Sustainability – Page 2

Counting on … day 96

26th June 2025

Expanding access to clean, affordable and sustainable electricity to everyone is one of the UN’s development goals.

The following comes from a report by the Prometheus Institute

“Delivering universal access to “affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” by 2030 has become a prominent global target under goal 7 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Great progress has been made in recent years according to the 2024 State of the Global Mini-Grids Market (SOTM) Report, which found the number of people without electricity fell by 466 million between 2010 and 2021. Mini-grids have been a key driver towards greater energy access, with installations in 2024 set to be over six times higher than in 2018.

“The UN has nonetheless predicted that 660 million people around the world will still lack access to electricity by 2030, with Sub-Saharan Africa particularly in need of accelerated efforts.” (1)

Projects to meet these goals need to be financed.

This month the United Nations Development Programme noted that:-“As the global community prepares to convene in Sevilla for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) later this month, one question looms large: how can we mobilize the capital needed to deliver sustainable development in a world of constrained public finance?

“Africa offers a critical part of the answer.

“This week, UNDP launched the Fourth Africa Investment Insights Report—a data-rich guide to 250 real, investable opportunities across 20 countries. These projects span sectors such as renewable energy, health care, agriculture and inclusive infrastructure. Each one combines strong commercial potential with measurable development impact.

“This is not charity. It is strategic investment aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” (2)

Whilst Climate Home News reported:-

“Climate negotiators in Bonn have been tasked with taking a “deep dive” into how a roadmap to boost climate finance for developing countries should look, so that it can be finalised at COP30 in Brazil –

“… At the start of the mid-year talks, UN climate chief Simon Stiell advised governments that the roadmap for mobilising $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 should not be “just a report, but a how-to guide with clear next steps on dramatically scaling up climate finance and investment”.

“That will mean reconciling widely divergent views among countries about what sources of finance the roadmap should draw on – and what form the money should come in…The “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T” was launched as part of the new climate finance goal (the NCQG) agreed at COP29, with a commitment for donors to raise $300 million annually – largely from the public purse – at its core.

“One main unresolved rift is that developing countries wanted the $1.3 trillion to consist of public money from rich nations – In general, developing countries have requested that the $1.3 trillion should consist of new money that is not re-labelled from other budgets, with public grant money as the bulk of it, excluding loans and other forms of debt.” (3)

Knowing what needs to be done – and knowing how it can be done – is not the same as being willing to pay for what needs to be done.

Counting on … day 94

24th June 2025

Solar Aid is a charity that aims to provide people in developing countries with access to lighting (using LEDs) to communities that a) do not have access to the grid and b) cannot afford household sized solar panels. They describe their project as follows:-

“Just as mobile phones have revolutionised communications across Africa, leapfrogging the need for landlines, picosolar lights (aka small solar lights) are now helping to bring light and power to millions of people across the continent.

“While grid electrification is not going to reach most of rural sub-Saharan Africa in our lifetimes, the solar light revolution is taking place right now, helping light up millions of homes, which would otherwise be kept in the dark.

“The concept is simple: Small solar panels, which can be as small as the palm of your hand, convert sunlight into electricity. This in turn charges small batteries, which are used to power efficient LED lights…For the first time, families can stop using dangerous, polluting kerosene lamps and candles.” (1)

That many communities cannot even afford this form of lighting, is the reason that this charity looks to people like us to provide the money.

https://solar-aid.org/bright-solutions/the-solar-light/

Counting on … day 93

23rd June 2025

Developing countries have a growing need for energy but that should not be seen as an opportunity to promote fossil fuels – to do so traps those countries in the fossil fuel system. Rather these countries should be afforded the opportunity of developing systems that use clean renewable energy – wind and solar, electric vehicles, electric (or direct solar) cooking facilities etc.

“In the coming years most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from low- and middle-income countries; we have the opportunity now to ensure that much of the new power supply will be provided by low-carbon sources.” (1)

Such clean renewable energy will also be a) cheaper and b) afford the countries energy security as they will not be reliant on imported oil and gas – or even if they have indigenous supplies, not subject to the fluctuating prices for fossil fuels set by global markets.

For a report from this year’s IEA summit: “Participants at the Summit emphasised the importance of energy access and affordability as fundamental to national and international security. With nearly 700 million people worldwide still lacking electricity and over 2 billion without access to clean cooking, addressing energy poverty was highlighted throughout the Summit as a key challenge to overcome. Delegates acknowledged that affordability concerns are growing even in advanced economies, where low-income households are disproportionately affected by energy costs.” (2)

(1) https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/05/30/civil-society-groups-push-back-on-fossil-gas-funding-as-african-development-bank/

(2) https://www.iea.org/news/at-london-summit-energy-sector-leaders-usher-in-a-new-era-of-energy-security

More info https://www.who.int/news/item/12-06-2024-progress-on-basic-energy-access-reverses-for-first-time-in-a-decade

Counting on …day 92

20th June 2025

One of the low carbon products that Shell – and other companies – deal in are carbon credits. Shell presents these as part of a cascade to reduce emissions:-

Avoid creating emissions
Reduce emissions
Compensate for remaining emissions through the use of carbon credits as not all industries can decarbonise at the same rate, with heavy industry and transport often utilising carbon credits to achieve net-zero goals.
We actively participate in carbon markets, and have a diverse portfolio of high-quality carbon credits to help our customers reduce their carbon footprint (1)

“Carbon credits essentially represent metric tons of carbon. Simply put, one carbon credit allows or offsets one metric ton of carbon emissions.

The carbon market is where carbon credits are bought and sold. There are two kinds of carbon markets: Compliance Carbon Markets (otherwise known as Regulatory Markets) and Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCM). While carbon credits for the compliance market are government regulated, carbon offsets for the VCM are not. That doesn’t mean that they’re not vetted – simply that they’re just verified by third parties…Third-party entities are non-profit organizations that ensure that customers receive what they are paying for. They measure the amount of carbon offset through an environmental project and interpret the data, giving any offset project with their seal a green light for approval.” (2)

There are three basic types of carbon credits:

Those from reduced emissions (typically energy efficiency measures)
Removed emissions (carbon capture and planting forests)
And avoided emissions (for example refraining from cutting down rainforests).(3)

Examples of the first can include capturing methane from landfill and agricultural waste and using g it as a biofuel. Or they might include providing disadvantaged families with more fuel efficient cooking or lighting equipment.

Example of the second might include reforestation, restoring peat bogs and wetlands.

Examples of the third might include making payments to farmers not to cut down prime forest but to maintain its carbon absorbing integrity, or paying for farmers to use methods such as no-till.

Shell is one of the biggest investors in carbon credits – these carbon credits are the main way in which they aim to achieve net zero by 2050. Shell can provide (at an appropriate price) their customers with carbon credits that, for example, match the carbon emissions of the fuel they buy from Shell.

The flaw seems to be that carbon credits are being used not to make good those ‘impossible to avoid’ carbon emissions such as in cement production, but as cover to allow the continued production of fossil fuels whose use can be avoided.

https://www.shell.com/shellenergy/othersolutions/environmental-products.html

(2) https://carboncredits.com/how-do-you-get-carbon-credits/

(3) https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/carbon-credits-what-how-fight-climate-change/

Counting on …day 89

17th June 2025

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the low carbon processes promoted by fossil fuel companies as a low carbon product. CCS involves three stages:-

Capturing the CO2 for storage – The CO2 is separated from other gases produced in industrial processes, such as those at coal and natural-gas-fired power generation plants, or steel or cement works..
Transport – The CO2 is compressed and transported via pipelines, road transport or ships to a site for storage.
Finally, the CO2 is injected into rock formations deep underground for permanent storage. (1)

CCS has been put forward as part of the global net zero ambition to tackle those industrial processes where it is difficult to reduce or remove carbon emissions – eg iron ore smelting, cement making and a small number of similar chemical manufacturing processes that unavoidably produce CO2 as a by-product.

However CCS is still a technology in its infancy and currently has a negligible impact on reducing carbon emissions globally. It is also expensive and does itself require additional energy inputs.

“[There are] 50 operational CCUS projects globally, with about 44 under construction and more than 500 in some stage of planning. Operational projects are capturing about 50 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MtCO2/yr). If all projects in development were complete, estimated total CCUS capacity would be between 416 and 520 MtCO2/yr, which is around 0.9%-1.1% of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions.” (1)

In the UK the Net Zero Teeside Power (NZT Power) project is being developed to capture the carbon emissions from a new gas-fired power station. The power station will be located in the Tees estuary and it’s CO2 will be stored under the North Sea. The 743MW power station will probably supply about 1 to 1.5% of the UK’s electricity needs. The carbon capture technologies to be used is Shell’s CANSOLV, a technology used previously for CCS at two coal fired power stations. It is an as-yet untried technology for gas power stations. Carbon Commentary comments further on this:-

“Typically, gas power stations emit an exhaust stream which is only about 3.5% CO2, a number far lower than most chemical processes and also well below the concentrations from a coal-fired power station. Capturing CO2 from a gas-fired power station is the most expensive way of reducing emissions from a static source.

“Assuming that the proposed NZT power station typically delivers electricity at an average price of £75 per MWh, the CCS will add between about 50% and about 100% to the cost of the power. The total bill to customers will range from about £112 to approximately £150 per MWh. These figures compared to costs of around £50 for onshore wind and solar.” (2)

CCS is clearly a developing technology but is surely one that is best reserved for decarbonising those manufacturing processes where there is no alternative solution and not as a means of allowing for the continued burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity when there are so many other carbon free options such as wind, solar and tidal.

Counting on … day 85

16th June 2025

If petrol, diesel and biodiesel fuels are incompatible with net zero carbon targets, how should transport be powered?

On the roads, electric vehicles (EVs or sometimes ZEVs) are one answer, and one favoured by many governments. With the stimulus of subsidies and legislation establishing an end date for the sale of combustion engine cars, EVs are gaining in popularity.

“The UK’s EV sector is gaining momentum, with pure electric cars capturing 21.8% of the market in May 2025. For the first five months of the year, EVs held a 20.9% share, falling short of the government’s 28% zero-emission vehicle mandate target. Including plug-in hybrids and petrol-electric hybrids, electrified vehicles accounted for 47.3% of all registrations last month. Meanwhile, petrol car sales dropped 12.5% year-on-year to 71,000 units, representing 47.5% of the market, while diesel sales fell 15.5% to 7,900 units, just 5.2% of total registrations.” (1)

Not only does the UK have a zero sales date for combustion driven cars of 2030, the UK also has a mandatory 45% emissions reduction target for trucks by the same date. Already electric trucks are being developed with ranges of 500km. (2)

“Sales of electric trucks increased 35% in 2023 compared to 2022, meaning that total sales of electric trucks surpassed electric buses for the first time, at around 54 000. China is the leading market for electric trucks, accounting for 70% of global sales in 2023, down from 85% in 2022. In Europe, electric truck sales increased almost threefold in 2023 to reach more than 10 000 (>1.5% sales share).” (3)

There would seem therefore to be a strong economic case for businesses to invest in electrical vehicles and associated infrastructure, rather than for businesses to be using their market power to relentlessly promote the continued use of combustion engines which are known to make a significant contribution to climate damaging greenhouse gas emissions.

Green Tau: issue 107

15th June 2025

‘The Gospel is as much about where you are coming from as where you are going’.

I was recently taking part in a workshop entitled ‘Tools for contemplative action’ and this phrase that came up, set me thinking. ‘Where you are coming from’ suggests not just your roots or the place where you started, but what is it that is shaping your thinking? What is influencing the choices you make or the actions you take? And if this is important in determine how we respond to God and God’s kingdom, can we change ‘Where are you coming from’ mindset?

By way of an example, Saul – before he became Paul – was coming from the mindset that valued the Law as the absolute and unassailable sole way of encountering God, and he acted accordingly chasing down and imprisoning those who threatened. Then Saul undergoes a 180° transformation – or conversion – and now comes from a mindset where the only way of understanding God and living as God desires is to embrace Jesus Christ and to follow his way of absolute love.

One local church within the period of a year achieved the Eco Church bronze award. They ticked enough of the right boxes and their scores stacked up. They introduced oat milk with their coffee, stopped using pesticides in the garden, and invested in LED lighting.

Did it make any radical changes to the way the congregation thought about the climate and ecological crises? Not really.

Did it transform their hearts and minds, attuning them more closely with ethical and ecological issues, changing the way they behaved? Not really.

But what if that congregation had undergone an ecological conversion? What if their hearts and minds had been transformed to love God and each other and creation in a new and heartfelt ecological way?

Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudatory Si, called on all people of faith to seek an ecological conversion, confident that this would lead to:-

gratitude and gratuitousness (recognition that the world is God’s loving gift)
generosity in self-sacrifice and good works
a loving awareness of a universal communion with the rest of creation
greater creativity and enthusiasm in resolving the world’s problems
a feeling of responsibility based on faith (1)

Ecological conversion is to change where we are coming from. It transforms the base line from which we operate. It reorientates our focus. It changes how we live and think and behave. It transforms how we embody and share the Gospel – ie how we live and share the good news of the kingdom of God.

Such an ecological conversion would have us asking how does what I buy impact other living beings? Could I change or reduce what I buy to show greater love towards, or to protect, others? How does who I bank with impact the natural world, or impact those of my brothers and sisters enduring the impacts of climate change? Does my money help others have better lives or does it cause harm? Do I tread lightly on the earth or does my lifestyle demand a disproportionate amount of the earth’s resources? Am I mindful of the needs of others when I plan my holidays, choose how to travel, go on a shopping spree? Do I treasure the natural world around me, or do I trample what is before my nose to snap that iconic view on the other side of the world?

Such a conversion would have us being grateful for and finding joy in what we already have, and realising that for many of us what we have is more than we need in order to live a fulfilled – ie God-filled – life. We might find ourselves challenging the premise that ‘the more you have, the happier you are’.

Such a conversion would have the effect of giving us time and space to wonder and delight in the natural beauty and integrity of the world that God has created. We might find it an under-appreciated source of joy and sustenance.

Such a conversion would have us asking questions of retailers and industrialists and companies that extract raw materials – How does what you do show care for planet, for the natural world, for people you employ, and for the people you sell to? We would be questioning them about practices that are destructive and products that are elitest – and boycotting them if they continue with such practices. Equally such a conversion would have us asking questions of our local and national politicians and how they might use their power to protect biodiversity, to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, to ensure justice for all but especially for those already marginalised and persecuted by our current economic and social systems.

Such a conversion would have us signing petitions, writing letters and joining campaigns to challenge and change oppressive operations. Such a conversion would have would see us drawing together as communities, helping support others of our brothers and sisters – human and creaturely – close at home and far away.

All these ways of behaving differently are out there in the world and being practiced by individuals and communities. Any of us could take up these alternative ways of behaving. Yet many of us don’t. And I think the reason we don’t – or why we try and then give up – is because we still hold onto old mindsets. We haven’t had that transformation, that experience of ecological conversion, that changes the ‘where we are coming from’.

Can we as fellow Christians, as fellow beings, encourage and enable and pray for that ecological conversion?

https://laudatosimovement.org/news/what-is-an-ecological-conversion-en-news/

Counting on … day 84

13th June 2025

Last year Shell paused work on its biofuel plant in the the Netherlands. This project was to have become one of Europe’s largest biofuel plants producing SAF and renewable diesel. Weak market conditions were apparently to blame (basically a situation where the global supply of biofuels exceeded current demand and producers wouldn’t or couldn’t reduce the prices to boost demand). At the same time BP also paused two biofuel projects in Germany and the U.S. (1)

One question to ask is how can funding be provided for long term projects when companies are focused on short term profits? Is this where governments should step in either with subsidies or with legislation that builds long term certainty around how energy needs are to be met? And if so, who is going to guide government policy – powerful fossil fuel companies or scientists?

Another question is whether alternative biofuels are the right solution for the need to reduce global carbon emissions? And are fossil fuel companies pursuing these alternative fuels that can be used interchangeably with fossil fuels, being used as a way of keeping the market for fossil fuels open?

Here it should be noted that Shell’s CEO, Wael Sawan, has stated that Shell’s current objective is to shift focus from renewables to high-profit oil and gas projects so that Shell can exploit the higher global oil and gas prices that still persist following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (2)

Counting on … day 82

11th June 2025

Biogas is a mixture of methane, CO2 and other gases produced from plant and/or animal material via anaerobic digestion. It comprises between 45-75% methane by volume. Biogas can be used for cooking, heating and for electricity in biogas adapted power stations. Biogas can not as a direct substitute for natural gas. Biomethane on the other hand is nearly 100% methane and can be used to replace natural gas without changing the means of transmission or the end-user’s equipment.(1)

Biomethane is produced by upgrading biogas (ie removing the other gases by various means). Carbon dioxide produced as a byproduct can be used for industrial processes or combined with hydrogen to create more methane. At present biomethane represents about 0.1% of natural gas demand. (1)

The biomaterial used to produce both biogas and biomethane comes from the same sources as for SAF – ie waste material from farms and forestry work, solid municipal/ household waste (including food waste and packaging), recycled cooking fat ( I think MacDonald’s trucks advertise this), animal fat, virgin corn/soy/rapeseed/palm oil, sugar cane and beet, aide and other grains, grasses such as miscanthus, algae etc – and therefore has the same issues around the sufficiency of supply.

Should agricultural land be used to grow crops for provide biofuels or to provide food?

National Grid notes that “UK households, hospitality and food service, food manufacture, retail and wholesale sectors produce around 10 million tonnes of food waste per year. If this was all treated through anaerobic digestion, the industry could generate 11 TWh of biogas – enough to heat 830,000 homes – and cut emissions by 8.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, or 2% of the UK’s annual emissions.” (2) On the other hand, as 70% of that food waste was edible, would it have been better used feeding people? Equally given that it represents £22billion (3) would it not be better if the waste been avoided in the first place and the money used for home insulation or public transport?

https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth/an-introduction-to-biogas-and-biomethane

(2) https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-is-biogas

(3) https://www.wrap.ngo/taking-action/food-drink/actions/action-on-food-waste

Counting on … Day 54

2nd May 2025

Rather than finding green and/or ethical alternatives products to maintain our lifestyles, we might rather want to reflect on the idea of ‘enoughness’*. We live in a society and an economic system which sees having a better life and having more to consume as two things that run in tandem. But that may not be so. Having more to consume may make us anxious, may give us more responsibilities, may increase our dependency on things that costs more than we can afford. Having more to consume will likely increase the amount of ‘waste’ be that extra packaging or the single use, throw away nature of the product.

Paper hankies can make our lives easier but they create waste from the tissue that is thrown away, and from the plastic packet or paper box in which they were packed. A cotton handkerchief can be washed and reused giving years of use from a single purchase.

Kitchen gadgets – magi-mixers, stick blenders, spice grinders, soup and ice-cream makers, air fryers, sandwich toasters: the list is endless – can make our lives easier but do we use all of them sufficiently often to justify their purchase? For with each purchase comes the use of more resources to make them, the kitchen space needed to store them, the packaging to recycle and finally the cost of recycling the product itself?

Maybe there is merit in looking at what we already have that might serve the function? The wooden spoon, the grill, the ice box etc.

Joy in Enough, part of Green Christian, believes ‘Christians have a key role in modelling a way of life that respects the environment and serves others, finding fulfilment in what we have and not always wanting more.’ Their remit is to ‘offer study materials, talks and stories about current events, movements and activities which offer a vision of the future we want to see. We provide resources for people to decide what they can do, at a personal, community, national and global level, to challenge effectively our current way of living and bring about the changes needed in our economy, and wider society.’

* https://cac.org/daily-meditations/flourishing-is-mutual/