Posted in Sustainable Development

The Road Ahead to Building a More Sustainable World

“The Garden of Eden is no more”, Sir David Attenborough told Davos 2019 as he delivered his verdict on the destruction that humanity has inflicted on the natural world. Sir David also offered hope, noting that we humans are a “problem-solving species”, but he reiterated that we have just a decade to solve climate change.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres mirrored these sentiments in his “State of the World” address. Megatrends such as climate change are more and more interlinked, he said, but responses are fragmented. He warned that not tackling this was “a recipe for disaster”.

While few of us should need reminding on how pressing the issue of fighting climate change is, what surprised me was how this concern permeated all aspects of the conversation on sustainable development at Davos. And much was up for discussion, from inequality, biodiversity loss and the challenges of reskilling in the face of automation, to global governance, cyber security, food systems and the future of the financial system, to name but a few.

New ways to realise the Sustainable Development Goals

Technology and finance – the main enablers of the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the coming years – were centre-stage. Even the most technologically challenged of us would be awed by the discussions outlining the potential of artificial intelligence, big data and blockchain to make the world a better place. The variety of game-changing ideas in this area opened eyes – and mouths. They ranged from a project to protect airports and critical infrastructure from cyberattacks to encouraging businesses to play their part in realizing the SDGs by incorporating the goals into their business model.

The Road Ahead to Building a More Sustainable World

Image courtesy of the World Economic Forum

Of course, disruptive technology is not a silver bullet for achieving the SDGs, and its associated risks, as well as its benefits, were prominently featured. But the Fourth Industrial Revolution can help accelerate progress towards the SDGs. At the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), we are working to ensure that economies in developing countries can harness innovation to eliminate extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity.

In concrete terms, we have just launched Accelerator Labs in 60 developing countries to identify and connect problem-solvers across the world, using both local networks and data from novel sources, ranging from social media to satellite imagery. We want to support innovators such as Dana Lewis, who created open-source tools to manage Type 1 diabetes, or people like the entrepreneurs who built floating farms in flood-prone Bangladesh.

The Accelerator Labs will become integral to UNDP’s existing country-based teams and infrastructure. They will enable UNDP to connect its global network and development expertise that spans 170 countries with a more agile innovation capacity, to support countries in their national development priorities, ultimately working towards a wide range of SDGs.

Innovative finance

The topic of finance was rarely absent from my exchanges with government representatives and corporate leaders. “Innovative finance” in particular dominated conversations, from its ability to support migrants and refugees to the potential of so-called “initial coin offerings” to fund the next generation of high-growth companies.

We explored ways to attract finance to the SDGs, as well as the need to set up robust impact management processes and tools to identify companies that make economic, social and governance practices part of their DNA. Those sorts of changes could influence companies’ investment flows so they, in turn, are more likely to align with the SDGs.

Connecting the dots between technology and finance, the UN Secretary-General’s Task Force on Digital Financing for the SDGs had its first face-to-face meeting. The role of the Task Force, which I co-chair with Maria Ramos, the CEO of Absa Group in South Africa, is to recommend strategies to harness the potential of financial technology to advance the SDGs.

This article was originally published by the World Economic Forum. Click here to continue reading entire article.

SECURE YOUR PLACE AT THE 2019 NATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY CONFERENCE THIS APRIL!

Hear from experts in all facets of sustainability as they discuss the challenges, opportunities, advancements and progress for sustainability in Australia.
View the 2019 program here. 

What’s wrong with big solar in cities? Nothing, if it’s done right

Many of us are familiar with developments of big solar farms in rural and regional areas. These are often welcomed as a positive sign of our transition towards a low-carbon economy. But do large-scale solar installations have a place in our cities?

The City of Fremantle in Western Australia is considering a proposal to use a former landfill site for a large-scale solar farm. The reportedly 4.9 megawatt solar power station on an eight-hectare site would be, it’s said, Australia’s largest urban solar farm. The initiative is part of Fremantle’s ambition to be powered by 100% clean energy within a decade.

The proposal is facing some community opposition, however. Residents are reportedly alarmed by the potential public health consequences of building on a rubbish dump, which risks releasing toxic contaminants such as asbestos into the environment. Other concerns include glare from the solar panels, or excessive noise.

Similar complaints about solar panels in cities are being seen all over the world, with opponents generally of the view “they do not belong in residential areas”. So what are the planning issues associated with large-scale solar installations in cities? And should we be concerned about possible negative impacts?

What is large-scale solar?

According to the Australian Clean Energy Regulator, large-scale solar refers to “a device with a kilowatt (kW) rating of more than 100 kilowatts”. A kilowatt is a measure of power – the rate of energy delivery at a given moment – whereas a kilowatt-hour (kWh) is a measure of the total energy produced (so a 100kW device operating for one hour would produce 100kWh of electricity).

Device here refers to not only the photovoltaic (PV) panels – the actual panels used in solar energy – but also to the infrastructure “behind the electricity meter”. So interconnected panels may still constitute a single device.

By this definition, there may already be large-scale solar installations in Australian cities. In Sydney for example, the recently opened system on top of the Alexandra Canal Transport Depot is by all accounts a large-scale solar system. It combines around 1,600 solar panels with enough battery storage for 500kWh of electricity.

But this is not Sydney’s largest solar installation. That honour is presently held by the Sydney Markets in Flemington, among Australia’s largest rooftop solar installations, which generates around 3 megawatts (that’s 3,000kW). To date, there have been no publicly disclosed complaints received about these facilities.

Large-scale solar (sometimes called “big solar”) can also refer to solar arrays that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto solar PV panels. This is different to concentrated thermal solar, which uses mirrors to focus sunlight onto the top of a tower to heat salt, oil or other materials that can then be used to generate steam to power turbines for electricity generation.

What’s the problem with solar in cities?

Internationally, there is increasing recognition cities could be ideal locations for large-scale solar installations due to the amounts of unused land. This includes land alongside freeways and main roads, flood-prone land, and rooftops on factories, warehouses and residences. And locating big solar in cities can also reduce the energy losses that occur with transmitting electricity over long distances.

Australia’s combined rooftop solar installations already supply the equivalent of enough power for all the homes in Sydney. And even former landfill sites – which have few uses other than parkland and are often too contaminated to sustain other land uses such as residential development – can be a good use of space for solar farms. But such sites would need to be carefully managed so contaminants are not released during construction.Large-scale solar installations can present some challenges for urban planning. For instance, mirrors can cause problems with glare, or even damage if they were misaligned (problems thus far have been in solar thermal plants). Maintenance vehicles may increase traffic in neighbourhoods. Installing solar panels could cause temporary problems with noise and lighting. And views could potentially be disrupted if adjoining residents overlook a large-scale solar installation.

Originally Published by The Conversation, continue reading here.

If We Can’t Recycle It, Why Not Turn Our Waste Plastic Into Fuel?

Australia’s recycling crisis needs us to look into waste management options beyond just recycling and landfilling. Some of our waste, like paper or organic matter, can be composted. Some, like glass, metal and rigid plastics, can be recycled. But we have no immediate solution for non-recyclable plastic waste except landfill.

At a meeting last month, federal and state environment ministers endorsed an ambitious target to make all Australian packaging recyclable, compostable or reusable by 2025. But the ministers also showed support for processes to turn our waste into energy, although they did not specifically discuss plastic waste as an energy source.

The 100% goal could easily be achieved if all packaging were made of paper or wood-based materials. But realistically, plastic will continue to dominate our packaging, especially for food, because it is moisture-proof, airtight, and hygienic.

Most rigid plastic products can only be recycled a few times before they lose their original properties and become non-recyclable. Even in European countries with strict waste management strategies, only 31% of plastic waste is recycled.

Worldwide plastic production is predicted to increase by 3.8% every year until 2030. Flexible, non-recyclable plastic materials are used in an increasing range of applications like packaging, 3D printing, and construction.

We need to expand our range of options for keeping this plastic waste out of landfill. One potential approach is “plastic to energy”, which unlocks the chemical energy stored in waste plastic and uses it to create fuel.

How plastic to energy works

Plastic is made from refined crude oil. Its price and production are dictated by the petrochemical industry and the availability of oil. As oil is a finite natural resource, the most sustainable option would be to reduce crude-oil consumption by recycling the plastic and recovering as much of the raw material as possible.

There are two types of recycling: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical recycling involves sorting, cleaning and shredding plastic to make pellets, which can then be fashioned into other products. This approach works very well if plastic wastes are sorted according to their chemical composition.

Chemical recycling, in contrast, turns the plastic into an energy carrier or feedstock for fuels. There are two different processes by which this can be done: gasification and pyrolysis.

Gasification involves heating the waste plastic with air or steam, to produce a valuable industrial gas mixtures called “synthesis gas”, or syngas. This can then be used to produce diesel and petrol, or burned directly in boilers to generate electricity.

In pyrolysis, plastic waste is heated in the absence of oxygen, which produces mixture of oil similar to crude oil. This can be further refined into transportation fuels.

Gasification and pyrolysis are completely different processes to simply incinerating the plastic. The main goal of incineration is simply to destroy the waste, thus keeping it out of landfill. The heat released from incineration might be used to produce steam to drive a turbine and generate electricity, but this is only a by-product.

Gasification and pyrolysis can produce electricity or fuels, and provide more flexible ways of storing energy than incineration. They also have much lower emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides than incineration.

Currently, incineration plants are viewed as an alternative energy supply source and a modern way of driving a circular economy, particularly in Japan, South Korea and China, where land is valuable and energy resources are scarce. In other countries, although waste incineration is common practice, the debate around human health impacts, supply issues and fuel trade incentives remains unresolved.

This article was originally published by The Conversation. Click here to read the entire piece.

Interested in the future sustainability practices of our cities?

The 2018 Liveable Cities Conference heads to Melbourne this July for two days of inspiring speakers, captivating presentations and a variety of networking activities.

Now in its eleventh year, this Conference will continue to explore the livability of our metropolitan and regional urban centres.

Find out more about this year’s program here.

Lessons from Sweden in Sustainable Business

There is an increasing trend among companies across the globe to report on their sustainability. As well as information on the company’s economic performance, this includes information on how it is handling social, ethical and environmental concerns. It is a trend driven by customers, suppliers, employees and banks in recognition that these are just as important elements of any business.

Often, the level of information provided by companies is criticised for being inadequate. But my recent research into Swedish companies shows that the quality of information does appear to be increasing. It also shows what areas are in need of further improvements to make this practice worthwhile.

Lessons from Sweden in Sustainable Business | Sustainability in Business

Image: article supplied

For years Swedish companies have been regarded as among the best in corporate communication – in general and in sustainability reporting in particular. Their excellence in disclosing information on their performance on the sustainability arena is confirmed in both academic research and comprehensive reports like major accountancy firm KPMG’s on global sustainability trends.

Until recently, whether or not a company reported on its sustainability was voluntary in most countries. But from the financial year 2017, a new EU directive requires every so-called “public interest entity” to report on the social and environmental impact of its business model.

Having recently studied sustainability reports from the 30 largest listed Swedish companies over the period 2008-2015, there’s a lot to be learned from them. It includes household names like retailer H&M, telecomms company Ericsson and car maker Volvo. It makes clear that big and profitable companies can be more accountable when it comes to sustainability reporting.

None of these companies is perfect. My research shows that they too are learning all the time when it comes to their sustainability reporting. Over the seven-year period that I looked at, the information goes from being quite brief and general to more elaborate and detailed.

This is an increasingly important part of demonstrating business ethics. In these sustainability reports companies communicate how they take responsibility for their impact on society. This is done by disclosing their efforts to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns into their business practices.

Most importantly, my research shows that Sweden’s biggest companies have started to integrate sustainability into their business models. Volvo’s business model is built on three pillars: economic, social and environmental. This holds true for large companies that you may not have heard of too. Take Assa Abloy – it’s the world’s largest lock manufacturer and has a market cap of US$22.6 billion. In its business model, sustainability is accentuated in all processes from innovation and product development to logistics and sales.

This was originally published by The Conversation.

Click here to read the entire article.

Urban Runoff and Water Sustainability in Urban Design

The issue of conserving our environment is a complex one. While reducing our material usage, reusing what already exists and recycling other products are all valuable steps towards reducing the impacts of climate change, they cannot be the only strategies adopted in an integrated approach.

Urban runoff and water sustainability in urban design

Photo: article supplied

Sustainability is not just a matter of products. A holistic approach must also encompass how the built environment responds to its context and to its inherent natural processes. This is more important than ever, as extreme weather events become more frequent, placing extra stress on – and accelerating the degradation of – both our natural and built environments.

Australia has long been known for its capricious weather and extreme climate conditions, ranging from flash floods to extreme droughts in a seemingly narrow space of time. These extreme weather events have been exacerbated as a result of climate change, and have presented significant problems to the natural environment.

When heavy rainfall is paired with the rapid growth of our urban environments, one of the issues that results is urban runoff. Rain travels from roofs to gardens, footpaths, roads and carparks before landing in our stormwater network. On its way into the ocean, stormwater inevitably collects a number of contaminants which, in their final resting place, end up upsetting the delicate nutrient balance of our natural water table.

The harmful chemicals and substances that find their way into our stormwater system comes from any number of places. For instance, nitrogen and phosphorous from fertilisers, heavy metals such as zinc and lead from our roads, in addition to your standard-issue garbage and detritus. A city such as Sydney sheds 500 billion litres of stormwater into the ocean per annum – the equivalent of the water within Sydney Harbour – which has significant consequences for the water networks that sustain our natural ecosystems. Not to mention our drinking supply.

In order to tackle this issue, Australia’s federal, state and territory governments have sought to adopt Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) practices. Some of these include increasing natural water infiltration, promoting organic alternatives to fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, and slowing the discharge of stormwater runoff. Increasing the length of time that stormwater takes to reach natural waterways allows for a longer filtration process, to remove the harmful pollutants and foreign bodies picked up in the initial stages of its development.

This article was originally published by Architecture and Design.

Click here to read the entire article.