NGO
Another Way (Stichting Bakens
Verzet), 1018 AM Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Edition
03: 06 November, 2010.
Edition
18 : 12 November, 2014.
01. E-course : Diploma in Integrated
Development (Dip. Int. Dev)
Quarter
1.
SECTION A : DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS.
Study value :
04 points out of 18.
Indicative
study time: 112 hours out of 504.
Study points
are awarded only after the consolidated exam for Section A : Development
Problems has been passed.
First block : Poverty and quality of life.
Study value : 02 points out of 18.
Indicative study time: 57 hours out of 504.
Study points are awarded only after the consolidated
exam for Section A : Development Problems has been passed.
First block :
Poverty and quality of life.
First
Block : Section 1. Analysis of the causes of
poverty. [26.50 hours]
First Block : Section
2. Services needed for a good quality of life.
First
Block : Exam.
[ 4 hours each attempt]
Block
1 of Section
1. Analysis of the causes of poverty. [26.50 hours]
Part 2 : In depth analysis
of the causes of poverty. [14.00
hours]
01. In depth : definition
of poverty.
02. In depth : some
factors linked with poverty.
03. In depth : debts and
subsidies.
04. In depth : financial
leakages : food and water industries.
05. In depth : financial
leakage : energy.
06. In depth : financial
leakage : means of communication..
07. In depth : financial
leakage : health and education.
08. In depth : financial
leakage : theft of resources.
09. In depth : financial
leakage : corruption.
10. In depth : the
industry of poverty.
Report on Section 1 of Block 1 :
[06.00 Hours]
Part 2 : In depth analysis
of the causes of poverty. [14.00
hours]
05. In depth : Financial
leakage : energy.
“Instead of promoting access to
energy and supporting development, fossil fuel extraction has been shown to
correlate with higher levels of poverty, child mortality and malnutrition,
civil war, corruption, authoritarian governance and gender inequality. ” (Bast, E. and others, The fossil fuel bailout
: G20 subsidies for oil, gas, and coal exploration,
Overseas Development
Institute (ODI) with Oil Change International,
London, November 2014. (Box 5, p. 41)).
Look at slide :
05. Financial leakage :
energy.
“Nearly two-thirds of historic carbon dioxide and
methane emissions [1854-2010] can be attributed to 90 [private and state-owned]
entities”. ( R.Heede, Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane
emission to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854-2010, Climate Change,
Vol. 122, Issue 1-2, January 2014, pp. 229-241. Springer Science-Business Media, Berlin,
January 2014, p. 238). The present wealth of industrialised countries is
directly related to their energy use over time, so they are mostly responsible
for the climate change which has taken place. However non-industrialised energy
producing countries and shareholders of individual for profit energy
corporations have also benefitted from the sale of their fuels and must also
bear a share of the costs and responsibility of solving the climate change
problem. This involves leaving most of
the known fossil reserves in the ground. For more on this see W.McKibben, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,
Rolling Stone Politics, New York,
02 August 2012.
“…the only way to impose “immediate and severe
curbs” on fossil fuel production/consumption would be to impose an EMERGENCY
CONTRACTION in the industrialized countries: drastically retrench and in some
cases shut down industries, even entire sectors, across the economy and around
the planet — not just fossil fuel producers but all the industries that consume
them and produce GHG emissions — autos, trucking,
aircraft, airlines, shipping and cruise lines, construction, chemicals,
plastics, synthetic fabrics, cosmetics, synthetic fiber
and fabrics, synthetic fertilizer and agribusiness CAFO
[Concentrated Anmial Feeding Operation.” ( Smith, R. Sleepwalking
to Extinction : Capitalism and the destruction of life and earth, Adbusters, The Epic Human Journey, Part 4,
Vancouver, 14 November, 2013.)
Seven
countries have together contributed more than 63% to the historic warming of the
earth’s temperature over the past 200 years. By far the biggest contributor is
the United States, with 21,57%, followed by China (9%), Russia (8.4%), Brazil
(8.4%), India (6.7%), Germany (4.71%) and the U.K. (4.5%). The figures include
the use of fossil-based fuels (especially coal) and other causes such as deforestation and the
mitigating (coolant) effect of aerosols. If statistics are considered on a
pro-capita basis, The United Kingdom and the United States are the major
countries on the top of the list, followed by Canada, Russia, Germany, the
Netherlands and Australia. (Matthews H.D. and others,
National Contributions to Observed Global Warming,
IOP Science, Environmental Research Letters, Vol.9, No.1, IOP
Publishing, Bristol,
15 January, 2014.).
Solar energy
You can use
this world solar irradiation map to have an
idea of the importance of solar resources in your chosen project area.
1. Research.
What are your conclusions on
solar irradiation resources in your project area ?
Collect more detailed
information on solar irradiation in your project area. If no specific
information is available for your area,
collect information on your region. If that is also unavailable, collect
solar irradiation information on your country.
What are your
conclusions ?
Transformation
of energy into a commercial product.
2. Research.
Which initiatives for
the small-scale transformation of local
energy resources have been applied in your project area? If no specific
information is available for your area,
collect information on your region. If that is also unavailable, collect
solar irradiation information on your country.
What is the potential for
small-scale transformation of local energy in your chosen area?
Which initiatives for
large-scale transformation of local energy resources, if any, have been applied in your chosen area ?
Which large-scale transformations of energy are imported into
your project area ?
What are your
conclusions ?
Energy :
one of the main causes of financial leakage.
You have already made a list of
imported energy resources in your analysis.
In the preceding section on «the
transformation of energy», you have considered the importation into your
project area of energy transformed on a large scale.
Energy can be in a natural form (for
example, coal, biomass, natural vegetable oils) or transformed (for example,
electricity, industrial fertilisers, petrol).
3. Research.
Make an analysis of the
energy requirements of your project area.
Why can’t they be met through
local production?
An extraordinary confirmation of the
vital importance of world-wide control by the United States over the fossil fuels market was
provided by President Barack Obama in his Address to the
General Assembly of the United Nations, 24 September, 2013 as published by
the Washington Post, Washington,
24 September, 2013.
“The United States of America is prepared to use all
elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests
in the region [the Middle East and North Africa].
We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did
in the Gulf War….We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the
world. Although America
is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still
depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize
the entire global economy.”
The world’s
biggest banks (“climate killer banks”) have invested € 232 billion in coal
mining and the construction of coal-fired power plants and the companies
running them since the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005 :
“Big banks
are destabilizing our climate system. Since the Kyoto Protocol came into force,
banks have nearly doubled their support for the coal industry, the single
largest source of [man-made] CO2 emissions heating up our planet. ” (Schücking H. et al, Bankrolling Climate Change, Urgewald, groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, Bank Track, Sassenberg, December 2011, p. 58.) The list of the top 20 “climate killer
banks”, led by J.P.Morgan Chase, Citi,
Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley can be found on p. 15.
“… in spite
of banks’ verbal commitments towards addressing the climate crisis, their
financial commitments to the coal industry have almost doubled since 2005, the
year the Kyoto Protocol came into force.” ((Schücking
H. et al,as above, p. 47)
Leading
energy investment banks have failed to measure the carbon footprint of their
investments in conventional energy. For a discussion of this subject, refer to
: Collins, B. Bankrolling Climate Disruption : The
Impact of the Banking Sector’s Financed Emissions, Rainforest Action
Network (RAN), San Francisco, October, 2012.
In his speech
in acceptance of The
Right Livelihood Award 1999 the German politician Hermann Scheer said «Solar energy
is the energy of the people. To use this energy does not require big
investments of only a few big corporations. It requires billions of investments
by billions of people.”
The direct
price to the consumer of alternative energy and photovoltaic energy in
particular has recently become competitive with that of conventional energy. (R. Schleicher-Tappeser, How renewables will change
electricity markets in the next five years, Elsevier, Energy-Policy (2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.042). In his conclusion (Section 4) the
author refers to the self-organisational and chaotic elements implicit in the
application of the subsidiarity principle to energy
supplied at the lowest possible market level. This is typical of
integrated development projects where energy used in a given project
areas is expected to by sustainably generated and consumed there.
“The world already has a large
stockpile of ‘unburnable carbon’. If countries intend
to meet their commitments to the 2ºC climate target, at least two-thirds of
existing proven reserves of oil, gas and coal need to be left in the ground.
Yet governments continue to invest scarce financial resources in the expansion
of fossil fuel reserves, even though cuts in such subsidies are critical for
ambitious action on climate change and low-carbon development.” ” (Bast, E. and others, The fossil fuel bailout
: G20 subsidies for oil, gas, and coal exploration, Overseas
Development Institute (ODI) with Oil Change
International, London,
November 2014. (Executive summary)).
The giant
fossil fuel multinationals themselves not only cause severe financial leakage
from poor areas. They will destroy the world unless they are stopped. Students
must study the article Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, M. Mckibben, Rolling Stone Politics, New York, 02 August 2012)
carefully.
“Unburnable carbon is a climate issue, and it also could be a financial
one: according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative
(CTI), as much as 80% of the coal, oil and gas reserves
of private companies (such as Exxon Mobil and Peabody Coal) are now ‘unburnable,’ and this unburnable carbon
represents potentially ‘stranded’ assets. (Bast, E. and others, see above, p. 13). “But fossil fuel companies continue to invest
heavily in exploration for new resources, with $674 billion spent in 2012 to
find and develop new oil, gas and coal resources.” (Bast,
E. and others, see above, p. 14) “In
2013, total investment in renewable energy was only $250 billion, which
contrasts sharply with the over $1 trillion in fossil fuel energy investment.” ((Bast, E. and others, see above, p. 18)
McKibben writes :
“We have five
times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is
safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away
underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been
likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.
“Yes, this
coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already
economically aboveground – it's figured into share prices, companies are
borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed
returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies
have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those
reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their
value…..at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons
of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid
attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be
writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren't exact, of course, but
that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. ”
“Much of that
profit [of fossil fuel companies] stems from a single historical accident:
Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump its main
waste, carbon dioxide, for free….. Putting a price on carbon would reduce the
profitability of the fossil-fuel industry.”
Citing
climate activist Naomi Klein, McKibben states that “wrecking the planet is the fossil-fuel industry’s
business. It’s what they do.”
Compare this
with the over-optimistic statements made by Leonardo Maugeri
minimizing the dangers of shale oil , shale gas and fracking in Section 9, Shale and Tight Oil & Gas
versus the Environment of his report Oil : The Next Revolution. The unprecedented upsurge of
oil production capacity and what it means for the world, Discussion Paper
2012-10, Geopolitics of Energy Project, Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, Cambridge MA,
June 2012, pp. 68-73. Maugeri’s report is
apparently designed to promote the
strategic interests of the United
States and their multinational industries.
On p. 66 of the report, even Maugeri concludes that:
“A revolution
in environmental and curb-emissions technologies is required to sustain the
development of most unconventional oils” ominously continuing the same sentence
saying “…along with a strong enforcement of already existing standards, rather
than massive over-regulation. Without such a revolution, a continuous dispute
between the industry and environmental groups will force government to delay
the development of new projects.” And we couldn’t have that, could we?
How and the
extent to which the highly pollutant fracking
industry in the United States obtained full exemption from compliance with
fundamental environmental and health
regulations in the United States is described by R.L.Kosnik
in The Oil & Gas
Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes,( Oil & Gas
Accountability Project (OGAP), Earthworks,
Washington, October, 2007). The bypassed
regulations include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (1980), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), the
Clean Water Act (1977), the Clean Air
Act (as amended 1977), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (1986). That so many
fundamental statutory rights of citizens be systematically set aside for
private profits in the energy sector in
the United States
is truly a sign of our times.
>Some 40%
of coal mined in the United
States is publicly owned. It is exploited
under leases to private coal-mining companies, who pay just US$ 1.03 per ton
for it, with public revenues during the Obama administration of just US$ 2.3
billion. Much of it is dumped on the European and Asian markets with an
enormous profit for the private parties and disastrous results for world-wide
emissions of CO2, carrying social costs between US$ 52 billion and US$ 530
billion depending on the type of coal and the discount rate applied, at the
same time blocking or limiting the rate of adoption of renewable energies.
Plans to greatly INCREASE heavily subsidised coal exports from the U.S.A.
would cause nearly 17 billion tons more CO2 pollution against the 5.344
billion tons “savings” from the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan 2020-2030. For full details see : Aubry,
T., Leasing Coal, Fueling Climate
Change : How the federal coal leasing program
undermines President Obama’s Climate Plan, Greenpeace USA,
Washington, 2014.
There are
many examples showing the social costs of exploitation by oil companies for
their shareholders’ profit at expense of the public and its quality of life.
For one well-known and fully documented example see Amnesty International and
others, No Progress : An Evaluation
of the Implementation of UNEP’s
Environmental Assessment of
Ogoniland, Three Years On, London, July 2014.
4. Opinion.
What do you
think of Hermann Scheer’s statement?
Fertilisers.
Our urine
(and our composted faeces) provide sufficient fertiliser for the food
production we need to survive. Recycling of urine and faeces therefore plays
one of the most important roles integrated development projects under the
Model.
With use of urines
and faeces as fertilisers hunger can be avoided. Urine from family members
mixed with household grey water (without faeces!) in a ratio of 1 part urine
and 10 parts of grey water provide 20 litres of immediately usable risk-free fertiliser per person per day, for the
cultivation of fruit and vegetables. For a family with five members, that is
about 100 litres
of fertiliser per day.
Check the
list of annexes
to the main index
of the Model and, especially, the
list of key words used during this course,
for other texts on the recycling or urine and faeces.
Fertilisers: recycling of urine and faeces : minimum per person per year
(500 litres being 400 litres urine; 100 litres faeces) providing 5.7 kg N
(nitrogen), 0.6 kg P (phosphorus), and 1.2 kg K (potassium). This is enough to grow 230 kg of cereals per
person.<
For a project area with 50.000 people: 285.000
kg (285 tons) of N ; 30.000 kg (30 tons of P); and 60.000 kg K (60 tons). Enough for 11.500.000
kg (11.500 tons) of cereals.
Price in month
8/2008 of fertilisers based on N = € 300/ton x 285 = Euro 85.500 ;
based on P = € 820/ton x 30 = € 24.600 ; based on K = €330/ton x 60 =
€19.800.
Total value at rates applying month 8/2008= €
129.900/year.
Suppose urine and faeces were to be recycled in your project area.
5. Opinion.
What would that mean to food security
in your project area?
What would the savings in the costs
of importation of food into the project area be?
Cooking fuels.
Suppose a local industry (one production unit for each 1500
inhabitants) for the manufacture of mini-briquettes using in part recycled domestic waste, local crop waste,
and specially grown crops were to be set up in your project area.
Refer to part 01. Introduction, then part 06 Costs and benefits analysis :introduction,
then part 07. Costs and benefits analysis :
details of section 3 :Costs and benefits analysis of block 8 Economic
aspects of the
course.
6. Opinion.
Make a calculation of the financial
benefits for your chosen area taking the elimination of the need to search for
wood, and to purchase wood and other
cooking fuel costs, automatic
reforestation, and the potential offered by the Kyoto treaty into account.
Energy as an
instrument of sustainable production.
7. Opinion.
Make an analysis of the basic energy requirements for
your chosen area necessary for a good quality of life for all.
Is it possible to locally supply (potentially) the necessary energy?
Make yourself familiar with the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
8. Opinion.
Which factors
make it difficult for small-scale projects to qualify for benefits under the Kyoto treaty ?
Why did the Bush
Administration refuse to sign the Kyoto
protocol ?
◄ ►
◄ First block : Poverty and quality of life.
◄ Index : Diploma in Integrated Development (Dip.Int.Dev)
◄ List of key words.
◄ List of references.
◄ Course chart.
◄ Courses available.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike
3.0 Licence.
