Test - negative

Showing posts with label negative. Show all posts

Cleantech Troubles in 2013: Predictions from Kachan

February 06, 2013 Add Comment Edit

As reported in an Environmental Leader article, Kachan & Co, a boutique cleantech research and advisory firm, is predicting that Global cleantech will “backtrack” in 2013. According to their bleak predictions, venture capital investments will decline even further than they did in 2012 and long-term risks are emerging in the solar, wind and electric vehicle market.

Kachan's latest predictions indicate cleantech venture capital investment won’t ever return to the highs it achieved before the financial crisis of 2007-2008. In 2013, the sector will lose venture investors because of disappointing returns, poor policy support worldwide and a lag time in the pullback of equity and debt investment.

But, this doesn’t mean the end of cleantech, the firm says. Corporate capital is filling in for traditional venture capital, and this investment should help clean technologies that are already “de-risked” reach meaningful levels of scale, according to managing partner Dallas Kachan.

However, solar and wind won’t see strong growth in 2013, Kachan predicts. The markets already suffer from margin erosions, allegations of corruption and international trade issues. Despite falling prices per kilowatt-hour, in 2013, the firm says poor progress in grid-scale power storage technology — and the cost of batteries and other means of storage — along with continuing progress in emerging nuclear technologies, natural gas and cleaner coal will put downward pressure on solar and wind.

Meanwhile, the firm predicts 2013 will be the year a new set of technologies will emerge aimed at capturing particulate and CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants. The barrier to capturing coal emissions has been cost and power plant output penalties. Kachan research has identified new technologies without such drawbacks, and forecasts the world will begin to see them in 2013.

Innovations in internal combustion engines could further delay the timing of an all-electric vehicle future, says Kachan. In 2013, the firm predicts new fuel economy innovations in internal combustion engines will enter the market, including new natural gas conversion and heat exchange retrofits of existing engines aimed at lessening fuel needs. Some of these technologies, when combined, claim to be able to reduce fuel costs by 90 percent, the firm says.

Additionally, Kachan predicts more adoption of mining cleantech innovation in areas such as tailings remediation, membrane-based water purification, sensors and telematics, route optimization software intended to lower fuel and equipment maintenance costs, and low-water, low-power hydrometallurgical and other processes for mineral separation.

The firm also says that 2013 will be the year the world’s leading agricultural companies accept consumer-driven GMO backlash and work toward more sustainable, “greener” ways of producing food. A Kachan report published in November says Advanced BioNutrition, GreenScene Agritek and Urban Barns are among the 57 companies at the leading edge of agricultural cleantech.

Source: Environmental Leader

Related Articles
Video - Energy 2030
Record Year for Wind Power in 2012
Video - Steven Chu and Bill Gates Discuss America's Energy Future
A Parting Letter from Energy Secretary Steven Chu
Environmental Leader’s Insider Knowledge Report: Lessons Learned from Corporate Environmental, Sustainability and Energy Decision-Makers
Webinar - Myths & Realities of Energy Purchasing
White Paper - Energy and Resource Data Management Best Practices
Verdantix: Eight Predictions for Energy Management in 2013
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Solar Stories of 2012
Cleantechnica: Top 10 Wind Power Stories of 2012
Renewable Energy World 10 Most Commented on Stories of 2012
California's Proposition 39 will Generate Half a Billion a Year for Clean Energy and Efficiency
American Voters Want More Renewable Energy
The Promise of Renewable Energy in the US
Renewable Energy Is Our Only Hope
President Clinton on What the American Public Needs to Know about Renewable Energy

Climate Change Erodes the Ozone Layer

August 06, 2012 Add Comment Edit

According to recent research climate change may damage the protective ozone layer, which protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes skin cancer, cataracts, suppresses the human immune system, and damages crops and ecosystems.

The new research published by Harvard University found that extreme weather like climate-driven summer thunderstorms might introduce more water into the stratosphere, which can erode the protective ozone layer over the US and elsewhere.

This study draws attention to the urgency of our efforts to reduce short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) including black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Reducing SLCPs could cut the rate of global warming by at least half for the next several decades, prevent up to 4.7 million premature deaths each year and prevent billions of dollars in crop losses.

"The possibility of significant ozone depletion over North America is only the newest in a litany of accelerating impacts of climate change,” stated Durwood Zaelke, President of IGSD. “We cannot afford to wait to take fast-action.”

There are many unanticipated harmful consequences of global warming, which makes the point that we had better take precautions rather than wait to deal with the potentially irreversible side effects.

This study is one of the first to experimentally prove this hypothesize so other studies will need to follow. However it does make the point that is it better to act now rather than wait and see what kinds of devastation will come from a warming world.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Montreal Protocol - Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Term Climate
New Partners of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
Six Initiatives from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
US Secretary of State at the Green Partnership for Growth
Natural Gas is Not Clean Energy
The Effects of Global Warming
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Debunking CO2 Myths and The Science of Climate Change
Primer on CO2 and other GHGs
Temperature Data: 1880 - 2011 (Video)
Video: Why People are Confused about the Scientific Veracity of Climate Change
Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots Events
Interactive Map Reveals Warmer Spring
100 Global Activities for Climate Impacts Day
The World “Connects the Dots” Between Extreme Weather & Climate Change
Business and Climate Impacts Day
Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots
Connect the Dots End Fossil Fuel
Extreme Weather
McKibben Attributes Extreme Weather Events to Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Deadly Tornadoes in Massachusetts
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Floods in the Philipines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
The Costs of Global Warming
24 Hours of Reality
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
Video: Demand a Green Planet for Yourself and for Your Children

Pessimism is Impeding Environmental Advocacy

July 13, 2012 Add Comment Edit

While it is easy to understand why so many environmentally concerned people are fearful and pessimistic, these attitudes detract from the goal of improving our environment. Fear is well warranted, we are on the verge of a widespread ecosystem collapse and we have reached 400 ppm of atmospheric C02 in the arctic. However, rather than just ask how bad things are, we should be asking how we can best address the calamities we face within the time we have available.

Fear mongering does not move us forward, if anything, it alienates people who most need to be brought into the discussion. The reaction to Rio+20 is a great illustration of the point. The summit in Rio has been justifiably described as “weak,” ”remarkably listless,” and a ”disappointment.” Sometimes the zeal of some environmentalists makes it hard for them to recognize progress. The business community’s commitments were the one bright spot at Rio, nonetheless they too were subjected to a barrage of harsh criticisms. One article suggests that progress at Rio was derailed by big business. Some even dismissed the entire process, claiming that the summit was hijacked by powerful corporations.

Peter Bakker is head of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and he flatly rejects the criticism that the 1,000 businesses that attended Rio were not serious about creating change. As Bakker points out, there are good businesses that work to be more sustainable and there are bad businesses that work to undermine progress. “The 20 percent of really bad guys we need to regulate out of existence…You can go home from Rio totally frustrated and create absolutely nothing, but if you see the result as half full, despite the disappointment, you will see hooks for processes, dialogues and for agreements around targets,” Bakker said.

While governments and most private citizens are doing little, some businesses are showing leadership. There is no doubt that corporations like those in the fossil fuel industry wield far too much influence, but it is both irresponsible and inaccurate to dismiss the sustainability efforts of a growing number of companies. The business community is doing more for sustainability than governments and private citizens put together.

Although Rio+20 did not produce the kind of results that many had hoped for, the business community did provide some reason for optimism. There were a host of announcements worth noting amongst the 150 corporate sustainability pledges made in Rio, they include the Natural Capital Declaration, a public-private partnership to reduce deforestation through sustainable agriculture and the launch of the Clean Revolution campaign. In addition, companies listed on the London Stock Exchange will soon have to provide annual emission reportsand there is a plan to to reduce emissions through sustainable transport.

There was also progress on sustainable cities, (which is significant given the fact that cities are responsible for three-quarters of global GHGs). According to the mayors of major cities who gathered at Rio+20, there are already measures underway to reduce their combined GHG emissions by 248 million tons by 2020.

Selwyn Hart, a diplomat for Barbados, was amongst those who saw Rio+20 as progress. “The document represents a positive step forward. While it is not the major breakthrough we had 20 years ago, it puts us on the pathway to sustainable development,” Hart said. “The formal negotiations might be over but [we] need to focus on the implementation of some of the central issues dealt with in the document,” he added.

While there may have been some progress at Rio+20, we are still a very far way from creating a sustainable world. Given how far we are from the desired goal, one could easily conclude that the answer lies in providing more science-based information to people, politicians and business leaders. Others believe we need to make people aware of the horrors that await us in a world ravaged by climate change. However, a new study suggests that environmental action will not come from pessimistic fear inspiring facts about the environment. Research shows that positive appeals appear to be far more effective.

The kind of changes we need to see to save our planet will not be brought about by fear or even by science. The issue impeding popular support for progress on environmental policy is pessimism.

Research by historian Matthias Dörries examined the role of fear in our understanding of climate change. He explored how apocalyptic forecasting, estimates of mass extinctions and other fearful predictions have not produced the necessary changes. According to Professor Dörries, science invokes fear but does not auger a change in our behavior. Dörries concludes that the appeals for action on climate change are ultimately ”political and cultural,” not merely a matter of science and reason alone.

Decades of research show that appeals to fear can easily backfire causing recipients to reduce the fear without reducing the danger, perhaps by denying that there is anything to fear or concluding that the fear appeal was a manipulation attempt by an untrustworthy source.

As reported in Nature Climate Change, Paul Bain and his colleagues conducted a study with important implications for increasing climate change advocacy. The research of Bain et al shows that informing people about the expected impacts of climate change had no effect on their positions. What did change the positions was thinking about how limiting greenhouse-gas emissions might promote interpersonal warmth and scientific and technological progress.

Ultimately, people’s attitudes on climate change are directly related to different psychological strategies to mitigate fear. Climate change deniers reduce fear through a variety of techniques that reject climate change impacts. Their tactics include avoidance of the facts, highlighting scientific uncertainties, focusing on minor disagreements and maligning climate scientists. What makes opponents of environmental policies so dangerous is the fact that they seek fear reduction without doing anything to address the threat.

Bain’s research shows that approaches based on hope work far better than fear. More effective approaches stressed values of community good feeling and of scientific and technological progress.

If our goal is to bring about the type of change that will enhance our chances for survival, we must move beyond pessimism and fear. We must learn to engage people in a more psychologically effective fashion. We need to work towards building consensus and curtail the rampant cynicism that only makes matters worse. Unless we can find a way to entice those not yet engaged in environmental action, we are simply preaching to the converted.

People are not receptive to negativity and this has profound implications for environmental advocacy. If we are to communicate effectively we must move beyond angry rants. If we want to effectuate change, we must acknowledge that pessimism is an affront to progress and an impediment to efforts to improve our world.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related Posts
Crafting a Positive Environmental Narrative
Building Support for Action on Climate Change Before We Reach Tipping Points
Why We Need to Reach American Climate Change Deniers

A Positive Environmental Message

June 30, 2012 Add Comment Edit

It is easy to be overwhelmed with the plethora of fear inspiring environmental news. That is why it is so important to craft messages that encourage people to do something positive rather than merely ruminate on all the bad news. This simple message from the Mississippi Valley Conservancy is a positive message for those who want to prevent environmental catastrophe and save precious natural areas.

US Wants Government Action on the Environment but Less Fond of the Environmental Movement

May 08, 2012 Add Comment Edit

Polls suggest that Americans want to see their government act on environmental issues, but they do not have much love for the environmental movement. According to a number of different surveys, people in the US have seemingly contradictory views on the environment. American public opinion may be divided but there are some issues that enjoy the support of the majority.

Most Americans want to see government support for clean energy and they want government to make climate change a priority issue. The majority of Americans see global warming as an important issue, and regularly engage in behaviors that are good for the environment.

Gallup recently found that 83 percent of Americans want more government support for clean energy. Yale and George Mason University researchers found [PDF] that 72 percent of Americans believe that global warming should be a government priority. Another Gallup poll found that three out of four Americans regularly engage in environmentally friendly behaviors.

Polls on American attitudes suggest that support for the environmental movement has declined over the last ten years.According to a 2010 Gallup poll, American support the environmental movement has decreased and unsurprisingly it is split along party lines. Republicans tend to dislike environmentalists while Democrats tend to be supporters.

The 2010 survey asked respondents whether they think the environmental movement has done more good than harm, or vice versa, and a similar but slightly stronger pattern emerges. In 2010, 22 percent said that the movement has "definitely done more good than harm" and 40% that it has "probably done more good than harm," for a total of 62% holding a positive view. This reflects a decline of 13 points since 2000.

Consumers Skeptical of Environmental Claims

April 12, 2012 Add Comment Edit

Americans are interested in the facts about a product's environmental claims but have little faith. They are however swayed by certain eco-labels. These findings have important implications for the marketing of sustainability efforts.

When purchasing an environmental product people are increasingly looking beyond the superficial issues. According to the 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker, almost half (43 percent) of consumers actively seek out environmental information on the products they buy, but an equal number (44 percent) do not trust companies. Eight in ten Americans do not believe companies are addressing all of their environmental impacts, and only 44 percent trust companies.

Although environmental imagery on packaging would sway only 44 percent of consumers, almost twice that number (81 percent) indicated they are likely to be swayed by an ecolabel such as Energy Star or WaterSense.

People are generally interested in knowing more about a products environmental claims. Some 80 percent of respondents indicated they would choose a product if its packaging featured specific detailed information.

The survey indicates that only slightly more than a third (36 percent) of those surveyed said they thought that products labeled “environmentally friendly” have a positive impact on the environment – rather than just being less damaging than non-green products. This represents a 12 percent decrease from 2010 when 48 percent indicated that products labeled green have a positive impact on the environment.

There is also some negative associations regarding the cost and quality of green products. Some 42 percent of Americans have been discouraged from buying a green product because they believed it cost more than the traditional product, and a third believed the environmentally preferred product would not be of equal quality, the survey says.

Skepticism is a real threat to the bottom line as the research suggests that more than three quarters (77 percent) of the people surveyed indicated would be willing to boycott a company if misled.

Transparency is a good way to gain credibility, but this only makes sense as long as company claims are verifiable. To this end independent third party verification may help to build consumer trust.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
US Environmental Attitudes 2007 - 2020
US Consumer Attitudes on Green 2011
Don't Count on the Young to Save the Planet
The Cycle of Climate Change Acceptance
Consumer Groups Push for a US Vehicle Efficiency Standard
The War Between the Earth's Carrying Capacity and Rising Demand
Consumer Demand for Green (2009)
Carrotmobs: Adding Incentives to the Consumer Arsenal
Green's Coming of Age
Green Opportunities in Volatile Times

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )