it can be done”, he said.

The General Secretary of the Nordic Council of Ministers Dagfinn Høybråten pointed out ways in which leaders can move the sustainability road from “babble” to action. “If there is political will to stay on the goals and stay on the action, we can do it”, He says that it’s not about scarcity but about access to resources. He also outlined the importance of teamwork and showcased a number of joint projects. He said that in the decision making process, there needs to be more content, and not just minor improvements.

Christian Friis Bach addresses the first discussion panel

Questions from the audience to the speakers on pension funds, de-growth, and de-population, and whether the world is moving away from sustainability sparked vigorous debate. The President of the Worldwatch Institute, Robert Engelman, said that what we need to achieve is a higher standard of living with more quality, and that this in no way implies reducing the population to do that.

The second session of the conference, Getting to True Sustainability, examined policies and perspectives that could build a truly sustainable society if implemented. Ed Groark, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Worldwatch Institute, set the tone for the discussion asking how we came to live in a society that is exploiting all of its resources to make products that we dispose of. “It takes a hundred cans of water to make aluminum for one can” was just one of the examples he gave to show that we do not really think about where these products go once we no longer need them. Is it possible that corporations evolve in a way that they can support our grandchildren’s society indefinitely and sustainably? He suggested five principles in order for a corporation to become sustainable – recycle materials, renewable energy, waste free production, resource productivity, non-linear productivity. He concluded that companies will get a competitive advantage over time and will evolve to become more profitable through sustainability.

Jasper Steinhausen, Chief Market Manager of Sustainability at COWI, a leading northern European consulting group that provides state-of-the-art services within the fields of engineering, environmental science, and economics, responded positively to the question of whether businesses can function as a driver of sustainability. He suggested a shift to renewable energy and biodegradable materials. “Reuse of second or third-hand products might create local jobs” he said and concluded that companies should challenge existing structures and routines in order to survive.

Katherine Richardson, Professor in Biological Oceanography at Copenhagen University, took the debate to a different level by talking about the climate and about how the human species can actually affect the whole way that the planet functions. She pointed to the different stages the earth has gone through in the past, where at some point the human species understood its course, and thrived, and underlined nine different points where scientists wouldn’t want to intervene but let nature and humans take their course.

On the question of whether sustainability is still possible she said that this is not the question we should ask ourselves because “We’ve only just developed the tools for sustainability and there is no definition for the environmental and social components”. “Who has the right to use the last half of a certain resource?” she asked and concluded by saying that if we are going to use that resource we should use it properly. “We have an important role as human beings and we should not ask how to take care of the planet but how to take care of ourselves”, Richardson said.

Last but not least, Martin Ågerup, Director of CEPOS (Centre for Political Studies) appeared in the role of the devil’s advocate, and challenged the previous three speakers by saying that he does not consider sustainability an emergency – he said it’s all about adapting because “society was never sustainable is a steady state but we’re still around because we have adapted to new situations”. Instead he defended the free market by saying that it has been quite capable of dealing with scarcity and environmental problems. “Most of us are better off than 20 years ago and we are solving environmental problems by recognising that we can adapt” he said. He questioned certain aspects of the book such as working time policies, minimum and maximum wages, progressive tax rates approaching 100%, rewriting our cultural narrative and copying New Guinea and Cuba as an example of sustainability saying that all this is utopian stuff and not the kind of thing that will move us forward. He agreed with the idea of a common tax system.

Katherine Richardson responded by saying that there is a labour, economic, and resource limited market, we need to make the transition and it’s not certain that the market can do that on its own. She also argued that some things the market and technology can not change in the natural system such as phosphorus which cannot be replaced. Technology can’t make energy either. There will be a transition to other forms of energy, Martin Ågerup says but the question is how and when.

Ed Groark speaks during the second discussion panel

Can businesses find ways of using resources more efficiently? Is sustainability a useful term? Should we be limited to how much we earn or how many crops we grow? “No, I don’t want that”, Martin Ågerup says. But in Richardson’s opinion, “Businesses will take it where they want to go”. Groark is keen to point out that. “Corporations will start responding to a little bit of scarcity but unless it is hurting them economically they will not have the motivation, but they are quite adaptable. We just have to give them the motivation to do that”, he adds.

“We are not talking about picking the winner. All we are saying is where society wants to go in the future.” Richardson concludes.

A lot of ideas, a lot of different opinions, and a lot of intellectual passion did not always agree. But where the experts DO agree is that as human beings, we need to collectivley get on our bikes and make sustainability a practical reality. Copenhagen’s thousands of cyclists would surely approve.

The Talks

View Robert Engelman’s full presentation here
View Christian Friis Bach’s full presentation here
View the first discussion panel (Robert Engelman, Christian Friis Bach, Dagfinn Høybråten) here
View Ed Groark’s full presentation here
View Katherine Richardson’s full presentation here
View the second discussion panel (Martin Ågerup, Ed Groark, Jasper Seinhausen, Katherine Richardson) here

By Laura Reynolds

On April 29, the European Union voted to largely ban the use of neonicotinoids, a type of pesticide, for two years beginning in December 2013. The ban had 15 member state supporters, including France, Germany, and Poland; eight opponents, including the United Kingdom; and four abstaining votes.

Neonicotinoids are a possible cause of the rapid decline in bee populations worldwide. (Photo credit: University of California)

The ban restricts the use of three pesticides—imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam—on flowering crops, which honeybees depend on for pollen and hive health. Environmental groups, beekeepers, scientists, and the public hailed the ban as a victory for the precautionary principle, which urges caution and careful scientific study in circumstances where the effects of a chemical or action on the environment are not sufficiently clear.

Neonicotinoids are thought to be particularly harmful for insects because the chemical is applied directly to a plant’s seed instead of its leaves or flowers. This makes the pesticide present in the plant’s pollen. Neonicotinoids are also persistent chemicals, meaning that they do not degrade within weeks or months, but rather remain in the nerve systems of insects, causing systemic and lasting damage.

In the United States, a coalition of beekeeping companies and environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency in March over its approval of neonicotinoids for domestic use. The groups cited a lack of scientific understanding of the pesticides’ effect on bees and other insects, and drew a possible connection between the chemicals and the ongoing collapse of honeybee hives across the country and worldwide.

This bee population crisis, known as colony collapse disorder, emerged in 2005, and scientists have not yet identified a clear cause. Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have both confirmed and denied a link between neonicotinoids and beehive collapse. Scientists agree that viruses, mites, drought, and loss of native habitat could also be contributing to the collapse.

Anecdotal reports from commercial beekeepers suggest that the U.S. bee population may have declined as much as 40 to 50 percent over the past year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will release its official assessment in late May. Annual hive losses of 5 to 10 percent were the norm for beekeepers in previous decades, but since 2005, losses have escalated to some one-third of all hives. Simply put, no bees means less or no production of certain foods: the USDA reports that one-third of the American diet depends on pollination by honeybees.

This spring, for the first time ever, orchardists in California couldn’t find enough bees to pollinate their crops. Bees are shipped to pollinate hundreds of thousands of fruits and trees in California’s Central Valley. Some of these specialty crops, such as almonds, are nearly 100-percent dependent on domestic honeybee hives. Because of the high concentration of fruit and nut production in California, the state imports its bees, possibly also importing diseases and viruses from around the country.

Because of the high demand and low supply of hives this year, farmers had to pay up to 20 percent more to use hives on their farms—which could result in increased food prices over the coming months.

What is your opinion on the effect of pesticides, as well as herbicides and other agrochemicals, on bee health? Let us know in the comments!

Laura Reynolds is a Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute.

Go to Source

Starting and running a solar lamp retail business in a developing country like Kenya is no small feat. Kenya lacks strong transportation infrastructure for product distribution, and the bureaucratic red tape is not only tedious but can be opaque to foreigners. Meanwhile, the customers who need and want solar portable lamps most are those who can least afford it.

Solar portable lamp companies, such as Little Sun, must navigate informal economies and limited distribution infrastructure to market and sell their products to customers who benefit from the environmental, social, and health improvements that these lamps can provide. (Source: Little Sun)

But although Kenya’s economy lacks many of the market and political institutions that facilitate business operations in the industrialized world, there is significant potential for businesses to support rapid economic growth and generate social impact. A variety of successful solar portable lamp businesses have reframed Kenya’s lack of institutions (let’s call them institutional voids) as opportunities for economic growth.

In 2010, two Harvard Business School professors published the book Winning in Emerging Markets: A Roadmap for Strategy and Execution, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of operating a business in a developing country. They also released a toolkit for identifying and dealing with a country’s institutional voids, raising the following questions that are pertinent to running a solar portable lamp company in Kenya:

1. Do large retail chains exist in the country? Do they reach all consumers or only wealthy/urban ones?
2. Do consumers use credit cards, or does cash dominate transactions? Can consumers get credit to make purchases?
3. Is there a deep network of suppliers? How strong are the logistics and transportation infrastructures?

Successful solar portable lamp companies in Kenya are using a variety of strategies to address these challenges and to mitigate, avoid, and leverage the institutional voids that would otherwise deter or limit business operations. 

Overcoming retail barriers

In Kenya, as in most developing countries, the customers who most demand solar portable lamps are rural residents who are underserved by the traditional power grid. Because transporting and distributing products in rural areas is more costly and rural consumers have limited access to urban retail outlets, there is a general lack of formal retail products in these areas. Consequently, rural customers’ demands are predominantly met by independent sellers operating through channels in the informal retail sector.

To reach a rural customer base, a solar portable lamp company must learn to navigate Kenya’s informal retail channels. One company, Greenlight Planet, does this by outsourcing its physical logistics chain. The company relies on partnerships with social enterprises, standard retail companies, nongovernmental groups, and government institutions to distribute products to users through already existing informal channels.

“The physical logistics chain in Africa is more like one with the sales chain, where our partners buy our products in bulk and then also deliver them to local retailers, [microfinance institution] branches, etc,” says Laurens Friso, Global Partnership Advisor for Greenlight Planet in East Africa. “It’s not organized from our perspective.”

The outsourcing of the physical logistics chain allows Greenlight Planet to avoid the institutional void created by a lack of a formal retail market for solar lamps in rural Kenya.

Overcoming credit barriers

Credit is limited in rural areas of Kenya, and solar lamp customers do not have access to the traditional financing available to wealthier, urban customers and enterprises. In 2009, only 6.2 percent of rural Kenyans purchased goods on credit, but the volume of transaction services over the past three years has increased dramatically because of M-Pesa. M-Pesa is an informal and revolutionary mobile banking system that allows users to pay bills, transfer money, and purchase air time using mobile phones.

Because credit is limited in rural areas and mobile phone use and banking is accessible, a successful solar company must either develop a) a product that is affordable without credit, or b) an M-PESA-type financing scheme that improves the customer base’s willingness to pay for the product.

Little Sun, a solar company that sells a small solar task lamp of the same name, has succeeded on the affordability front. With a wholesale price of 790 Kenyan shillings (US$9) and a retail price of 990 Kenyan shillings ($12), the Little Sun is one of the simpler and cheaper products on the market. It has a light output of 25 lumens (equivalent to about a $7 flashlight) and is used primarily to light small areas for studying or eating, although it has no mobile phone charging compatibility.

By designing a low-cost but efficient product, Little Sun has overcome the institutional void repreented by the lack of credit by creating an affordable product for rural consumers.

Overcoming infrastructure barriers

In 2010, the World Bank Development Research Group compared the infrastructure levels of different developing countries using a set of four aggregate indicators and ranking them on a scale from 0 to 1. In terms of hard infrastructure, Kenya ranked 0.35 for Physical Infrastructure and 0.43 for Information and Communications Technology (ICT). In terms of soft infrastructure, it ranked a very low 0.18 for its Business Environment and 0.55 for its Border and Transport Efficiency.

According to these indicators, Kenya’s lack of trade infrastructure severely hampers supply chains. Successful solar lamp companies can navigate this challenge by developing partnerships with local organizations and companies that have a clearer sense of the barriers and how to negotiate them, thereby minimizing cost and time inefficiencies.

One Degree Solar has done exactly that. By developing a customer service practice based on short message service (SMS) with an in-country partner, the company has improved the accountability of the customer service product market. Customers are able to text One Degree Solar headquarters when they need help with their products. Through an in-country partnership, One Degree Solar was able to leverage the rural penetration of ICT in Kenya to mitigate the lack of trade infrastructure and its impact on the solar lamp supply chain.

The above examples of ways to overcome common institutional voids create a clear picture of the business potential in Kenya and other emerging markets. Through innovative customer service practices, cost-effective product designs, and partnership with local companies and organizations, solar portable lamp companies are not only navigating institutional voids, but using them to create discrete market niches for and brand trust in their products. Given the status of energy access in Kenya and other developing countries, there is incredible opportunity for generating both revenue and social impact.

Claire Remington is an intern with the Climate & Energy Program at Worldwatch Institute. 

Go to Source

By Laura Reynolds

In 2010, global greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector totaled 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent, up 13 percent over 1990. Agriculture is the third largest contributor to global emissions by sector, following the burning of fossil fuels for power and heat, and transportation. In 2010, emissions from electricity and heat production reached 12.5 billion tons, and emissions from transport totaled 6.7 billion tons.

Agricultural emissions have increased over the past two decades. (Photo credit: www.mnn.com)

Despite their continuing rise, emissions from agriculture are growing at a much slower rate than the sector as a whole, demonstrating the increasing energy efficiency of agriculture. From 1990 to 2010, the volume of agricultural production overall increased nearly 23 percent.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, methane accounts for just under half of total agricultural emissions, nitrous oxide for 36 percent, and carbon dioxide for some 14 percent. The largest source of methane emissions is enteric fermentation, or the digestion of organic materials by livestock, predominantly beef cattle. This is also the largest source of agricultural emissions overall, contributing 37 percent of the total.

Livestock contribute to global emissions in other ways as well. Manure deposited and left on pastures is a major source of nitrous oxide emissions because of its high nitrogen content. When more nitrogen is added to soil than is needed, bacteria convert the extra nitrogen into nitrous oxide and release it into the atmosphere. Emissions from manure on pasture in Asia, Africa, and South America together account for as much as 81 percent of global emissions from this source. These emissions from the three regions increased 42 percent on average between 1990 and 2010, reflecting an increase in range-based livestock populations; elsewhere, these emissions either decreased or stagnated.

Carbon dioxide emissions from cultivated organic soils account for some 14 percent of total agricultural emissions, with Asia contributing 54 percent of these emissions. Deforestation and clearing for agricultural land in many tropical South and Southeast Asian countries are a leading cause of these emissions. Asia is home to four out of the top five countries with the highest CO₂ emissions from cultivated organic soils, with Indonesia contributing 279 million tons, Papua New Guinea 41 million tons, Malaysia 35 million tons, and Bangladesh 31 million tons.

These data clearly indicate that livestock production accounts for an enormous share of global greenhouse gas emissions. Together, emissions from enteric fermentation, manure left on pastures, manure applied to soils, cropland devoted to feed production, and manure treated in management systems contribute more than 80 percent of total emissions. Meanwhile, emissions related to the direct human consumption of food crops represent less than 20 percent of the total.

One obvious way to reduce agricultural emissions is for people to minimize their consumption of meat and dairy products. This would help stabilize or shrink livestock populations, lessen the pressure to clear additional land for livestock, and reduce the proportion of grain that is grown for livestock feed instead of for direct human consumption.

Farmers and landowners have numerous opportunities to mitigate these impacts as well, bringing environmental and even economic co-benefits. For example, applying fertilizer more efficiently, precisely, and at times when plants can absorb it can significantly reduce nitrous oxide emissions while lowering fertilizer costs. Planting fallow fields with nitrogen-fixing legume crops—such as soybeans, alfalfa, and clover—can also naturally rebuild nitrogen and other nutrients in soils.

Growing trees and woody perennials on land can sequester carbon while simultaneously helping to restore soils, reduce water contamination, and provide beneficial wildlife habitat. Reducing soil tillage can also rebuild soils while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Some practices can even result in increased income for farmers: “cap-and-trade” programs allow farmers to monetize and sell certain sequestration practices, while government programs like the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program pay farmers to set aside some of their land for long-term restoration. As detailed in the 2012 Worldwatch report, Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Supporting Climate-Friendly Food Production, many mitigation practices use existing and accessible technologies and can be implemented immediately.

Read the full report, with references, at Vital Signs Online.

Laura Reynolds is a Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute.

Go to Source

In 2011 the United Kingdom pledged to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent by the year 2025, the most ambitious target by any industrialized country. Due to an increase in coal-generated power, the UK saw a 3.5 percent increase in CO2 emissions in 2012. This slight increase, however, is a blip on an otherwise impressive downward trend, with approximately a 20 percent decrease since 1990. Or is it? A new animation, “Carbon Omissions” by Leo Murray, makes it clear that humans have a bad tendency to shift blame for awkward happenings–like the proverbial dog’s fart.

While official measurements reveal that the UK’s domestic production of CO2 has dramatically decreased, the country is the second highest global importer of embodied emissions. Because much of the UK’s industry has migrated to cheaper countries, in-state production has decreased, but consumption has not. Instead, the UK simply imports goods from developing nations. When taking such imports into account, the UK has actually increased its emissions by 10 percent in the past two decades.

Carbon Omissions from Leo Murray on Vimeo.

Though China recently surpassed the United States as the largest carbon emitter in the world, it does so in a globalized society obsessed with cheap goods and labor, both of which China willingly supplies. Indeed, a 2008 study demonstrated that up to a third of China’s CO2 emissions were a result of exports to other countries. There is no doubt that China and other developing nations like India and Brazil have drastically increased global carbon emissions. However, measuring emissions purely based on domestic production neglects the reality of a global economy. For example, while Brazilian consumption is responsible for much of the Amazon’s deforestation, exports are responsible for an increasing percentage. It is both unfair and irresponsible for the Western world to point its fingers at the very countries it has outsourced much of its industry to. Though India and Brazil, and certainly China, need to mitigate their own emissions, they will continue to find it challenging to do so as the rest of the world clamors for their cheap labor. Consumers fart and the Chinese get the blame.

A clever portrayal of what happens when adding imported goods into the UK’s emissions (Leo Murray)

Having just returned from my second clean energy finance summit this year, I was relieved to find that despite the rumors, the renewable energy industries aren’t dying—indeed they’re booming.

Source: Michael Liebreich BNEF Summit Keynote, 23 April 2013

In 2012, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, $269 billion flowed into the clean energy sector worldwide—a big number by any standard.  Total global investment in renewable generating capacity now lags total investment in coal, oil, and gas generation combined by only 25 percent. With that much money you could purchase Google or Microsoft outright.

While clean energy investment in 2012 was down 11 percent from 2011, it is still 44 percent above the 2009 figure and 230 percent higher than it was in 2005.  Moreover, virtually all of the decline stems from the sharply falling prices for solar and wind equipment—a trend that in the long run will accelerate growth. While clean energy growth has understandably slowed from the extraordinary double-digit rates of the past decade, this remains one of the world’s largest and most dynamic industrial sectors.

The one dark cloud that hovered over both conferences (the Cleantech Investor Summit in Palm Springs and the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit in New York) was the United States, where declining government support and the uncertainty generated by a dysfunctional Congress led to a sharp decline in financing in 2012.  While the falling investment figures do presage a slowdown inU.S. clean energy growth in the next two years, it is still notable that theU.S. added more renewable capacity than any other single country last year.

Excluding theUnited States, global investment in renewable energy would have increased significantly in 2012. China, for example, is continuing to power global markets, with investment up a robust 20 percent to $65 billion in 2012.Chinais also playing a big role in driving down the cost of renewables while spurring robust growth in other emerging market countries such asIndiaandSouth Africa.

Japan’s clean energy investment was meanwhile up a remarkable 75 percent in 2012, driven by the government’s response to the post-Fukushima collapse of the country’s nuclear industry. And while Germany’s investment declined last year, renewable power generation continued to soar, reaching 24 percent of electricity production, up from 4 percent in 2000.

So, despite all the recent media focus on the rise of shale gas and unconventional oil inNorth America, the bigger energy story is a global one: New technologies and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment capital are steadily laying the foundation for a low-carbon global economy.

Chris Flavin is President Emeritus at Worldwatch Institute. 

Go to Source

Imagining a sustainable America in 2100. (Image courtesy of E Magazine)

Ever since directing State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to Sustainability I’ve gotten the question of yes, but what would a sustainable culture really look like? As I started writing about degrowth for State of the World 2012, this question only grew in frequency. So, recently I attempted to paint a utopian vision of a Sustainable America in 2100.

And by utopian, I mean that in both the positive and negative sense of the word–ideal but impossibly so. With ancient political realities in play (power preserves itself) the idea that we will smoothly transition to a post-consumer, post-growth, post-fossil fuel world is pretty hard to believe. But this is my imagining of a sustainable 22nd century America where reason prevailed. After all, without fantasies about the future, what keeps us motivated to keep on working towards utopia?  Below you’ll find a few excerpts from my recent E Magazine article, “Choose Your Future: A Vision of Sustainable America in 2100.”  You can read the full piece online.

Climate change has had a devastating impact, and it’s not over yet. The total warming of 3.3 to 4.5 degrees Celsius predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has led to considerable ecological changes. Chicago now has the climate of New Orleans, and New Orleans, well, much of that was claimed by the Gulf of Mexico. The rest of that city, one half of Miami, a third of Manhattan and many other cities were either lost to rising sea levels or proactively converted into wetlands in order to provide a buffer to what habitable land remained. Losing that land was a great tragedy, but a shrinking population, combined with an increasingly agrarian economy made it less painful—in economic terms at least. Nothing will ever replace the loss of the birthplace of jazz.

I started the piece by making it clear that even in the extremely utopian future, we’re going to have ugly ecological changes. We’ve built those into the system already. So, I’m sorry Miami and New Orleans but I don’t think you’ll make it through the century, no matter how quickly we course correct (Manhattan, on the other hand, is so loaded that they’ll probably insulate themselves for a while with sea walls).

Perhaps the most striking shift in the United States in 2100—and one of the reasons for [the fact that America now has negative CO2] emissions—is that a large proportion of Americans now consider their primary occupation to be “homesteaders.” The vast majority live in what were once called “bedroom communities,” suburban infrastructure that was long ago retrofitted into small farmstead communities that provide a secure source of food, textiles and goods both for families living there and the adjacent urban populations.

How does everyone live in this future? Mostly like we have throughout history: as smaller, subsistence farming communities. Either in rural, suburban, or urban settings (though of course urban populations are more specialized, drawing food surpluses from rural areas–but many manage ecosystem services, parks, and community gardens). And also gone are the days of single-family living:

One of the effects of a shift to homesteading, smaller family size, and an increasingly informal economy has been the return of multi-generational households. The era of outsourcing elder and childcare came to an end as the total number of jobs shrank and cheap transportation declined but this was readily solved by having elders once again taking care of children while younger adults worked either in remaining formal jobs or around the homestead. Clearly—in such an individualistic culture—this transition didn’t come without friction.

I of course had to discuss major changes in consumption as well–the end of the private car, major reductions in electricity consumption (thanks to carbon taxes and tiered pricing schemes), drastic cutting back of TV time,  huge reductions in meat consumption, and yes, the major shrinkage of pet populations:

While discussing population, one surprise may be the dramatic decline in America’s pet population, which fell from its 2013 peak of 171 million dogs and cats to less than two million today. Americans still have pets, but often they are shared at the community level and are full members of a community—serving important roles like guarding farm animals from predators or getting rid of mice. Most households no longer have their own dog or cat but have productive or edible pets, like chickens, rabbits or goats. While hard to believe, dogs and cats are minimally missed now that our human population isn’t as socially isolated as it was in 2011. Pets’ valuable therapeutic role became less important once people had close communities of friends and family to lean on and bond with.

I also discuss nationalizing fossil fuel industry and relegating these fuels for only unsubstitutable purposes (special plastics, medical supplies, drugs) and how there was resistance to this (partially triggering the Gray Depression) but this was eventually quelled. And I also discuss that while the formal economy continues to shrink, this is more than offset by a growing informal or to use Juliet Schor’s word “plenitude economy.” The final point I leave on is that while this is a good future (in my mind, probably not the average American’s though) the more likely future is a post-Soviet collapse scenario. I just hope that we work toward something better than that.

Admittedly all this adds up to an almost alien world as compared to America in 2012. First and foremost, this vision assumes an ever increasing level of equity—resources better distributed among Americans including employment, land and, most importantly, a fair share of wealth being returned to society by the richest in order to fund public infrastructure and social goods, including a basic level of healthcare for all people. But America is not like that, nor is any country in existence today. Instead, growth in all its forms is celebrated uncritically.

More likely, the America of 2100 will have more in common with post-Soviet Tajikistan. Tajikistan in 2012, two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is rabidly inequitable with most people lacking heating in the winter while a small minority lives an affluent consumer lifestyle, complete with iPhones, gym memberships and foreign travel. Much of the infrastructure is old and inefficient Soviet construction—not a comfortable lifestyle for those that can’t afford gas or electricity. Most people eke out a living in the informal economy, but lack any security whatsoever—access to healthcare, a social safety net, even a functioning banking system.

This, sadly, is a more probable path for America, but it is certainly not inevitable. The key to avoiding this, however, will be to have a clear, attainable vision of a truly sustainable society. Even a green consumer lifestyle is directly in conflict with the realities of a finite and increasingly overtaxed planet and is a vision based on denial. Only when people face this reality will a future of true sustainable prosperity for the United States and the planet be possible.

Read the full E Magazine article here.