| Sourced From |
As the current Kyoto Protocol that governs protection against global warming expires in 2012 and a new one is negotiated in December in Copenhagen, we need to understand the implications of the carbon debate on Kenya.
Ministries with direct influence on carbon management are those responsible for Energy, Transport, Industry, Forestry and Agriculture.
Why carbon? There is a blanket layer up there called ozone which protects the earth from the direct impact of the sun’s rays and thus moderates the surface’s warming. Reduced ozone protection has over time resulted in higher temperatures that have an adverse climatic impact on the earth.
Carbon dioxide (also referred to as carbon) is a key member of a category of gases (called greenhouse gases GHGs) that damage the ozone layer, thus reducing its effect. Reduction of carbon dioxide is what the carbon debate is mainly about.
Reference to simple science and biology reminds us that we burn fuels to produce energy (heat, transportation, and industries) and in case of animal bodies they burn food to produce energy.
In producing energy, oxygen is used and carbon dioxide is produced. Also, plants absorb carbon dioxide during the day to produce carbohydrates.
Carbon management is therefore all about limiting the amount of carbon dioxide produced and also increasing the vegetation that absorbs some of the carbon dioxide.
If nature was allowed to perform its duties uninfluenced by human activity, there would have been no excess carbon dioxide to interfere with the ozone layer.
Excessive carbon production has been mainly due to man-made activities, and its generation can be controlled by man. Whereas excessive carbon has direct negative impact on the globe, its management can present opportunities for all mankind, Kenyans included.
That is why we need to plan to incorporate carbon reduction management in our national economic planning and budgeting.
When experts meet in Copenhagen later this year, the key debate will likely be on how to equitably share the burden of carbon reduction among nations.
It was different in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated as a number of key countries, notably the US and multinational oil companies, had doubts about the effects of carbon on climate change.
The main generation of carbon is through the use of various forms of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas) to generate energy.
The fuels have varying amounts of carbon, with coal having the highest and natural gas the least. When we talk of green energy options, we are referring to using various forms of energy that have less or no carbon implications.
Some fuels are greener than others, depending on how much less carbon they produce when burned. In Kenya, electricity generation from hydro, wind, solar and geothermal present options with virtually no direct carbon production and these are therefore green.
Going green on electricity generation therefore has a positive impact for Kenya as it replaces the more expensive oil for electricity generation, reducing emissions as well as sorting out the global warming problem.
Use of biomass to produce electricity, and the proposed use of natural gas for power generation, produces less carbon than the use of fossil oil, and are therefore greener options.
Inefficient use of petroleum products in the transport sector results in more carbon dioxide emissions and hence enhances global warming.
Any measures that are taken to reduce energy waste through conservation and efficiency result in less petroleum use and hence reduced carbon emissions.
Introduction of rapid urban transportation, including by-passes, and removal of unnecessary police road blocks not only saves time and money but also reduces carbon emission. Also, the introduction of low energy bulbs reduces carbon as less oil generated electricity will be used.
Any programme that introduces efficient fuel use (e.g cutting down on the number of big ministerial cars that guzzle fuel) or replacing petroleum fuel with low or non-carbon fuels like hydrogen, electricity, and natural gas, reduces the impact of carbon on the ozone.
President Obama’s energy policy for the US is based on multiple benefits of reduced fossil fuel use to limit dependence on imported petroleum from potentially hostile countries, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions by converting to greener renewable energy.
Green energy technology will also create new jobs. Let us now discuss reduction of carbon dioxide through absorption by increased vegetation — this means planting more trees and getting the Mau and the rest of Kenya back to greenness. Increased forest cover also increases rainfall and preserves underground water.
Specific biofuel crops, especially jatropha, have multiple greening benefits. Biodiesel from jatropha is greener than conventional petroleum fuels as it contains less carbon, and also provides additional vegetation cover that absorbs carbon dioxide. Jatropha plantations in semi-arid areas have added social economic benefits through employment generation.
Reward countries
The Kyoto protocol had provisions to reward developing countries for their effort to reduce carbon through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). If this programme is retained in the Copenhagen protocol, it will continue to motivate countries and enterprises to focus on green projects as a source of revenue.
The ongoing geothermal projects, biomass electricity generation, mini hydro projects, natural gas for power generation, greening of Mau and many other activities will potentially earn foreign exchange for Kenya and relevant enterprises if the CDM is retained.
Carbon reduction management is an activity with multiple opportunities for Kenyans and should be a talking point for virtually every government ministry and NGO as the organisations’ contribution will have a direct impact on global climate protection.
By George Wachira
Wachira is a consultant with Petroleum Focus. [email protected].