Friday, October 7, 2016

Energy & Climate Change in Developing Countries-Leapfrogging-Joshua D. Mosshart

While cities command an increasingly dominant role in the global economy as centers of both production and consumption, this rapid urban growth throughout the developing world is outstripping the capacity of most cities and urban centers to provide adequate services for their citizens.1

While there is no ‘typical’ city in terms of their energy needs and energy use, they do have a lot in common. Cities run on energy and require land – their burning of fossil fuels and their contribution to land clearing combine to contribute massively to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – they are also extremely vulnerable to energy scarcity, to energy price rises and health impacts of very poor air quality. In developing countries many urban citizens experience extreme energy poverty and their access to transport and so to urban goods is constrained.
While the energy transition challenges faced by developed and developing urban centers are fundamentally the same – to stabilize a growing hunger for secure energy supplies, avoid polluting and wasteful industries and power systems, and shun development paths that condemn citizens to high transport costs – urban centers in developing countries face additional challenges. These can include serious finance, governance, capacity and resource problems – and yet the fluidity of development and the rapid changes that are occurring may make opportunities of some of these challenges.
These cities, while they may have fewer resources than those in developed countries, are not so ‘set in their ways’ – they have the potential to establish new and different development paths.
"There is no doubt that it will be far less costly to avoid the outcomes of climate change, than to live with its consequences or to repair its damage."
Leapfrogging
One of the more obvious opportunities for cities in developing countries is that of ‘leapfrogging’ – where countries skip inferior, less efficient, more expensive or more polluting technologies and industries and move directly to more advanced ones. In terms of energy planning, developing countries need not repeat the mistakes of highly industrialized countries in creating an energy infrastructure based on fossil fuels, but “jump” directly to renewable energy sources and more efficient technologies.
Some of the advantages of sustainable energy action planning:
Improvements in local air quality – Energy management initiatives are among the most cost-effective actions that local authorities can take to reduce the air pollution that causes serious environmental and health problems within their cities.
Financial savings – While many local authorities are faced with budget deficits, the appeal of saving money is often the starting point for municipal energy management initiatives. Improved efficiencies in municipal energy consumption offer plentiful opportunities for reducing operating costs.
New jobs – Inefficient energy systems represent important investment opportunities in the community, and such investments are among the most effective ways to create new employment. When energy management reduces expenditures on fuel and electricity, the savings can then be re-spent within the community.
Local economic development – The energy management industry itself is a growth industry and its promotion can be an effective component of local economic development strategies in the community. In addition, big business is increasingly considering the livability of a city an important factor in deciding where to locate – access to urban goods and transport efficiencies (and so spatial development and public transport provision) are critical to creating livable cities.
New partnerships – Utilities, private enterprises, financial institutions, and levels of government other than municipal are all pursuing energy management for various reasons. They have recognized that urban governments are well suited to deliver the type of integrated programes often required to achieve energy efficiency and renewable energy objectives.
Sources:1 Cohen B 2006, UNHABITAT,UNEP

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

The Paris Agreement-Joshua D. Mosshart MSFS, CHFC, CASL, CLU


On April 22, 2016, 175 countries signed the Paris Agreement, which set the record for highest number of countries signing an international agreement on its opening day. This includes the US and China, who jointly announced that they would sign on Earth Day, and nations including India and Australia have followed suit. Click here to see an up-to-date list of all the countries that have signed on since April 22. 
It’s not only important that these major emitters are signing on, but also that they’ve put their commitments on the table. China, for example, pledged among other things to peak its CO2 emissions around 2030 – and according to some analyses looks like it will achieve that goal much earlier than expected. 
The country will also launch a national cap-and-trade program in 2017. Meanwhile, China’s pledge to increase non- fossil fuels to around 20 percent of its primary energy consumption by 2030 commits it to installing 800–1,000 gigawatts (GW) of zero-emission facilities, roughly equal to the size of the entire current US electricity grid. 
The US, for its part, pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26—28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. India aims to install 175 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2022 – nearly as much as the US has today (~183 GW).
By making these commitments public, China, India, and the US sent a clear message to other nations around the world: the shift to clean energy is on – and it’s time to get on board. 
Scientists generally consider (and politicians agree) that we have to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures to keep small, low- lying islands and coastal areas free from the worst effects of climate change. 
For small island nations, 1.5 degrees may be the highest temperature rise under which they can continue to exist without being swallowed by rising seas. In fact, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) negotiating group has adopted the phrase “1.5 to stay alive” as its motto. 
AOSIS was joined by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, led by the Philippines in Paris, in calling for a 1.5-degree C temperature goal in the Paris Agreement in the Manila-Paris Declaration. Others followed suit. 
At the other end, politicians have agreed that 2 degrees C is the upper end of acceptable temperature rise if we’re going to limit the the adverse effects of
climate change. That’s why the Paris Agreement has an objective of holding global temperature increases “well below” 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and
“to pursue efforts” to limit this increase to 1.5 degrees. That’s important because we’re very, very close to those limits already. February 2016 was the warmest month on record, by a lot. According to two US scientific agencies, the Earth’s surface temperature was 1.21 degrees C above the twentieth-century average. 
Energy receives nearly no direct mentions in the Paris Agreement, but behind the curtain of policy, the truth is clear: in order to implement the agreement, the world must make a rapid, equitable, and just transition to large-scale deployment of renewable energy. 
For this reason, NGO groups, the Climate Vulnerable Forum, and more have made reaching 100-percent renewable energy by 2050 a priority target. 
Studies have shown this is possible, if we act now and act fast. And with the cost of renewables continuing to plummet year after year, the good news is that doing so is increasingly affordable and practical.