̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - emissions

Cambridge experts on the UK heatwave and climate change

lw355 — Tue, 19 Jul 2022 09:08:06 +0000

From heatwave 'dismay' to the 'deadly' effects of climate change, here's what two Cambridge experts say about the UK's record-breaking temperatures.

̽��ֱ��"stop doing stupid stuff" approach to sustainable manufacturing

lw355 — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:00:32 +0000

Around 90% of the resources we process to create goods are not reaching the person for whom they are made. How can we make manufacturing more sustainable?

Opinion: Blocking out the sun won’t fix climate change – but it could buy us time

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:55:13 +0000

̽��ֱ��Paris climate talks hope to set out how we can reduce the amount of carbon we’re pumping into the atmosphere. But emissions cuts alone may not be enough. Atmospheric CO₂ is the blanket that keeps our planet warm and any further emissions will mean more global warming. Observations in recent years show that warming is accelerating, that polar ice and glaciers are all melting, that sea level is rising … it all looks rather bleak.

Could we directly engineer the climate and refreeze the poles? ̽��ֱ��answer is probably yes, and it could be a cheap thing to achieve – maybe costing only a few billion dollars a year. But doing this – or even just talking about it – is controversial.

Some have suggested there is a good business case to be made. We could carefully engineer the climate for a few decades while we work out how to reduce our dependency on carbon, and by taking our time we can protect the global economy and avoid financial crises. I don’t believe this argument for a minute, but you can see it’s a tempting prospect.

Reflecting the sun

One option might be to reflect some of the sun’s energy back into space. This is known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), and it is the most viable climate engineering technology explored so far.

For instance we could spray sea water up out of the oceans to seed clouds and create more “whiteness”, which we know is a good way to reflect the heat of the sun. Others have proposed schemes to put mirrors in space, carefully located at the point between the sun and the Earth where gravity forces balance. These mirrors could reflect, say, 2% of the sun’s rays harmlessly into space, but the price tag puts them out of reach.

Perhaps a more immediate prospect for cooling the planet is to spray tiny particles high up into the stratosphere, at around 20km altitude – this is twice as high as normal commercial planes fly. To maximise reflectivity these particles would need to be around 0.5 micrometres across, like the finest of dust.

We know from large volcanic eruptions that particles injected at high altitude cool the planet. ̽��ֱ��1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines is the best recent example. It is estimated that more than 10m tonnes of sulphur dioxide were propelled into the high atmosphere and it quickly formed tiny droplets of sulphuric acid (yes, the same stuff found in acid rain) which reflected sunlight and caused global cooling. For about a year after Pinatubo the Earth cooled by around 0.4℃ and then temperatures reverted to normal.

I was involved recently in the SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) and we looked at the possibility of injecting all sorts of particles, including titanium dioxide, which is also used as the pigment in most paints and is the active ingredient in sun lotion.

̽��ֱ��experiment to validate models of tether dynamics was cancelled Hugh Hunt, CC BY-SA

̽��ֱ��technology to deliver these particles is crazy – we looked at pumping them in a slurry up to 20km into the air using a giant hose suspended by a huge helium balloon. A small-scale experiment was cancelled because even it proved too controversial, too hot. Imagine if we demonstrate that this technology can work. Politicians could then claim there was a technical “fix” for climate change so there would be no need to cut emissions after all.

But this isn’t a ‘quick fix’

There are so many problems with climate engineering. ̽��ֱ��main one is that we have only one planet to work with (we have no Planet B) and if we screw this one up then what do we do? Say “sorry” I guess. But we’re already screwing it up by burning more than 10 billion tonnes of fossil fuels a year. We have to stop this carbon madness immediately.

Engineering the climate by reflecting sunlight doesn’t prevent more CO₂ being pumped into the atmosphere, some of which dissolves in the oceans causing acidification which is a problem for delicate marine ecosystems.

There is therefore a strong imperative to remove the 600 billion tonnes of fossil carbon that we’ve already puffed into the air in just 250 years. This is known as Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

We must work fast to cut our carbon emissions and at the same time we should explore as many climate engineering options as possible, simultaneously. However while reflecting sunlight may be an idea that buys us some time it is absolutely not a solution for climate change and it is still vital that we cut our emissions – we can’t use climate engineering as a get-out clause.

Hugh Hunt, Reader in Engineering Dynamics, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Hugh Hunt (Department of Engineering) discusses whether we could directly engineer the climate and refreeze the poles.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Carbon offsets could help lower emissions without harming the economy

sc604 — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:00:00 +0000

Carbon taxes, offsets and other market-based measures could effectively address the impact of CO2 emissions from the aviation and international shipping industries, without significant financial impact to the world’s poorest countries, according to a new study led by researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

̽��ֱ��study, prepared for the climate policy organisation Climate Strategies, concluded that market-based measures (MBMs) could be a key part of an overall emissions reduction strategy, while reducing GDP by less than 0.01 per cent on average.

Researchers from Cambridge ̽��ֱ��, CE Delft, Cambridge Econometrics, TAKS (Transport Analysis and Knowledge Systems) and Climate Strategies quantified the economic impacts of MBMs in shipping and aviation for ten selected countries, and determined the most effective and efficient tools to reduce these impacts.

̽��ֱ��team found that economic effects were more pronounced in countries whose economies were heavily reliant upon tourism and trade by sea and air. Many of these countries have been resistant to mandatory MBMs for the aviation and maritime industries, as they will inevitably raise the cost of transport. However, the researchers also looked into ways of minimising the economic effects of MBMs on the often-volatile tourism industry, such as exemptions for certain routes, lump sum rebates, investments in infrastructure efficiency and the development of more efficient ships and aircraft.

̽��ֱ��ten countries chosen for the study (Mexico, China, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Togo, Kenya, Maldives, Samoa, Cook Island and Chile) were selected because they are expected to be impacted more significantly by the implementation of global MBMs – either due to their dependence on these modes of transport, on international trade, on airborne tourism, or their remote location.

While there are numerous challenges associated with the implementation of MBMs, they could provide an important source of finance, especially for developing countries, to support climate change mitigation projects and programmes.

“On the one hand, there could be an exemption for poor, small island nations that are heavily reliant on tourism,” says Dr Annela Anger-Kraavi, who completed the research while a member of the ̽��ֱ��’s Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, and is now at the ̽��ֱ�� of East Anglia. “However, on the other hand, if it’s a small island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, adding a £30 carbon tax is not a make or break amount for a tourist who already pays £1000 for their long-haul flight, and that £30 could go towards developing climate solutions.”

̽��ֱ��implementation of MBMs has been modelled by the team to limit international aviation emissions to 10 per cent below their 2005 levels and international shipping emissions to 20 per cent below their 2005 levels, achieved through a combination of CO2 reductions and offsets. ̽��ֱ��types of MBMs which the team considered included global emissions trading, mandatory carbon offsets and an international fund for greenhouse gas emissions.

International shipping and aviation together account for five per cent of annual anthropogenic, or human-induced, CO2 emissions, and is projected to increase in the coming decades. MBMs have been proposed to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), but need to be implemented globally in order to prevent shipping companies simply changing the flags on their ships in order to avoid incurring any extra costs to their business or airlines changing their flight routes to minimise the policy impacts.

̽��ֱ��results of the study were recently presented at an informal stakeholder discussion with government officials, NGO and industry representatives and journalists in London.

For more information on this story, contact Sarah Collins on sarah.collins@admin.cam.ac.uk or +44 (0)1223 332300.

Instead of harming the economies of developing countries, carbon offsets and taxes on shipping and aviation would have a minimal or even a positive economic impact if implemented wisely, according to a new study.

Adding a £30 carbon tax is not a make or break amount for a tourist who already pays £1000 for their long-haul flight, and that £30 could go towards developing climate solutions

Annela Anger

Richard Ashley via Flickr

Vapour trail

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Trade-offs highlighted at UN conference on biodiversity

lw355 — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:54:42 +0000

Dr Bhaskar Vira, senior lecturer at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Department of Geography, presented new findings on the relationship between biodiversity, forest management and potential REDD⁺ activities at the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity on 16 October 2012. ̽��ֱ��UN-REDD Programme is a collaborative initiative aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.

̽��ֱ��new assessment – which was carried out by a Global Forest Expert Panel on Biodiversity, Forest Management and REDD⁺ – highlights the need to prioritise social and economic objectives alongside environmental concerns to increase the likelihood of more equitable and efficient outcomes to forest management.

Ongoing conversion of forests to agriculture is still a major cause of global biodiversity loss on earth. Deforestation is also the second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions induced by humans, after fossil fuel emissions. However, forests provide essential ecosystem services to people, such as food, fuel and fibre, and help regulate global climate and water.

̽��ֱ��new assessment found that inadequate recognition of tenure and management rights often excludes the poor and most vulnerable groups from access, benefits and decision-making authority in forests. Furthermore, the assessment suggests that outcomes will largely depend upon how well new initiatives under REDD⁺ are able to learn from past institutional and governance lessons in the forestry sector.

Vira, one of six lead authors on the assessment, said: “ ̽��ֱ��challenge should not be underestimated. REDD⁺ uses one policy to achieve three or four major sustainable development goals. Despite best efforts, trade-offs will remain between carbon, biodiversity and social and economic costs. This can be a problem but it can also be an opportunity: pursuing social goals can improve effectiveness in achieving environmental goals as local communities get more involved in a project.”

̽��ֱ��Global Forest Expert Panel is coordinated by the Vienna-based International Union of Forest Research Organizations. With input from more than 50 leading scientists from around the world, it constitutes the first comprehensive analysis to date of the relationship between biodiversity, forest management and REDD⁺.

A full report will formally be presented on the occasion of the next UN climate convention meeting from 26 November to 7 December 2012 in Doha, Qatar.

Prioritising social and economic objectives alongside environmental concerns is crucial in forest management, says Cambridge researcher at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Despite best efforts, trade-offs will remain between carbon, biodiversity and social and economic costs. This can be a problem but it can also be an opportunity.

Dr Bhaskar Vira

Robstephaustralia on flickr

Forest

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

School carbon emissions in England are on the rise

bjb42 — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:00:41 +0000

Typical CO₂ emissions from schools in England are rising, despite reductions to their heating demands, because of an increase in electricity consumption, according to new research.

̽��ֱ��study also suggests that the new “academies”, schools funded directly by the state and heavily supported by the present Government, have significantly higher energy consumption profiles than normal secondary schools.

Researchers drew primarily on a database of Display Energy Certificates (DECs), which are required under UK legislation, (stemming from EU directives on building energy). These have applied to all public buildings over 1,000m² since 2008, and show the building’s annual energy performance.

̽��ֱ��researchers, from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Shinawatra ̽��ֱ��, Thailand, were able to obtain records for around 25,000 DEC’s produced in 2008-9, following a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Communities and Local Government. Previously, only partial datasets had been made widely available, which lacked crucial information such as the type of building to which the DEC applied. This made large scale analysis almost impossible.

Using the FOI-released material, the research team were able to combine information from the certificates with data collected from Ofsted to create a detailed schools database covering about 40% of the primary and secondary schools in England, including academies.

Their findings, published in the new issue of the journal Building Research & Information, explore the key factors affecting energy use in schools, including the type of school, location, and the type of heating, ventilation and air conditioning system it uses.

In general, it was found that existing benchmarks for energy consumption in schools had over-estimated the fossil-thermal energy they need (primarily to heat the buildings), but underestimated the amount of electrical energy schools consume.

̽��ֱ��study also found significant differences in energy use between different school types. Both secondary schools and academies were typically found to have higher annual CO₂ emissions per m² than primary schools (6% and 27% respectively). Taking account of the different pupil densities was found to accentuate these differences: typical CO₂ emissions per pupil were found to be 47% higher in secondary schools, and 116% higher in academies, both compared with primary schools. These differences are due mostly to greater electrical consumption. Academies typically use one-and-a-half times the electricity per pupil compared with secondary schools, and over twice that of primary schools.

Professor Koen Steemers, Head of the Department of Architecture at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and one of the authors of the new report said: “This research shows that design strategies to reduce heat loss have been moderately effective but have been offset by increasing electricity demands, for mechanical ventilation, lighting or equipment.”

“In the context of national and international targets to reduce emissions, the paper establishes the need for continued monitoring and research into the relative roles of building design, systems and occupant behaviour to ensure that the emissions trend is downwards.”

Researchers believe that a combination of different reasons explains the rise in schools’ electricity consumption. One may be the increase in recent years in IT facilities and other technology to support teaching and learning.

When compared to school energy studies carried out over the last decade, the DEC data showed that there had been reductions in fossil-fuel thermal energy consumption, likely caused by improvements in building thermal performance and heating equipment. Electrical energy consumption has, however, increased, resulting in small increases in CO₂ emissions across the school types. Current “good practice” electrical consumption in schools in England is actually worse than typical practice in 1995.

Academies, which are publicly-funded schools operating outside of local authority control and funded directly by central government, tend to have more state-of-the-art buildings and facilities. This may go some distance to explaining why their emissions through electricity use are so much higher.

̽��ֱ��present Government has given considerable backing to academies. ̽��ֱ��research suggests that there will need to be significant reductions in the electrical consumption of academy buildings if they are to form an increasing proportion of the UK’s schools stock and still meet existing commitments to CO₂ reductions.

̽��ֱ��research team is now further analysing the DEC database, considering other non-domestic building types including hospitals and offices.

Richard Lorch, editor of Building Research and Information, said: “ ̽��ֱ��research breaks new ground and is important for public policy. Monitoring actual energy usage provides an evidence base for how policy translates into practice – in this case how the UK will meet its carbon reduction commitments. In particular, it alerts the Department for Education of the need to review its current and future practices on school design and operation.”

New data obtained by researchers shows that electrical energy consumption in England's schools has gone up, even as heating demand has fallen, with academies consistently using more energy than other institutions.

In the context of national and international targets, this establishes the need for continued monitoring and research to ensure that the emissions trend is downwards.

Koen Steemers

Draco 2008 from Flickr.

Demolition of Manor Park School, Newcastle.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Towards a smarter electricity future

bjb42 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:39:58 +0000

Global efforts to address climate change will involve the massive roll-out of existing low carbon energy technologies as well as the development of new technologies, together with increased energy efficiency, fundamental behavioural shifts, and processes that will reduce carbon emissions, all on an unprecedented scale. Such change requires smart engineers, willing industries and green consumers. But it also requires getting the regulatory framework structures and policies right at national and international levels.

A better understanding of these incentives and policies forms part of the work of the Electric Policy Research Group (EPRG), along with analysis of liberalised energy markets, and pricing carbon via taxes or emissions trading.

This joint research programme between the Faculty of Economics and Judge Business School was launched in 2005, when the EPRG was awarded a five-year, £2.38 million grant from Research Councils UK (RCUK), expanding on the work of the Cambridge-MIT Institute Electricity Project.

Professor David Newbery, Director of the EPRG, leads a group that now numbers more than 30 researchers, including a team of 12 faculty and senior research staff, together with PhD students and Associates from departments across Cambridge and other leading institutions. ̽��ֱ��research team is built around core expertise in economics and policy, with active collaboration between experts from different academic traditions, and draws on insights from engineering, political science and law. ̽��ֱ��group is also supported by the industry and government sponsors of its Energy Policy Forum, which helps leverage research funding and enhances the EPRG’s ability to respond to important research questions as they arise.

Two recently completed EPRG research projects exemplify the types of analyses that are helping the electricity industry evolve: the risks and incentives for taking forward carbon capture and storage (CCS), and the opportunities for increasing energy efficiency through smart metering, both of which are key elements in the UK’s new Low Carbon Transition Plan.

CCS: risks and incentives

A study sponsored by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has analysed the incentives needed to reduce emissions from fossil-fired electricity generation.

̽��ֱ��idea behind CCS is to capture the CO₂ emitted from power plants burning fossil fuels and to store it safely in geological formations such as depleted oil fields. By 2015, the European Union (EU) aims to have up to 12 commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects deployed across Europe, but as of today there are still no commercial projects operating and each project is expected to cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

With so much at stake, a competition has been launched by the UK Government to build one of the world’s first commercial-scale CCS power plants in the UK. This was followed by recent announcements of support for CCS at the level of the EU, and a UK Government commitment of up to four demonstration plants. But how to select the projects? A study led by Dr David Reiner and Professor David Newbery set out to identify the key risks in designing the project selection process and to examine the interactions between incentives for CCS at the EU level and those at the national level.

Bringing together experts on auction design, game theory and R&D policy, the study examined European support schemes in greater detail. In addition to stimulus spending of over €1 billion (up to €180 million per project), the EU has earmarked 300 million allowances under the EU Emissions Trading Systems to support CCS and innovative renewables technologies (up to 45 million allowances per project). Several risks were identified in designing the project selection process, including the carbon price risk, the variable cost risk, the technological risk and inefficiencies such as the effect of firms colluding or possessing information unavailable to governments. To overcome these concerns, a Technology Category Auction was proposed that would deliver learning from diversity (validation of the main available technological options) rather than learning by doing.

̽��ֱ��hope is that research such as this can help governments put in place policy frameworks at national and international levels that will enable the CCS demonstration phase to be conducted in a manner that is both effective, by demonstrating a range of CCS technologies across Europe, and accomplishes it at least cost.

Examining the prospects for smart metering

Could smart meters be the answer to promoting efficient, flexible and sustainable energy consumption?

Decarbonising the electricity system is just part of the story. Achieving the UK’s target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 will involve perhaps as much as a 50% or more improvement in energy efficiency relative to business as usual. A key part of any climate change strategy therefore is to change the nature of the relationship between the energy services that people need and the amount of energy that is supplied. One mechanism for delivering this is the so-called smart electricity meter – a two-way real-time communication between the household and the electricity grid that enables demand to be varied in response to available supply.

̽��ֱ��UK Government is currently in a two-year consultation period prior to announcing its strategy for how to roll out smart meters to all households by 2020 in line with the EU Energy Services Directive. Dr Michael Pollitt and colleagues Dr Tooraj Jamasb and Aoife Brophy Haney in the EPRG have been examining the prospects for smart meters in the light of international roll-outs that have already occurred.

Currently, we have an electricity system in which supply is largely driven by demand. At the household level, most homes have a ‘dumb’ electricity meter that records cumulative consumption to date. Individuals have very poor information about their instantaneous electricity consumption, and hence may be consuming more energy than they need. It also means that individual electricity demands are unable to respond to the situation of the electricity system as a whole. A ‘smart’ electricity meter would address both of these problems and be an essential part of delivering an electricity system based on the concept of energy services rather than consumption.

̽��ֱ��EPRG study is providing a comprehensive framework for assessing the costs and benefits of smart meters. Data from Ontario and California show that the introduction of smart metering can have two immediate impacts on the electricity system. It might reduce electricity consumption by 5–7% simply by giving people real-time information on their electricity use. It can also allow for the variation of electricity prices across the day to better reflect the costliness of the generation required at that time. Such real-time pricing can result in shifts in peak energy consumption of 8–13% of total electricity demand.

However, these two effects are only the start of the possibilities that smart meters offer. Smart meters are central to the use of information technology to seamlessly manage household energy consumption and production. A smart meter can also ensure that any electricity produced by the household (via micro-combined heat and power or solar panels) can be sold to the grid at a price that reflects its real-time value.

Smart metering research is part of the work that the EPRG has been carrying out for the past three years in collaboration with a consortium of nine universities under the FlexNet project. Funded by £7 million from the Economic and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the project as a whole is looking at the evolution of the UK electricity system to 2050. ̽��ֱ��research on smart metering has been submitted to the UK Government to assist in its assessment of the best way to roll out smart meters.

For more information, please contact the authors Dr David Reiner (d.reiner@jbs.cam.ac. uk) and Dr Michael Pollitt (m.pollitt@jbs.cam.ac.uk) at Judge Business School and Professor David Newbery (dmgn@econ.cam.ac.uk) at the Faculty of Economics or visit www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/

̽��ֱ��Electricity Policy Research Group – a programme that spans the Faculty of Economics and Judge Business School – is providing world-class analysis to support an evolving electricity industry.

Change requires smart engineers, willing industries and green consumers. But it also requires getting the regulatory framework structures and policies right at national and international levels.

shirokazan on Flickr

Drax Power Station

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Business leaders call for ambitious global deal on climate change

bjb42 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0000

They will warn that business will suffer if a credible deal is not reached at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

̽��ֱ��global media launch of ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué is timed to coincide with the UN Summit on Climate Change which is taking place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York later today. A copy of ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué will be handed at lunchtime today to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and distributed to more than 100 Heads of State and Governments attending the summit.

̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué has already secured the support of companies based in over 50 countries (including the US, EU, Japan, Australia and Canada, as well as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), ranging from the world's largest companies and best-known brands to Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) and across a wide variety of business sectors.

In just two pages, the Communiqué sets out the business case for a strong and effective UN climate framework and offers a progressive global consensus on the shape of an agreement. ̽��ֱ��full text of ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué is available in 19 different languages at www.copenhagencommunique.com, in addition to the complete list of companies that have endorsed it so far and supporting quotes from their business leaders.

̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué is an initiative of ̽��ֱ��Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders' Group on Climate Change which is run by ̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership. Global partners in support of the initiative include ̽��ֱ��Climate Group, ̽��ֱ��UN Global Compact and WWF-International along with business associations and initiatives in many different countries.

In the Communiqué, the more than 500 business leaders say, "These are difficult and challenging times for the international business community and a poor outcome from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will only make them more so, by creating uncertainty and undermining confidence". They warn that, "Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilised" and say it is "critical" that "we exit this recession in a way that lays the foundation for low-carbon growth and avoids locking us into a high carbon future".

̽��ֱ��companies call for emission reduction targets to be guided by science and offer support for the emerging consensus to limit global average temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. In turn, they recognise that this will require global emissions to peak and begin to decline rapidly within the next decade and reduce by 50-85% by 2050.

̽��ֱ��business leaders urge developed countries to take on "immediate and deep emission reduction commitments" and "demonstrate that low-carbon growth is both achievable and desirable" and provide the necessary financial and technological assistance to developing countries. They call on developing countries to draw up their own emission reduction plans, and call on advanced developing countries to adopt economy-wide commitments by 2020.

̽��ֱ��companies argue for an immediate interim emergency package to provide substantial funding to tropical forest nations to help them halt deforestation in their countries. ̽��ֱ��continued destruction of rainforests accounts for up to a fifth of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

̽��ֱ��issue of financing for climate change mitigation and adaptation more generally is one of the most contentious issues in the climate negotiations, with a variety of estimates suggesting that between US $100-200bn will be needed annually by 2030 to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. In ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué the business leaders argue that "the costs of transition are manageable, even in the current economic climate".

̽��ֱ��companies finish by stating: " ̽��ֱ��more ambitious the framework, the more business will deliver" but that "Delay is not an option".

Craig Bennett, Co-Director of ̽��ֱ��Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, based at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (the organisation behind the initiative), who will be in attendance in New York this week, said:

"It has been extraordinary to see the level of support that has come in from the international business community for ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué - from companies in the developed and developing world, across all sectors, ranging from the world's largest companies and best-known brands, to small and medium sized enterprises. If it is possible for such a variety of companies to agree on the basic shape of an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change - surely it should now be possible for the world's governments to do the same?"

US based companies in support of the Communiqué include AECOM, Cisco, Coca-Cola, CSC, eBay Inc., Gap Inc., General Electric, HP, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Controls, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson & Son, Starbucks Coffee Company, SunGard, Symantec, Thomson Reuters, United Technologies Corporation and Yahoo!. ̽��ֱ��document has also been signed by CalSTRS (the largest US teachers' retirement fund). Canadian companies include Bombardier, Cascades Inc., Domtar Corporation, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank.

European based companies include Adidas, Allianz, Alstom, Air France-KLM, Anglo-American, Arup, Barclays, Banco Santander, BASF, British Airways, BT, BP, Carrefour, Deutsche Telekom, Diageo, ̽��ֱ��Eczacibasi Group, Enel, EDF Energy, Endesa, Ferrovial, HSBC, J Sainsbury's, Lloyds of London, Marks and Spencer, Nestlé, Philips, Rio Tinto, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Reckitt Benckiser, Repsol, Rolls-Royce, SAP, Siemens, Skanska, Shell, Swiss Re, Telefonica, Tesco, Unilever, and Virgin Group. ̽��ֱ��Russian companies FESCO, Industrial Investors Group and RUSAL have also signed.

Australian based companies include Insurance Australia Group, Lend Lease Coporation Ltd, Linfox, Macquarie Group Limited, National Australia Bank Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited, Westpac Group, and Woolworths Limited.

South American companies include Arcor, Banco Galicia, Braskem SA, CEMEX, Copagaz Distribuidora de Gás, EDP - Energias do Brasil, Natura Cosméticos, O Boticário and Vale.

In Asia, ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué has been signed by a number of Chinese companies including Bank of Beijing, Chervon Ltd, Dongguan Wonderful Ceramic Company, Hangzhou GreatStar Industrial Co., Ltd, Shanghai Electric and Suntech, and by Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Swire Pacific Limited and ̽��ֱ��Bank of East Asia all based in Hong Kong.

Indian based companies include Infosys Technologies, ITC, Asian Fabrics and Ramco International. ̽��ֱ��Japanese companies Ricoh and Nippon Insurance have endorsed the document, along with the Saudi based Rezayat Group and Woongjin Group based in South Korea.

̽��ֱ��South African companies ABSA Group, Nedbank Ltd, Pick n Pay, Santam, Sanlam Ltd, and Sappi Limited have signed.

̽��ֱ��full list of signatories can be found at: www.copenhagencommunique.com

International companies are welcome to add their support for ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqué right through until the end of November and it is expected that the total number of signatories will increase dramatically over the next couple of months as more and more companies hear about the initiative.

Representatives of ̽��ֱ��Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, and many of the CEOs who signed ̽��ֱ��Communiqué, will be present at ̽��ֱ��United Nations Climate Summit in New York this week.

̽��ֱ��business leaders of over 500 companies from around the world will this morning publish ̽��ֱ��Copenhagen Communiqu&eacute; calling on world leaders to agree "an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change that responds credibly to the scale and urgency of the crisis facing the world today".

If it is possible for such a variety of companies to agree on the basic shape of an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change - surely it should now be possible for the world's governments to do the same?

Craig Bennett

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes