Number of questions: [9]
 |
Posted on 08/02/2007 18:14:03 |
Thank you for your response. However, on the diverging issues of technological advancement and environmental protection you have not given a satisfactory answer. Based on what you said about technology improving on enviromental issues over time an interesting inference is: new emerging industrial technologies may have harmful effects on the environment until the "rubber meets the road" of having been implemented in the industry and in due course the effects of these industrial technologies on the environment will have been observed.
The full impact of new technology concepts will only be known after many cycles of observation, reporting, and possible harm to the environment. This is where one diverging issue between technology and enviroment is possible. There can be many others.
Prevention is also proper anticipation. How does your policies handle this example of divergence alone?
With regards the Kyoto Protocol, is it perceived as a "one policy solves all" techno-environmental problems by many?
Thank you again Mr. Radka.
|
|
Tirso Cross (from Philippines)
|
|
I like to think we are not blind to technology. Although I work in the part of UNEP that deals with technology and industry we adopt a cautious attitude when it comes to new technologies and advocate using environmental technology assessments to anticipate what impacts new technologies might have if they are widely deployed. Often the problems are those associated with scale. A new technology may look like it solves a problem but its wide use may lead to new problems. The trick is to look ahead a bit and have a preventive attitude. We are strong believers in renewable energy technologies, but a few years ago worked with banks and other parts of the finance sector prepare what are called environmental due diligence guidelines for renewable projects. These give step-by-step instructions on how to examine a new RE project for possible environmental problems.
At present, we are very much concerned about the rapid growth of interest in biofuels. Although good biofuel-based energy systems could help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide the worst ones actually do very little to help solve the problem of global warming. And if they are based on large scale plantations of energy crops in newly cleared forested areas and the crops have high demands for chemical fertilizers and pesticides we could end up causing new problems in our attempt to solve an existing problem.
No one in this session has raised the issue of energy efficiency, but it is seen by most energy experts as a critical area that has for too long been overlooked. People value the services that energy makes possible – lighting, communication, comfortable living and working spaces, mobility, and so on – not energy per se. So if we can deliver more of those services with less energy it is a win. The trick here is to focus on meeting demand for the service rather than seeing it as a never ending challenge of expanding the supply of energy, which you might call a preventive approach since the result is to avoid the problems associated with ‘producing’ the energy in the first place..
Finally, no one I work with – in UNEP or outside the organization – believes that the Kyoto Protocol is a one policy solution to the problem of climate change. It’s a good first step if you believe that coordinated effort among countries is required, but it is only that – a first step.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 17:41:32 |
|
what is globalisation and how do you define it? what are the positive and negative impacts of globalisation?
|
|
abdulla nashid (from Maldives)
|
|
|
I don’t have a personal definition but my short answer would be something like globalization is the process by which communication and transportation technologies have led to a much more highly interconnected world, with consequences in the economic, social, and cultural realms. The discussion of positive and negative benefits would fill volumes. My suggestion is to look to the session on 31 January where my colleague Kilaparti Ramakrishna offered some perspectives on Globalization and the Environment.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 17:35:58 |
|
How do you respond to the argument that "there's really not much we can do in the United States to stop or reverse global warming." George Will recently wrote in the latest issue of Newsweek that China is bringing a new coal-fired power plant online every ten days or so (2,200 by the year 2030?). Is the world really waiting for the United States to act? Suppose the United States initiates a major overhaul of our energy system that is environmentally sustainable and brings our emmissions into Kyoto compliance. Do you expect other major players like India and China to follow suit?
|
|
Dan Smithwick (from United States of America)
|
|
|
It’s true that China is constructing new coal fired power plants at a very rapid rate but the U.S. is still the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions and I do believe it can do much to reduce these. We should also recognize that the U.S. has done and is doing much to reduce emissions. Much of the more interesting activity is taking place at the state and local level, and US industry is increasingly active in the search for solutions. It is not easy to change the energy structure of a country, which is why much of the attention centers on getting new investment in energy technology directed at low carbon options. That the U.S. has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol does provide other countries with a ready excuse to not do so as well, but I see an increasing willingness of many countries – developed and developing – to seek solutions to the global warming problem if only because many of them will be affected by the changes that look increasingly likely to occur. This is a very dynamic situation and its hard to make predictions with confidence.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 13:25:19 |
In terms of technology transfer to the developing countries from the developed ones, how do you strike a balance between the use of the various technologies to transform energy into forms that can be beneficial to the poor, and conservation of the environment, taking into consideration that the poorer countries heavily rely on wood and charcoal for their energy requirements.
What are the best (read environmental-friendly) alternatives, considering their economic "weakness"?
|
|
francis (from Kenya)
|
|
Simple wood or charcoal fires are very inefficient and can produce a great deal of smoke and invisible combustion products. Their use, particularly indoors, can expose women and children to very high levels of pollution. Sometimes the technology is a simple as a stove or ventilated fireplace, which may be more suitable in a rural village in a developing country than a more sophisticated 'conversion device' that is expensive, hard to maintain without special skills and spare parts, or require imported fuel. In terms of environmental impacts, the better stove technology might also be more efficient, meaning that less wood is required for cooking. That translates into less demand for wood and charcoal, and in many cases reduced pressue on forests. In general good alternatives are more efficient and less polluting. That means they have econoic benefits while they are being used as well as environmental benefits.
'Technology' is not only hardware but the ability to make good decisions about technology choice, its adaptation to local conditions, and its use, the 'software' in a sense. So transferring technology is often about transferring these softer skills, and the various support mechanisms for technology, such as local markets for selling and maintaining the equipment.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 11:28:55 |
I have been closely watching the United Nations Environmental Program over the past 19 months and you have all given me great faith in our overall mission as a global civilization. In the wake of current environmental/social tragedies, I envision that we are reveloping the Earth as sustainably as possible.
Take a case point in Example of the current situtation Iraq, if the US has over 10 billion dollars to spend in the bank and the Iranian National bank is getting involved in the Finance of Iraq reconstruction, are we going to invest that Energy in to developing one of the most ecologically sustinably nations in the world?
Couldn't the sharing of environmentally sustainable energy industries in Arab states and Asia lead to less polkution overall, greater equity for resources available to the gernal population, and a stand down of International Security Threats between many worlds Sovereign Nations?
Now I see the fertile ground of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, the coasts along the Indian Ocean after the 2004 Tsunami, and more importantly the dire need to rebuild Pakistan after Oct 8th’s 2005 earthquake. And now most of late, Lebanon after the small war there in the past year. My proposal is that we maximize every renewable energy technology in the existing market to the fullest extent to redevelop these ares sustainably.
Are my ideas possible? Is the UNEP FI leading the way? Is the new AFED another great seed for the Refertilization of the Crescent much like www.edenagain.org? How can I help lead the way?
|
|
Mark Yokim (from United States of America)
|
|
We do believe there is a great potential for renewable energy in reconstruction efforts. Although wars and natural disasters are terrible the rebuilding effort offers the possibility to provide communities with better infrastructure, not only regarding energy but also in terms of water supply, sanitation, and so on. UNEP has had a large effort underway in the Iraqi marshlands helping restore an ecologically and culturally rich area that had suffered greatly. (See the upcoming session by my colleague Chizuru Aoki).
We are also working in the post-tsunami areas in the Indian Ocean on a programme to get banks interested in lending to homeowners who want to purchase a solar home system. Our goal here is to help the banks establish credit programmes for retail customers, which is one way of building local markets for better energy systems. We are also starting an effort to help the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company determine the solar and wind energy resources in the UAE. This is a very forward looking example of a country that sees itself as a leader in the energy field now, and wants to maintain that position as we move toward a cleaner energy future. So I think your ideas are very good, but our experience is that these efforts do take quite a bit of time to conceive and get started since the specific circumstances in each area are very different and have to be taken into account.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 10:32:22 |
Do you have an opinion about the Kyoto Protocol which deals with greenhouse gas emissions and it's direct link to industrial, technological, energy pollutants and emissions?
Should all countries ratify this protocol, and wether your answer is yes or no, why then?
As much as you are seemingly to be interested ih the intersections of the agendas of Global Energy and Global Environment, why not also on issues where they are diverging?
On the diverging issues which agenda should be priority: enviroment or the technological advancement?
How do you feel about the rate and the amount of attention the global community is giving emphasis on these issues, knowing that not many people are aware of the issues affecting their own enviroment?
|
|
Tirso Cross (from Philippines)
|
|
I believe the Kyoto Protocol is a good first step and it should be ratified since this is a global problem that has to be solved by countries working together. But we shuld not pretend it is sufficient to solve the problem of global warming.
An intersection of two policy areas doesn't mean that the issues are converging. Energy and the environment are converging in some areas and diverging in others. Conventional power plants in developed countries havfe in general become more efficient and less polluting over time, at least in terms of conventional pollutants such as sulfur oxides and particulates. I suppose you could call that a convergence. In UNEP we are generally seeking to advance policies that yield benefits in multiple areas. For example, urban air quality in many developing countries is very poor and severely affects people's health. Improving the industrial boilers, furnaces, vehicles, and such can save money (through better efficiency), reduce the emission of conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, improve air quality, and save lives. In many areas there is a perception of divergence, but opportunities for multiple gains when one looks harder. I don't see technical advancement as being opposed to environment since in many ways better technology offers a solution.
I think more attention might be paid to these issues, and the encouraging sign is that more and more people want to learn about how energy use and the environemnt are linked. So we are getting there.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 08:59:32 |
Can you please elaborate on the subject of your expertise: Global Energy and Enviroment Agendas?
Global Energy, what do you mean by Global Energy?, there is no consolidation of Global Energy, there are no suppliers of considered "Global Energy" except the energies harnessed from the oil resources of the Middle-East.
It is interesting that you have fused these two seemingly unrelated subjects. Please indulge us with your knowledge.
|
|
Tirso Cross (from Philippines)
|
|
|
I admit this may be a bit cryptic, but if so it was unintentional. What I meant was the global energy agenda and the global environmental agenda, and in particicular where these two intersect. The way that we use energy has many impacts on the environment, of course, and these range from those at the very local level (such as a leaking fuel oil tank that contaminates a drinking water supply or smoke from an outdated boiler that impairs air quality) to those at larger scales, such as acid precipitation. Impacts that cross borders and require some degree of cooperation amongst countries to reduce in severity are of particular concern to organizations like UNEP. At the apex lies climate change, which very much links energy use and our current energy 'system' to the environment at the global scale.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 06:37:11 |
|
what is the most faesible and affordable of alternative energy that can be developed in the future?
|
|
Anggun (from Indonesia)
|
|
Many types of alternative energy are already feasible in the sense the technologies exist and can be purchased from suppliers. Wind turbines are a good example. In the proper locations these alternative technologies already provide competitively priced electricity. But much depends on the location. For example, a wind turbine is only really a good option in a windy location. Photovoltaic cells that turn sunlight into electricity are dropping in price, and are widely used in locations where grid-supplied electricity is unavailable the the value of the electricity is high. An example is in communication relay towers. In general there has been very rapid growth in renewable energy driven by technology developments, lower costs, and environmental concerns. Government policies that support renewable energy have certainly helped.
A great deal of research and development work is underway to find alternative energy options for the longer term. Wind and solar will certainly grow in importance, particularly if costs of the technology continue to decline. But options such as carbon capture and storage would allow us to use fossil fuels such as coal without releasing pollutants and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This would be particularly attractive to countries that have large coal reserves.
|
|
Posted on 08/02/2007 06:23:40 |
|
Energy can not be created and nor can be destroyed.How atomic energy and nuclear enegy reacts or goes in our environment?
|
|
Nosheen Yaqoob butt (from Pakistan)
|
|
You're right in saying that that energy can't be created or destroyed, it's merely transformed from one form to another. The chemical energy in coal, for example, is transformed into electrical energy in a power station. In a nuclear power plant the fission or breaking up of atomic nuclei in the nuclear 'fuel' releases energy that is partly transformed into heat and electricity. The process creates various radioactive waste products, however, that must eventually be removed from the reactor with what is called the the used or spent fuel. Some of these waste products are long lived and if they are released into the environment they can cause harm to humans and other living things.
You can find out more about nuclear power at: http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
|
|
