Tag Archives: climate-change
BluForest Inc. Analyzes The Potential Of China Entering The Carbon Trading Market
On behalf of the Board of BluForest Inc. Contact Us Company phone number: 1-855-509-5508 info@bluforest.com www.bluforest.com 8 AUG 2013 WDM Group PR Network QUITO, ECUADOR–(Marketwired – August 7, 2013) – BluForest Inc. (OTCBB: BLUF) (OTCQB: BLUF) BluForest Inc. (“BluForest” or the “Company”), an emerging leader in the field of Carbon Trading and Renewable Energy, is currently analyzing the potential of China entering the Carbon Trading Market and linking with other countries’ carbon trading schemes. BluForest has been intently watching as China researches the sustainability and functionality of a foundation of national carbon-trading market before linking with other countries’ carbon trading schemes. The United States, Australia, Japan and the European Union are discussing the possibility of building a sub-regional or regional carbon market with China, said Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission. “Our priority is getting our work done first, accumulating experience and then taking part in making the rules,” Xie said at a low-carbon forum.(1) Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has expressed hope of eventually linking Australia’s carbon emissions trading schemes with China’s and South Korea’s, according to Reuters. Australia and the EU agreed in late August to link their carbon trade schemes by 2018. The NDRC selected seven pilot regions in November for the trial implementation of carbon trading. The pilot regions are encouraged to design regional regulations, specify the scope of trading and build a registration system and trading platform. China is said to focus on the trial implementation of carbon trading by 2015, with the goal of expanding a nationwide carbon market between 2015 and 2020, said Xie. China is working on designing the guidelines for reporting formats and accounting standards of carbon emissions, and building an online energy consumption monitoring system for major industries. Xie stated that “In the pilot phase, spot trading will dominate carbon trading, while futures trading will be considered when the conditions mature.” Xie also added that “the authorities should adopt measures to prevent risks and ensure a steady carbon market without dramatic fluctuations.” “As a result of investment of more than 2 trillion yuan ($315 billion), China cumulatively saved 700 million tons of standard coal over the past seven years, which was equivalent to a reduction of 1.7 billion tons in carbon emissions,” said Xie. The annual industrial output of the energy saving, environmental protection and recycling sectors is expected to reach 4.6 trillion yuan between 2011 and 2015. Xie said that adopting mechanisms such as the carbon market would help China reach its targets for energy saving and emission reduction in a more economical way.(2) BluForest is entering a rapidly evolving industry that offers investors the opportunity to get involved during the early stages of a marketplace poised for significant returns with mitigated risks. In addition to the voluntary carbon market which is demonstrating significant growth resulting from awareness and social responsibility, the Carbon Credit regulatory markets in Europe, Australia, California, Mexico and several other jurisdictions are also experiencing substantial growth. These indicators and the potential developments within the EU all point to a clear message: “The time to invest in BluForest, an ethical company positioned to capitalize on this growth has never been better!” Our initial land assets rank amongst the most valuable in the world. Their location within a government protected National Park places them on a level above most competitors who often face risks associated with permanence and other influences beyond their control. About BluForest Inc. BluForest Inc. is a development stage company that is a publically traded carbon offsets marketing and renewable energy company. BLUF is executing its strategy to become a leading marketer of carbon offsets in the voluntary markets under the UN principle of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). The BluForest website provides further information about the company which prospective investors are encouraged to visit. Safe Harbor Act Notice: Statements contained herein that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of the company and its management. Such statements reflect management’s current views, are based on certain assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results, events, or performance may differ materially from the above forward-looking statements due to a number of important factors, and will be dependent upon a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the company’s ability to obtain additional financing and the demand for the company’s products. Any investment in the company would be extremely speculative and involve a high degree of risk and should not be pursued unless the investor could afford to lose their entire investment. Before investing, please review this filing, all past public filings with the SEC, all current Pinksheets.com filings and consult a registered broker dealer or contact the financial industry regulatory authority (“FINRA”) for more information regarding locating a qualified party to assist in making an investment decision. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur after the date hereof or to reflect any change in the company’s expectations with regard to these forward-looking statements or the occurrence of unanticipated events. Factors that may impact the company’s success are more fully disclosed in the company’s most recent public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by the use of terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” and similar words, although some forward-looking statements are expressed differently. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Continue reading
This Gamble On Carbon And The Climate Could Trigger A New Financial Crisis
There is little evidence that institutional investors have recognised that they are sitting on a carbon-asset timebomb Kevin Watkins theguardian.com , Friday 2 August 2013 Summer 2013: eastern Europe is facing one of the heaviest floodings in the last 50 years (Photograph: Ruben Neugebauer/Corbis If you want to see market irrationality in action, look no further than current stock market valuations for the world’s major oil, gas and coal companies. At a time when governments are supposedly preparing for a global climate change deal that will cut carbon emissions , energy multinationals are investing in carbon assets like there’s no tomorrow. Put bluntly, either we’re heading for a climate catastrophe, or the carbon asset bubble will go the way of sub-prime mortgage stock. Yesterday’s disappointing second-quarter results for Royal Dutch Shell provided a useful guide to the future. Over the past couple of years the company has invested heavily in exploration. It has pumped billions of pounds into fracking for natural gas in Ukraine and Turkey; the development of tar sands in Canada, and drilling in the Arctic. The market verdict, prompted by a dip in prices, reduced profits, and concern over costs: a drop in share prices. You can’t help wondering what will happen when carbon prices are aligned with climate imperatives. We are now just two years away from the crucial 2015 UN climate negotiations. If successful, they will put a price on carbon, driving down returns on fossil-fuel investments by capping carbon emissions. Market reactions will make Shell’s results look positively healthy. Yet there is little evidence that institutional investors have recognised that they are sitting on a carbon asset timebomb. You don’t have to dig too hard to find the gap between market valuation and real world ecology. Avoiding dangerous climate change, defined as a temperature rise of 2C, will require the global community to operate within a constrained carbon budget. That budget has a ceiling of 545 gigatons in carbon dioxide (GTCO2) emissions to 2050. Today, state energy firms and private companies are sitting on reserves amounting to three times that level. Carbon arithmetic points in only one direction. If governments are serious about reaching a 2015 multilateral agreement that avoids dangerous climate change, fossil fuel reserves need to left where they are. The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics estimates that only 20-40% of oil, gas and coal reserves held by the 200 largest energy companies can be exploited if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. Yet the market valuation of these “unburnable carbon” reserves is over $4tn, to which can be added $1.5tn in company debt. The misalignment between our planet’s ecological boundaries and energy markets is set to worsen. High energy prices and concerns over power shortages in emerging markets are fuelling a global scramble for carbon assets. Collectively, the 200 largest energy companies invested $674bn (£441.4m) on the development of new fossil fuel reserves in 2012. If financial markets are mispricing risk, governments around the world have yet to recognise some basic cost-benefits realities. Companies investing in Arctic oil and gas exploration stand to gain revenue streams that will be counted in billions of dollars. But as highlighted in a recent Cambridge University study, the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice and permafrost threatens to unlock methane emissions that will generate costs of up to $60tn, much of it associated with the impact of floods, droughts and storms in developing countries. In effect these companies are taking what they see as a one-way bet on governments failing to tackle climate change. It’s a dangerous play. If governments fail to act on their climate change commitments, financial exposure to fossil fuel assets could become a systemically destabilising liability. Five of the 10 top companies listed on London’s FTSE 100, accounting for a quarter of the indexes’ capitalisation, are almost exclusively high carbon. The Australian Securities Exchange has a recklessly high exposure to coal. The New York exchange is also sitting on a large carbon bubble. Energy companies are exposing institutional investors, mutual funds and banks to dangerously mispriced assets, yet current regulatory frameworks are failing to address the systemic threat. Unfortunately, governments are actively encouraging energy companies to bet on dangerous climate change. The European Union has driven the world’s largest carbon market into freefall by oversupplying permits, undercutting incentives for investment in renewable energy in the process. As a group, rich countries spend over $800bn annually actively subsiding fossil fuels , creating markets for oil, gas and coal companies. Britain’s recent decision to grant tax concessions to companies involved in fracking is a recent example of a wider failure to align fiscal policy with climate commitments. For every $1 invested in renewable energy support in the OECD another $7 is spent on carbon-intensive fuels. From a climate change perspective, this is the policy equivalent of a government running an antismoking campaign while removing the tax on tobacco and subsidising cigarette consumption. Developing countries are also trapped in a cycle of policy-induced carbon-intensive growth. Currently, they are spending over $1tn annually to subsidise fossil fuel use, according to the IMF. These transfers often dwarf budgets for health and education. As research at the Overseas Development Institute has highlighted, most of the benefits go to industry, large-scale agriculture and middle-class consumers. Eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels could open the door to a win-win scenario. It would cut energy-related CO2 emissions by 13%, slowing the drift towards the dangerous climate-change cliff. Coupled with signals to indicate that carbon prices will rise and early investment in renewables, it would unlock the private investment and spur the technological breakthroughs needed to drive a low-carbon transition. Diverting fossil fuel subsidies into low-carbon energy cooperation would also generate wider benefits. Developing countries such as India and China are already investing heavily in wind and solar power. But if emerging markets are to break their dangerous addiction to coal and other fossil fuels, they need financial support to phase out their carbon-intensive stock. Providing that support through the reallocation of fossil fuel subsidies would help create markets for low-carbon investors – and it would go a long way towards building trust in international climate negotiations that are too important to fail. •Kevin Watkins is executive director of the Overseas Development Institute, a UK development think tank. Continue reading
DECC Scientist Takes Green Groups’ To Task Over Biomass Claims
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and RSPB under fire from government for using unfinished research to campaign against carbon impact of biomass power By Jessica Shankleman 01 Aug 2013 Tension between the government and green groups over the environmental impact of biomass has cranked up a notch, after it emerged DECC’s chief scientist has written to three of the UK’s leading NGOs to criticise their publication of unfinished research as part of their campaign against biomass subsidies. Earlier this year, Greenpeace, RSBP, and Friends of the Earth (FoE) unveiled a factsheet claiming biomass generation in some instances produces more emissions than burning coal. Under the government’s current plans biomass energy will have to show lifecycle reduction in emissions of at least 60 per cent compared to emissions of the EU fossil fuel grid average, such as cutting down trees and transporting fuel. The government is expected to confirm the new sustainability standards for biomass this month, with the rules likely to come into effect next year. But green groups fear the new standard will not fully take account of the full lifecycle emissions associated with growing, harvesting and distributing biomass for fuel and have been lobbying for stricter sustainability standards on generators . They believe rising subsidies could cause a huge surge in demand for the UK’s forestry harvest over the next four years, potentially having an adverse impact on biodiversity and leading to greater reliance on imported biomass. The RSPB, Greenpeace and FoE factsheet Burning Wood for Power Generation , revealed preliminary findings of a nine-month research project by David Mackay, DECC’s chief scientific adviser, that was presented to them at a stakeholder meeting in March. Unlike Ofgem’s current carbon calculator, MacKay’s calculator includes the net reduction in the carbon stock caused by the removal of timber from forests, and the indirect emissions of burning biomass that would have been avoided if it had been used for other industries, such as construction. Mackay’s initial findings showed the carbon impact of biomass rises significantly when these two sources of emissions are taken into account. The preliminary results suggested biomass generation produces more emissions than burning coal in five scenarios of the 12 scenarios considered. The factsheet prompted an angry response from the biomass industry with the Renewable Energy Association’s Gaynor Hartnell accusing the NGOs of using “half baked” arguments to scaremonger the public about the impact of the sector. However, BusinessGreen has learnt the publication also drew criticism from MacKay, who accused the three NGOs of exploiting the “open and collaborative” approach to research at the department. A letter , released under freedom of information request, was sent to Rose Dickinson, parliamentary officer for RSPB, Mike Childs, head of policy, research and science for Friends of the Earth and Doug Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace, on May 15th criticising the decision to publish data from the draft report. In the letter MacKay said he was both “surprised and disappointed” that the factsheet quoted his draft findings. Mackay said the NGOs had been told the calculator his team developed, known as the the Bioenergy Emissions and Counterfactual (BEaC) calculator, was not intended for public circulation until its final launch – originally expected this summer but since delayed to the Autumn. “I acknowledge that the factsheet describes BEaC as a prototype and the results as preliminary; but I don’t think using the material in this context without specific permissions accords with the spirit in which we shared the model with the reviewers,” he wrote. “I wish to continue an open and constructive relationship with all of DECC’s stakeholders and I would like to urge you to treat unfinished analysis and material shared for review with more care in future,” he concluded. All three NGOs have since told BusinessGreen they published the data in good faith, believing they had permission from DECC to share the information so long as it was made clear it was not the final version. They also all said they removed the BEaC information from their websites after receiving MacKay’s letter. Harry Huyton, head of climate change for the RSPB, defended its decision to publish, arguing DECC should be more transparent around its thinking on biomass. “The bigger point is that the [BEaC draft] findings were consistent with major research by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre so we didn’t see it as controversial,” he said. “But we did see it as important and in the public interest for people to understand what this tool was showing.” Huyton also raised concerns that the government has delayed the final publication of the BEaC to Autumn, despite previously promising to published in the summer. He urged the government to include the findings of the BEaC in its final sustainability standard when it comes out this month. “We need an open public debate about impact of biomass and that’s in the interest of the industry as much as ours,” he said. “Otherwise, the risk is we repeat what we’ve seen in biofuels sector where denial of indirect impacts has mean that even now many years down the line we’re still having a big debate about how to get emissions right. We should get it right from the outset.” Childs similarly argued the preliminary findings were important for the future of the industry. “The draft results were very interesting – they showed that burning whole trees compared to trimmings was bad news for the climate,” he said. ” The companies involved in the industry may need to change their practices to make them sustainable.” Greenpeace’s Parr added that many other countries would be looking at the UK’s standards as a template and it was therefore crucial the government got it right first time. “We urgently need the best available science informing standards at UK and EU level given the reliance on bioenergy to reach renewable targets,” he added. However, a spokesman for the government maintained it was committed to supporting only sustainably produced bioenergy, which delivers “real” greenhouse gas savings, is cost effective, takes account of wider impacts across the economy, and manages possible risks such as adverse effects on food security and biodiversity. “We are developing a model BEaC to investigate the carbon impacts of different bioenergy feedstocks and help ensure we have robust evidence behind our bioenergy policies,” he said. “A preliminary version of the tool has been discussed with stakeholders, however, the tool is under development and is subject to review.” He added that the draft version of the model should not yet be used to draw firm conclusions. Paul Thompson, head of policy for the REA, said the letter highlighted the need for all sides of the debate to treat complex information on the environmental impact of biomass sensitively. “This letter confirms that certain groups have misused data from the Calculator, which was in draft form and not intended for public use, to support pre-existing positions,” he said. “It is important to be more careful in the treatment of these sensitive issues and data in order to advance the rational debate that we need on biomass sustainability. “We look forward to working with NGOs and the Government on implementing the forthcoming RO Sustainability Criteria in order to ensure high carbon savings and ecologically sustainable forestry practices.” Continue reading
