« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »
March 2008
Is human kind like a caterpillar - will it become a butterfly.
This 1 minute video - entitled Metaphormosis asks whether we, like the caterpillar, will devour our environment before changing into something beautiful
Posted by at 8:07 PM | Comments (0)
Van Jones - Its not too late
I like this one-minute inspiration from Van Jones and his pitch not to leave anyone behind as we deal with Climate Change
Posted by at 8:04 PM | Comments (0)
Kiva - small loans - big impact
One of my investments just paid off, it was to a business called Fotu Levi. First the numbers - Amount invested, $25; Period of investment: 1 year; ROI 0%; Satisfaction: 100%.
I made the investment through www.kiva.org, who match investors - of a variety of sizes, but mostly small, with micro-enterprises in developing countries.
Fotu is one of the few people that has the ability and the recipe for creating one of the oldest Samoan delicacies, traditional pudding. Because of the time, lack of knowledge and effort involved, this pudding is rarely made or sold any more. Fotu's business will attract locals who will love the pudding, and tourists who will be able to sample this delicious dish. Restaurants may also be interested in buying her pudding so they can offer this tradtional dish on their menu. Fotu is requesting a capital loan in the amount of $650.00 to purchase the ingredients that will help her to produce enough pudding to grow her business.
I think this is an easy way to make a small contribution, that has a big impact. After all, the cost to me over a year must be about $1.50.
I'm going to double the money, and find something else to invest in - and encourage others to as well.
Posted by at 2:28 PM | Comments (0)
Masdar City - Abu Dhabi
This video is worth watching, it sets a vision for a sustainable city in a desert - its got some impressive goals, and one that sets a line that other city-scale developments would do well to match.
Posted by at 9:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Zero emissions - scientific study
In one of the other posts I refered to the case being made for Zero Emissions. The article I was refering to is in New Scientist, but I'll post it below in case it expires.
From a business perspective you have to start asking the question, "What is the trend in targets", e.g. what do we expect the 2050 target to be IN 2050.
If we extrapolate from firmer policy to proposals i.e. last years (business as usual) to Labor (50% by 2050) to Ross Garnault (70-90% reduction by 2050) to new Scientist (100% reduction) then a prudent business would have to presume that the tougher targets are going to come into place sooner or later.
I think this means that businesses should be looking at planning for a zero-carbon-emissions world, because it will come sooner or later, and being ahead of the curve is likely to bring opportunities, while being behind the curve gets expensive - especially at the carbon prices likely to be needed to get emissions down quickly.
Continue reading "Zero emissions - scientific study"
Posted by at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Central station freeze
This is fun, and shows the power of a simple idea replicated by a lot of people - from you tube.
Posted by at 9:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
At what cost of carbon does it make sense - write or wrong question?
Salon has an article that asks when solar power makes sense, quoting papers by Wheeler and Borenstein. "figuring out the carbon dioxide price point at which a particular renewable source of energy becomes cost-competitive with a fossil-fuel energy source is critical. If it's $600 per ton, forget about it. If it's $30, full speed ahead."
The thing missing from the article is the cost-curves of the different technologies. If you look at CURRENT cost of the technology, and CURRENT price of carbon then much of renewable energy is uncompetitive.
The trick is to watch the cost-curve, what is the price decline in the technology. For example large-scale Wind is currently cheaper than distributed Solar. BUT wind is only decreasing in cost slowly, while solar is decreasing quickly (both through changes in technology, and volumes of production.
With Ross Garnault (Australian equivalent of the Stern report) calling for cuts of 70-90% by 2050; and other scientific studies saying zero emissions is the only way to avoid dangerous climate change, we could be estimating that carbon gets very expensive indeed.
The question then becomes at what point in the future does it become competitive presuming massive production volumes of whatever the technology is.
Posted by at 9:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)