Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city (SSTEC), China’s latest and largest eco-city project, saw its first residents earlier this year. The city is built on a blend of non-arable saline and alkaline land that was virtually uninhabitable five years ago. While this is an accomplishment in and of itself, SSTEC is trying to go even greener in terms of the energy efficiency of its buildings.

Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city in 2012 (Source: http://www.tianjinecocity.gov.sg/)

SSTEC aims to offer green building certification based on more stringent standards than anywhere else in the country, including the national standards. It has already set up a Green Building Evaluation Committee (GBEC) to supervise building quality.

But in terms of energy efficiency, SSTEC’s GBEC still lacks the clearly defined requirements found in comprehensive international standards like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. According to a World Bank report, the GBEC provides standards only for the building envelope and central heating, unlike LEED, which covers a broad range of energy systems including lighting, air conditioning, water heating, and appliances. While the ambition in this eco-city project is commendable, the oversights in SSTEC’s efficiency standards reflect a lack of comprehensiveness in green building standards across China, as the GBEC is already the country’s most advanced and comprehensive building standard.

In addition to Tianjin, three other municipalities (Beijing, Shanghai, and Chongqing) and China’s eastern coastal provinces will promote green building standards, according to the Twelfth Five-Year Plan for Green Buildings issued earlier this year. Starting in 2015, at least 50 percent of new real estate projects nationwide will need to comply with the new standards. The effects on energy savings may be questionable, however, given that the standards could be met too easily. For example, residential buildings will need to achieve only two of the six requirements under the “Energy Saving and Utilization” criteria to get one star, the lowest green building certification.

Targeting Large Public Buildings

Unlike residential buildings, large public buildings with more than 20,000 square meters of gross floor area are required to meet the green building standards starting in early 2014, regardless of when they were built. Just meeting the criteria for green building certification does not necessarily mean that the buildings will reduce energy consumption, however. Poor management and unrestricted energy demand have an impact on the efficiency of a building and can keep its energy consumption high.

According to a study by the China Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, China’s large-scale public buildings account for less than 4 percent of the national urban building area, but accounted for more than 20 percent of the total national building energy consumption in 2004.

To reduce the energy consumption of large public buildings, the government established an innovative energy conservation scrutiny system in 2007 that includes energy consumption statistics, an inspection process, energy audits, and a certification system. The effectiveness of the system is questionable, however, as there are no reports on whether the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (which ended in 2010) actually reached its goal of decreasing the energy consumption of large public buildings by 20 percent.

Climate Effects on Heating

The energy consumption of buildings is heavily influenced by climatic conditions, with heating being the single largest source of building energy use in cold regions. About 550 million people (42 percent of China’s total population) live in China’s cold and severe-cold zones, occupying 43 percent of the national urban residential and commercial building stock.

Energy consumption for heating in those areas accounts for 45 percent of the total energy consumption of buildings in urban areas. Due to poor thermal insulation and low heating system efficiency, the energy used for heating in these areas is 2–4 times greater than in similar climates in Northern Europe. One of the targets of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan is to upgrade heat-metering and energy efficiency for more than 400 million square meters of existing residential buildings in northern regions by 2015. By the end of 2012, 220 million square meters had been upgraded, achieving an average energy savings equivalent to saving 2.2 million tons of coal in each heating season.

In order to promote building energy efficiency and green building construction, the central government provides economic incentives to local governments, residents, and real estate developers. For example, the central government gave 5.3 billion Yuan (US $860 million) in 2012 to local governments to fund the upgrade of heat-metering and energy efficiency of existing residential buildings in northern heating areas.

The indoor temperature of these upgraded buildings increased by 3 to 6 degrees Celsius. For individuals, the government plans to provide subsidies to residents who purchase properties with green building certifications, offering 45 Yuan (US $7.30) and 80 Yuan (US $13) per square meter for two- and three-star green buildings, respectively. Given that the average housing price in China’s largest cities reached 10,098 Yuan (US $1,638) per square meter in April 2013, however, the subsidy is likely too small to motivate people to buy green building properties.

Emissions Trading to Promote Efficiency

China’s pilot carbon emissions trading programs, which aim to be fully functional by the end of 2013, might force large commercial buildings to improve their energy efficiency. The effectiveness of such pilot programs depends on the total quota set on the building sector. At the initial stage, it is believed that the quota will be allocated for free to enterprises to maintain growth of the nation’s economy, which is heavily boosted by the real estate sector.

The good news is that 15 hotels, 15 shopping malls, and nine large commercial buildings have been selected as carbon emission trading pilot enterprises in Shanghai, accounting for 20 percent of the total enterprises included in the city-level trading plan. Enrolling these large, energy-intensive buildings in the emissions trading pilot will target some of the more culpable buildings for energy efficiency improvements. If the pilot programs are a success, large buildings such as these shopping malls will likely be targeted in a national emissions trading scheme.

Although the Chinese government saved the equivalent of 65 million tons of coal by the end of 2012 by introducing mandatory building energy efficiency codes, there is still a long way to go to improve the energy efficiency of China’s buildings. As noted in a previous blog post, the Chinese government needs in particular to address the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy implementation process associated with green buildings and eco-city development.

Go to Source

Worldwatch Institute’s State of the World 2013 explores new ways to measure sustainability and live within our planet’s boundaries

Mobility for the human body, not the car. Photo courtesy of Jennie Moore.

Washington, D.C.—As the world continues down the path of unmitigated and unsustainable development, it is becoming increasingly clear that we have successfully pushed ourselves out of the stable geological era of the Holocene and into the more volatile and unpredictable Anthropocene. Nevertheless, many remain blissfully unaware of this truth due to the fact that ecosystem thresholds are not always marked with warning signs of impending danger. Unfortunately, this means that we may actually pass through a tipping point unaware because it is quite possible that nothing significant will happen at first.

In State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?, the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) discusses the need to collectively stay within our planetary boundaries if we wish to achieve environmental sustainability and return to a stabler, Holocene-like era.

According to Ecological Footprint studies, humans have already overshot the planet’s ecological capability by about 50 percent. State of the World 2013 contributing author and Senior Researcher at Oxfam, Kate Raworth, notes that the high consumption levels of the wealthiest 10 percent of people in the world and the resource-intensive production practices of companies are the biggest sources of stress on the planet today.

“If ‘one-planet’ living is the goal, then lifestyle choices will obviously have to entail more than recycling programs and stay-at-home vacations,” said Jennie Moore, Director of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and also a contributing author. “For success, the world’s nations will have to commit to whole new development strategies with elements ranging from public re-education to ecological fiscal reform, all within a negotiated global sustainability treaty.”

Although it is critical that we reduce our total resource use to a level below the natural threshold, it is equally important that every person has access to the resources they need to lead a life of dignity and opportunity. In State of the World 2013, contributing authors suggest taking into account both our planetary and social boundaries when measuring sustainability:

Examining Planetary Boundaries. Nine planetary boundaries have been identified that together describe an envelope for a safe operating space for humanity, and we may be able to achieve environmental sustainability if we collectively live within these boundaries. These include: climate change, biodiversity loss, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, land use changes, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution.

Incorporating Social Boundaries. Living within our planet’s natural boundaries is essential, but taking into consideration social boundaries, such as access to fresh water, education, health care, and other basic needs is as important. Between the social foundation of human rights and the environmental ceiling of planetary boundaries lies a space that is both environmentally safe and socially just, and we must work to move in to that space.

Adapting a parking lot for urban agriculture. Photo courtesy of Jennie Moore.

Living Within Our Means.In order to live within the ecological carrying capacity of our planet, there must be a more equitable distribution of Earth’s resources. This means that significant and widespread lifestyle changes will need to take place. The emphasis is on each individual living within their “Fair Earth-share” which amounts to 1.7 global hectares per capita, according to Moore and contributing author William E. Rees, Professor Emeritus in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia.

Transforming Social Norms.The concept of environmental sustainability must permeate both the social and cultural domains. Until society can shift away from its blind commitment to unconstrained economic growth, progress will not be made. Global action is needed to stimulate corporations and consumers to shift gears toward living within their Fair Earth-shares.

In a world where humans are inextricably intertwined with their environment, a method for measuring society’s degree of sustainability could be just what people need to begin to shift their way of thinking and embrace a truly sustainable lifestyle.

Worldwatch’sState of the World 2013, released in April 2013, addresses how sustainability should be measured, how we can attain it, and how we can prepare if we fall short. The opening section, to which the above-mentioned authors contributed, also includes deeper explorations of how to measure sustainability of energy use, freshwater, fisheries, and nonrenewable resources.

Authors of the book’s opening section include:

• Carl Folke, Professor at and Director of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics and author of Chapter 2, “Respecting Planetary Boundaries and Reconnecting to the Biosphere.”
• Kate Raworth, Senior Researcher at Oxfam and a teacher at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, author of Chapter 3, “Defining a Safe and Just Space for Humanity.”
• Jennie Moore, Director of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship in the School of Construction and the Environment at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, co-author of Chapter 4, “Getting to One-Planet Living.”
• William E. Rees, Professor Emeritus in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, co-author of Chapter 4, “Getting to One-Planet Living.”

Notes to Editors:

For more information and for review copies of State of the World 2013, please contact Supriya Kumar at skumar@worldwatch.org

About the Worldwatch Institute:

Worldwatch is an independent research organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy, resource, and environmental issues. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than a dozen languages. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.

By Caitlin Aylward

Drought and high food prices in 2012 threatened the food security of over 18 million people in the Sahel Region of Africa, which includes parts of Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Gambia, Cameroon, and northern Nigeria. The Sahel is prone to drought, and is becoming increasingly so with climate change. Consequently the people in this region are experiencing more frequent bouts of food insecurity and malnutrition.

Women-led cereal banks help reduce hunger and malnutrition in the Sahel. (Photo credit: World Food Programme)

Fortunately, organizations such as the World Food Program (WFP) and Care are joining forces to create all-women-managed cereal banks in villages throughout the Sahel that not only help protect against seasonal famine, but also empower women as agents of food security in their communities.

Cereal banks are community-led grain distribution projects that store grain after harvests, and then loan grain when food is scarce during what is known as the ‘lean season.’

In 2009, WFP and Care established exclusively women-operated cereal banks to help ensure the availability of grain supplies year round. These community cereal banks loan grain below market price, helping protect against market speculation, and enabling even the poorest women to purchase food for their families during times of scarcity. The women are expected to repay the loans, but at very low interest rates and only after they have harvested their own crops.

WFP and Care also fund educational enrichment programs that give lessons to women on arithmetic, reading, and writing, which give women the skills needed to manage the village granaries, including bookkeeping, monitoring stocks, and administering loans. Education is of critical importance for the advancement of women in the developing world. As the Girl Effect reports, an extra year of primary school results in an increase of women’s eventual wages by 10 to 20 percent, while an extra year of secondary school increases potential wages by 15 to 25 percent.

Given women’s traditional role as primary caregivers who invest 90 percent of their incomes into their families (as compared to the 30-40 percent invested by men), it makes sense to employ them as managers of community cereal banks. “Women traditionally feed the village; we know when our children and neighbors are hungry,” says cereal bank treasurer Sakina Hassan, “Our intimate knowledge of hunger drives our management of the cereal bank.”

Cereal banks decrease communities’ dependence on unpredictable weather, and provide villages with a much needed safety net during times of drought and famine. In addition to emergency food relief programs, these cereal banks helped save thousands of families throughout the region from hunger and malnutrition during the most recent food crisis in the Sahel.  These community granaries have also led to improved educational opportunities for women, empowering them to better provide for their families and their communities.

Can you think of other innovations that are helping to improve food security, while empowering women? Let us know in the comments section!

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

Go to Source

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