In a world grappling with the challenges of climate change and energy sustainability, it is imperative for nations to reassess their energy strategies. The thesis, titled “Critical Analysis of the Future of Energy Sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Just Energy Transitions in Cameroon, Ghana, and Nigeria,”[1] delves into the intricate dynamics of renewable energy adoption and climate adaptation in three Sub-Saharan African nations. These countries, Cameroon, Ghana, and Nigeria are endowed with abundant renewable energy resources, yet they face significant hurdles in harnessing their full potential.
The study emphasizes the profound impact of renewable energy as a supplementary source to address Africa’s energy needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It reveals that while the potential exists, these nations grapple with a multitude of challenges, including policy and legal constraints, technical limitations, financial barriers, and inadequate infrastructure.
In Cameroon, renewable energy has the potential to significantly contribute to the nation’s energy needs, but this potential remains largely untapped due to a combination of policy, technical, and financial challenges, as highlighted by Yun Gao et al. (2017).[2]
Likewise, Ghana possesses ample solar energy potential, but barriers such as political will, technical constraints, and funding limitations hinder its widespread adoption as indicated by Gyamfi et al.’s (2015) research findings.[3]
Moving to Nigeria, the nation faces a host of issues within its power sector, including grid limitations, inadequate generation capacity, and challenges in transmission and distribution, echoing the concerns raised in the GIZ (2015) analysis.[4]
While these countries share common challenges, they also confront unique issues that affect their energy sectors and climate adaptation strategies.
Amid these challenges, the study underscores the importance of effective policy implementation, which is the linchpin in transitioning to sustainable energy sources and climate resilience, aligning with the insights of Oluwole (2016)[5] on the significance of proactive climate change regimes.
The absence of clear strategic objectives in Cameroon’s electricity sector, for instance, has led to uncertainty and a need for coordinated efforts to direct future investments, resonating with Muhammad et al.’s (2019)[6] call for well-crafted policies for renewable energy deployment.
Climate change’s impact is palpable in Cameroon, as droughts have strained hydroelectric plants, highlighting the urgency of climate adaptation measures, a concern recognized by the IPCC as the biggest security risk of our time.[7]
In Ghana, the power sector’s challenges are multifaceted, encompassing infrastructure limitations, overreliance on specific energy sources, and a pressing need for sustainability, echoing the causal relationship between economic growth and energy use.
Various research shows that Nigeria grapples with grid constraints, insufficient generation capacity, and a host of issues in transmission and distribution, highlighting the complexity of the energy landscape, and the need for sustained, sound, and practicable relationships between stakeholders.
The findings presented in this thesis emphasize the urgency of addressing climate change and transitioning to sustainable energy sources in Sub-Saharan Africa. Climate change, as identified by the IPCC, is a significant security risk and a global concern. It calls for increased global cooperation in the energy sector and sustainable development. Key recommendations include the development of functional climate change regimes, and the establishment of clear policies for renewable energy deployment, in line with Ana Cravinho et al.’s (2011) recommendation for policies supporting renewable energy implementation.[8] The active involvement of stakeholders in policy formulation and execution is crucial to overcoming the myriad challenges identified in the study, resonating with the importance of public participation and consultation forums.
As these nations strive to achieve their National Determined Contributions targets under the Paris Agreement and work towards sustainable development goals by 2030, there is a growing need for well-crafted policies, strong governance structures, and collaborative efforts to overcome the challenges hindering the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. The world should take note of these findings and support these nations in their journey toward a greener and more sustainable future, aligning with the call for increased global cooperation in the energy sector and sustainable development.[9]
[1] Thesis defended by Magloire Fopokam Tene, “Critical Analysis of the Future of Energy Sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Just Energy Transitions in Cameroon, Ghana, and Nigeria.”
Graduated from LUISS Guido Carli University, Department of Law, Master of Science in Law, Digital Innovation and Sustainability. In Rome, Italy, on July 26, 2023.
[2] Yun Gao, Xiang Gao, Xiaohua Zhang. (2017) The 2℃ Global Temperature Target and the Evolution of the Long-Term Goal of Addressing Climate Change from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to the Paris Agreement, 272-278
[3] S. Gyamfi, M. Modjinou, S. Djordjevic, Improving electricity supply security in Ghana—the potential of renewable energy, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43 (2015) 1035–1045.
[4] The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH – GIZ (2015)
[5] Oluwole Olutola (2016). Addressing Climate Change in Southern Africa: Any Role for South Africa in the Post-Polis Agreement? 395-409
[6] Muhammad Idra al Irsyad, Anthony Halog, Rabindra Nepal. (2019) Renewable energy projections for climate change mitigation: An analysis of uncertainty and errors, 11pgs
[7] See IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[8] Ana Cravinho Martins, Rui Cunha Marques, Carlos Oliveira Cruz. (2011). Public-private partnerships for wind power generation: The Portuguese case 94-104
We aspire to live in a world where the diversity of cultures, the arts and cultural heritage is crucial to the growth of a sincere open mind to fundamental rights and where open and interactive cultural processes and practices work together to help us navigate the challenges of co-existing with one another and with ourselves.
An introduction to open heritage theory is provided in this article. In contrast to most preceding works that have concentrated on either the theoretical or practical aspects of openness in the heritage field, the article seeks to explain how cultural heritage might be open, accessible and foster economic development[1].
Cultural heritage can be referred to tangible and intangible assets that have been passed down from one generation to the next by a group or civilization.
The “Openness” of Cultural Heritage
There are various circumstances in which the concept of openness may be found, but none is more important for society than the concept of open government. Thus, openness refers to being honest with people and working with them to improve the community (Hamilton and Saunderson, 2017, 17). Although many countries’ legacy institutions and experts are sponsored in significant part by national governments, Open Heritage is a subset of Open Government. Hence, the heritage sector should indeed be held to the same standards of transparency at all levels of government[2]. Open Access, Open Source, and Open Data are other definitions of openness. With the first two, anyone with an internet connection can freely access research and computers[3].
The notion of “Accessibility” in Cultural Heritage
Since everyone encounters a barrier occasionally or permanently, only sporadically are we able to avoid it. Accessibility is a significant issue in both adolescence and old age, as it encourages active ageing and lessens the strain on society to care for the elderly. People with disabilities are excluded from the social environment that is appropriate for healthy people due to the rules of non-disabled people. In the realm of culture and heritage, accessibility refers to a condition in which all people can access any field’s characteristics without discrimination based on sex, age, scientific status, or other factors, allowing everyone to use goods, services, infrastructure, and equipment autonomously, safely, and conveniently[4].
Accessibility is the process of making things for everyone regardless of their circumstances or abilities. It refers to the creation of goods, settings, programs, and services that can be used by as many individuals as possible without specialized design or adaptation. Universal design covers assistive technology, IT systems, operating procedures, educational strategies, and electronic services, while also providing unique entrances to buildings, paths, or devices for people with reduced mobility. Every project is created with the goal of making it easy for everyone to use, even those with limited mobility. The 7 Principles of Universal Design were developed by a working group of architects, product designers, engineers, and environmental design experts from North Carolina State University (USA)[5] to create an environment that does not favour any particular social group.
The Operational Programme for EU Structural Funds Investments for 2014–2020 states that the most in need of universal design are children, the elderly, cyclists, people with mobility issues, those with allergies, parents of young children, those who use public transportation, those using walking aids, tourists, nursery schoolteachers, and others. The user-centred and inclusive design principles that form the foundation of design for all are embodied by this strategy, including the design values outlined in the 2004 EIDD Stockholm Declaration. The federation’s catchphrase, “Good design empowers, bad design disables[6]” is included in the proclamation.
Cultural heritage is important for education, research, and personal development. It is also a venue for preservation and display, and a location for the growth of well-being. The past, history, assets, and the connection between health and society are all connected through the study and transmission of a culture aimed at honouring Heritage. Cultural heritage provides an environment that is inclusive and has advantages for our bodies both emotionally and physically.
How does cultural heritage contribute to economic growth?
Cultural heritage is a vital component of Europe’s socio-economic capital and is recognized as a source of knowledge, social well-being, a sense of belonging, and communal cohesiveness. In recent years, politicians have become more aware of the strategic value of cultural heritage to regional cohesion, economic growth, and employment. This is reflected in policy documents, such as the New European Agenda for Culture[7] and the European Heritage Strategy for the 21st Century.[8] The EU cohesion policy, which includes culture and cultural heritage as part of its Smart Specialization Strategy, has demonstrated its increasing strategic importance on the European agenda. The European Commission has undertaken several activities to recognize cultural heritage, such as the European Heritage Days, the European Index of Culture, and the European Capitals of Culture.
However, it is difficult to accurately measure the magnitude of cultural heritage’s impact on the economy and society. To properly understand the contribution that cultural heritage makes to the market and society, a common framework must be established in Europe for the collection of standardized and comparable data on cultural heritage. Cultural heritage impact indicators might be important to make a strong argument for the value of cultural heritage for social and economic progress.[9]
How can cultural heritage and economic development be connected?
Cultural heritage is valued economically since it is a resource that people may use to purchase products and services (Throsby, 1999). Market-traded goods and services produce economic value streams that are reflected in employment, value-added, and other economic indicators.
Cultural heritage is a strategic resource not only for a sustainable Europe, but also for a sustainable world, and its social dimension is acknowledged. Although some researchers contend that legal and policy frameworks on participatory governance of cultural heritage in Europe could be and are already being implemented by adopting a strategy in which local public and community actors activate forms of multi-auctorial governance around cultural heritage[10], the EU Commission’s and the Council of the European Union’s findings on participatory governance of cultural heritage have identified it as an ineffective strategy. The Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention) emphasizes the importance of involving everyone in society in the process of defining and managing cultural heritage. One of the goals of the 2018 European Year of Cultural Values is to promote a people-centred approach to cultural assets and to ensure that everyone has access to heritage as a fundamental human right. Cultural heritage organizations should work to be inclusive and accessible to all, with accessibility being a prerequisite for participation. Missions should be aware of the barriers standing in the way of visitors’ involvement and complete enjoyment of their exhibits, and work to eliminate them to ensure equal access to all.
It is becoming more and more important to investigate the options for gathering information and supporting evidence regarding the economic impact of cultural assets. The use of statistics data intended for other uses is widespread, but as one cultural heritage scholar put it: “This is heroic, but should not be promoted beyond a certain point, and that point has been reached”[11].
Conclusion
In all the nations and cities of Europe, both locals and tourists place great importance on culture. The foundation of their identity and image is their cultural history. In Europe, 40% of all tourist activities are cultural in nature. To achieve equitable and sustainable development, cultural heritage is essential, and it may revitalize cities and entire regions. With the help of a variety of instruments, the European Union (EU) collaborates with cities and regions to support culture financially, increase public awareness of the potential of culture and cultural assets, and develop integrated plans.
References:
C. Iaione, E. De Nictolis, & M. E. Santagati. Participatory Governance of Culture and Cultural Heritage: Policy, Legal, Economic Insights From Italy, Volume 4 – 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.777708
[9] Monaco, P. 2019. Exploring the Links between Culture and Development: New Challenges for Cultural Indicators in the European Union. In Cultural Heritage in the European Union. A Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill–Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004365346_008.
[10] C. Iaione, E. De Nictolis, & M. E. Santagati. Participatory Governance of Culture and Cultural Heritage: Policy, Legal, Economic Insights From Italy, Volume 4 – 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.777708.
Over the years, there has been discussion on whether global warming is a hypothesis or a fact. Global warming and the obvious climatic shift pose as one of the most contentious, ambiguous, and hotly contested occurrences in the world right now, with proponents and detractors taking opposite sides of the issue. The recent suspicious climatic variations, steadily increasing temperatures and depletion of ice cover are indications that the global warming issue may not be a myth after all (IPCC, 2001). One of the most famous and recent such conferences is the Kyoto conference. The 1997 conference led to a partial consensus on global warming as a reality. However, sceptics and climate scientists have stepped forward to disapprove that global warming is in fact a reality and that human activities are responsible for it. This short paper aims to convince those who doubt the notion of global warming that it is a reality and not a myth by addressing the changes in climatic conditions, global temperatures, and greenhouse gases; also, by revealing the sceptics’ claim vis-à-vis global warming to be a myth; the claims of advocates of global warming; as well as the position of the signing Kyoto Protocol to the proponents. Information was collected from secondary data and can be accessed by researchers.
Intro
The concept of global warming has been widely rejected by sceptics and those opposed to it as a mere myth or assumption with no scientific evidence linking it to anthropogenic activities and which is greatly unapprehensive (Wollstein, 2007)[1], despite the fact that its proponents firmly believe that the phenomenon is a reality and is largely responsible for the variations in climate observed in recent years as a result of increased emission of greenhouse gases (Proctor, 2009)[2].
According to Wollstein (supra), the advocates of global warming contend that the irregular climatic variations and global warming are the results of increased human activity, which has boosted greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. The recent climatic variations, steadily rising temperatures, and loss of ice cover are signs that the global warming issue may not be a myth after all. Scientists have not yet produced convincing evidence linking changing climatic changes with the destruction of the ozone layer due to the increased emission of greenhouse gases. (IPCC, 2001). The theory of global warming has received renewed attention in the wake of the 1997 El Nino and other climatic indicators that seem to refute the theory. The global warming debate has led to the organization of a global forum to debate the problems and seek solutions with the shared aim of “saving” the world from impending disaster (IPCC, 2001).
The Kyoto conference was held in Japan in 1997 and attempted to address the global warming phenomena as well as develop adequate solutions. It culminated with the signature of the “Kyoto protocol,” a famous international law intended to stop additional greenhouse gas emissions (COP-3, 1997). Even though the partial consensus on global warming significantly increased the issue’s visibility as a reality, sceptics and several climate scientists have come forward to contest that global warming is in fact a reality and that gas emissions from human activities were to blame for global warming and other climate variations. To convince those who doubt the notion of global warming that it is a reality and not a myth, this paper gives a thorough defence of it. It aims to demonstrate that human activity—in particular, increased emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 is to blame for global warming.
The changes in climatic conditions, global temperatures, and greenhouse gases
The premise that underlies both the global warming phenomenon and the discussion that has followed is the world’s ongoing, unprecedented climate variability (IPCC, 2001). The ideal scenario would be for such climatic changes to be clearly visible and indisputable, even by sceptics of future global warming who have agreed that there are unusual and unmatched variations in the global climate, which have steadily continued to change over the last few decades. However, the observed changing climatic conditions are heavily dependent on global climatic trends observation rather than global climate models. But those who reject global warming have steadfastly maintained that the assertion that climate changes are a direct result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because of increased human activity is false (Wollstein, 2007). In short, they wrote off the global problem as a fiction that is difficult to support with scientific data. However, information on unsettling climatic patterns greatly increased the worry and provided a legitimate platform for those who support global warming to present their case.
Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting global warming, individuals who disagree with the hypothesis have cited two key studies to support their position. In essence, the studies have been disregarded by those who believe in global warming as unreliable and untrustworthy. They leave little room for anyone to draw a conclusion that global warming is a fantasy. Also, despite being the greatest component of greenhouse gases, water vapour has been shown to consistently predict temperature changes, according to those who believe that human activity is contributing to global warming (Wollstein, 2007).
In his book, The Greenhouse Effect, William Archer argues that increased human activity has contributed to a rise in the number and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Archer, 2005; P.J. Hoegh-Baker, et al., 2006). Methane and associated gas concentrations in the atmosphere have unquestionably increased because of emissions from landfills, ruminant animals, rice paddies, natural gas operations, and worldwide wetlands, termites, and water bodies, particularly oceans (Archer, 2005). According to Archer, an increase in the usage of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture has resulted in a rise in the atmospheric concentrations of nitrous oxide and other associated gases.
Furthermore, the absence of any known natural sources for any of the chlorofluorocarbons is strong evidence of the contribution of human activities to global warming. The increased atmospheric concentration of these chemicals is completely due to human activity, as well as an increase in the use of fertilizers in agriculture. The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases keeps the planet warmer than it could be if those gases were less concentrated, according to Proctor (2009) and Hansen (2006).
Evidence shows that periods in the past marked by high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were associated with greater temperatures, and the opposite is true today. If these gases were virtually absent from the atmosphere, the earth’s surface temperature would have been 50°F lower than it is now. According to those who support global warming[3], the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases has the capacity to affect global climate change years after they are released into the atmosphere. As a result, the climate system has a high degree of climatic inertia, primarily because oceanic dynamical processes have long lifetimes. The ozone depletion has contributed to global cooling in a way that is favourable to the notion of global warming (Archer, 2005). There is some evidence that the lower the global temperature is because of their cooling effects, and not because they are damaging to the ozone layer.
The IPCC[4] has concluded that it is impossible to determine the precise role played by human activities, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, and subsequent global warming. However, evidence from climate scientists suggests that during the past decade global temperatures have risen by between 0.3 and 0.7 degrees Celsius (PIRCS, 1998)[5]. The ability and accuracy of climatologists as well as those who support global warming greatly depend on their ability to significantly reduce the uncertainty surrounding the role of changes in clouds, water vapour, ice, and oceanic circulation (PIRCS, 1998), among other factors.
The sceptics’standpoint
Evidence that sulphate particles of sulphur dioxide, which are produced when humans burn coal, have cooling effects and brighten clouds negates the prior claim made by sceptics that there is a strong likelihood that human activity is to blame for global warming. The proponents of global warming formerly claimed that further discussion of the issue was unnecessary. Advocates of global warming tend to view sceptics as either industrial trills, incredibly foolish people, or terrible people who deserve to be immediately silenced. They even suggested that those who disagreed with them should be labelled as Islamic terrorists since their denial would spell the end of humans.
The sceptics argued that the rise in global temperatures over the previous 133 years was visible in the early 20th century, long before the alleged inflation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Satellite temperature measurements from 1979 showed evidence of warming, but critics contended that the latter was only half as accurate as surface temperature observations at the same time. Global warming sceptics argued that the rise in global temperatures over the previous 133 years was visible before the alleged inflation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The claims of advocates of global warming
The proponents of the global warming theory claim that rising levels of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources, are the primary cause of global warming. Anthropogenic sources include but are not limited to emissions from cars, significant industries and factories, barbecue grills, or even the most natural act of breathing. The current deterioration of climatic conditions caused by increased anthropogenic activity and increased atmospheric pollution amply justifies how seriously the global warming issue is being addressed. The advocates have persisted in their efforts to persuade the public that human activity, including the release of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 into the atmosphere, is the primary cause of global warming.
The proponents of global warming tend to view sceptics as either industrial trills, incredibly foolish people, or terrible people who deserve to be immediately silenced. The British foreign secretary once said that those who are sceptical should be punished the same as those who support Islamic terrorism and shouldn’t be allowed access to the media.
The Kyoto Protocol’s signing is a victory for the proponents
The Kyoto Protocol sought to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions. The signing of the agreement fulfilled the conference’s primary goal, which was to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide. The decree effectively obligated all its signatories to act responsibly in the complete control of greenhouse emissions (COP-3, 1997)[6].
Conclusion
The concept of global warming has been rejected by sceptics and those opposed to it as a mere myth. The sceptics have vehemently denied the involvement of humans in global warming even though there is little evidence linking it to anthropogenic sources. The repercussions of global warming, which are ideally demonstrated by sharp and life-threatening changes in the world’s climatic conditions, serve as the best pillars on which proponents can construct their case for global warming. The global warming argument intensified in response to recent exceptional global fluctuations in climatic conditions. The recent suspicious climatic variations, rising temperatures, and loss of ice cover are signs that the global warming issue may not be a myth after all. The time for debating the issue has long since passed, and drastic steps must be adopted to control such activities to prevent the planet Earth from perhaps extinction. All evidence indicates that global warming is not a myth but an unquestionable truth.
References
Archer, D. (2005). “Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time: Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (C9): p.1–6″
Christy, J., Spencer, R., & McNider, R. T. (1995). Reducing noise in the MSU daily lower tropospheric global temperature data set. J. Climate 8,888-896.
COP-3, 1997: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of Parties – 3, Kyoto, Japan.
IPCC (1995). Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate Change. IPCC Working Group.
PIRCS, (1998). Project to Intercompare Regional Climate Simulations, Iowa State University. Web.
Proctor, J. (2009). Is Global Warming a Myth? How to respond to people who doubt the human impact on the climate: Scientific American.
StudyCorgi. (2022). ‘Global Warming is Not a Myth’. 8 June. (Accessed: 18 August 2022).
Wollstein, J. (2007). Global Warming: Myths and Reality, ISIL home.
[1] Wollstein, J. (2007). Global Warming: Myths and Reality, ISIL home.
[2] Proctor, J. (2009). Is Global Warming a Myth? How to respond to people who doubt the human impact on the climate: scientific American.
Rapid economic expansion, urbanization, and population growth have increased the use of (materially intensive) resources and, as a result, the amount of trash released into the environment. Globally speaking, there is a lack of a comprehensive strategy for waste and resource management that addresses the entire value chain of product design, raw material extraction, manufacture, consumption, recycling, and trash treatment.
Also, hundreds of millions of tonnes of municipal solid waste still wind up in landfills, despite the recent growth of the world’s waste-to-energy (WTE) industry. At least 1.3 tonnes more carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere for every tonne of waste that is landfilled. This article gives a general overview of the WTE sector and examines current developments in the US that have reduced mercury and dioxin emissions. In order to advance WTE technology, the recently founded Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council seeks to bring together international academic and industrial expertise
Introduction
Over 600 waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities burn roughly 130 million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) yearly. The MSW produced by the world’s WTE industry has increased by more than 16 million tonnes since 1995. There are WTE facilities in 35 countries, including big ones like China and tiny ones like Bermuda.
Combustible material landfilling must be phased out within a decade, per a European Union directive[1]. It is unclear, nevertheless, whether all the member nations will contribute the necessary money. Some, like Greece, have no WTE capacity at all, while others, like Singapore, have very little. Table 2.[2] displays the installed capacity and per-person use of WTE for disposing of municipal solid waste in the EU as of the present. For instance, the quantity of WTE used per capita in Japan is 314 kg, in Singapore, it is 252 kg, and in the US, it is 105 kg. China is one of the more recent entrants to WTE, with seven units currently in operation and a potential annual capacity of 1.6 million metric tonnes.
The present condition of the world WTE market
The European waste-to-energy (WTE) industry produced over 40 million tonnes of energy per year in 2002. The Brescia WTE facility in Italy is a good example of cogeneration of thermal and electric energies. It provides at least as much energy as is needed for district heating during the cold winter months.[3]
WTE capacity from the US accounts for around 23% of the global total, and 66% of it is concentrated in seven states along the East Coast.[4] (See Table 1).
Mass burning is the most popular WTE method since it is straightforward and has a minimum initial investment.
The annual installed capacity of the most popular grate technology, created by Martin GmbH (Munich, Germany), is around 59 million metric tonnes. One of the newest WTE facilities in Europe is the Martin grate at the Brescia (Italy) facility. A schematic representation of its mass-burn combustion chamber is shown in Figure 1. 32 million tonnes are burned as part of the Von Roll mass-burning operation in Zurich, Switzerland. The combined estimated capacity of all other mass-burning and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) processes is more than 40 million tonnes.
Some environmental groups in the US still oppose new WTE facilities on principle. Landfills, the only other option for disposing of MSW, have much worse environmental effects. At least 1.3 tonnes more carbon dioxide are released for every tonne of waste that is landfilled. Biogas from landfills typically comprises 46% carbon dioxide and 54% methane.[6] A tonne of landfilled MSW has a maximum methane production potential of 62 standard m3 of CH4.[7] 8 billion Nm3 of landfill gas were captured annually in the US in 2012.
Mercury Emissions from landfills:
The majority of the mercury in MSW is in metallic form (fluorescent lamps, thermometers, etc.). At landfill temperatures (40°C), its vapour pressure is 0.007 mm Hg as opposed to 5.67mm Hg for water. A mercury droplet of the same size will evaporate in four weeks if an exposed water droplet evaporates in an hour.
The Next Generation of WTE Processes
A Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility has three times the capital and operating expenses of a coal-fired power station that produces the same amount of electricity. Oxygen enrichment, used in the metallurgical industry, and flue gas recirculation are two ways to increase the turbulence and transport rates in the WTE chamber. The Brescia WTE facility has already used the latter to great success. Martin GmbH[8] is now constructing two “next generation” plants in Arnoldstein, Austria, and Sendai, Japan. Syncom-Plus uses an infrared camera to monitor the temperature of the bed on the grate. It has a complex control system to assure complete combustion and create bottom ash that is nearly fused.
The WTE Research and Technology Council (WTERT)
Waste-to-energy (WTE) is increasingly important to the US economy. There are currently no industrial or governmental research centres dedicated to advancing WTE technology. The WTE Research and Technology Council’s purpose is to promote waste-to-energy technologies’ economic and environmental performance. Creating connections between academic teams working on various WTE technology issues is one of the goals. The Council was formed with the assistance of Columbia University’s Earth Institute (WTERT). The image below is a view of the WTE plant in Brescia, Lombardy – Italy[9]
WTERT is currently supported by its founders, the US EPA, the Municipal Waste Management Association of the US Conference of Mayors, the Solid Wastes Processing Division of ASME International, and other groups. The interactive database “SOFOS,” which offers information on technical papers and studies linked to the integrated management of solid wastes, is one of the services offered by WTERT.
The Earth Engineering Centre, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, and Department of Civil Engineering from Columbia University, USA; the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Temple University in the United States; the Marine Sciences Research Centre at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in the United States; Department of Applied Earth Sciences at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands; The United Kingdom’s Sheffield University Waste Incineration Centre (SUWIC), are now taking part in the WTERT University Consortium. WTERT invites additional universities that share the Council’s objectives to join this alliance.
Conclusion
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facilities burn about 130 million tonnes of municipal trash annually. 47 new WTE plants have begun construction since 2001 or are currently under construction. WTE expansion in the US has been hampered by environmental opposition that ignores the significant decrease in gas emissions made by the US WTE industry because of the adoption of the US EPA regulations for Maximum Available Control Technology and by the fact that current legislation does not acknowledge the significant environmental benefits of WTE, in terms of energy generation, environmental quality, and reduction of greenhouse gases. Significant improvements in WTE technology have been made in recent years, including the utilization of flue gas recirculation and the construction of new plants that will utilise oxygen enrichment of the main air. This group brings together universities that are interested in waste management. The Council was established because of the significance of WTE in the international drive for sustainable development. The Council began its operations by compiling a list of the available research resources as well as the global WTE market. Enhancing the economic and environmental performance of technologies that can be utilized to recover materials and energy from solid wastes is the Council’s overarching objective.
[1] European Union, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the landfill of waste,
Official Journal of the European Official Journal of the European Communities Communities, pp. L182/1-19 (July 1999).
[2] International Solid Wastes Association, Energy from Waste, State-of-the Art Report, www.wte.org
[3] Bonomo, A., WTE Advances: “The Experience of Brescia WTE Advances: The Experience of Brescia” (April 2003), Keynote presentation at the 11th North American Waste-to-Energy Conference, Tampa FL.
[4] Nickolas J. Themelis in Waste Management World (www.iswa.org), 2003-2004. Review Issue, July-August 2003, p. 40-47
[5] International Solid Wastes Association, Energy from Waste, State-of-the-Art Report, www.wte.org.
[6] Themelis, N.J. and H.Y. Kim, “Material and Energy Balances in a Large-scale Aerobic Bioconversion
Cell”, Waste Management and Research, 2002, 20:234-242.
[7] Franklin Associates, “The role of recycling in integrated waste: The role of recycling in integrated waste management in the US”, Rep. management in the US, Rep. EPA/530-R-96-001 EPA/530-R-96-001, USEPA, Munic. Industrial Waste Division, Washington, DC. 1995.
Renewable development has evolved into a typical understanding of the idealistic approach for human long-term development due to the acceleration of the depletion of global energy supplies and the worsening of the climate crisis. The construction industry’s buzzword has been “green building.” Urban construction is moving quickly, and green building is urgently needed. In recent years, green buildings have emerged as a crucial element in the quest for improved durability through increased reliance on renewable energy sources. Several nations have established their own green building councils and guidelines as a general outcome of contributing to the development of green building fundamental concepts. The building industry is responsible for several harmful environmental issues worldwide, and South Africa is no different. To address these issues, which continuously endanger the wellbeing and existence of both people and the natural world, sustainability principles have been introduced. As a sustainable idea, “green building” seeks to address socio-economic challenges as well as environmental ones in the created environment. This short paper assesses the benefits and drivers of implementing green building projects in South Africa. The paper also seeks to highlight a structure that must undoubtedly meet several requirements to be labelled as green, but what are these requirements? What attributes distinguish a green building? It further demonstrates how we can better comprehend how the Green Building Index (G-B-I) rating tool works to lessen a building’s carbon footprint by outlining the six requirements that make a building green. The paper also explains some reasons why green buildings aren’t just good for the planet, as well as how green buildings can help fight climate change. Data were obtained and analysed from books, publications, articles, and reports.
Introduction
A “green” building is one that minimizes or eliminates harmful effects on our climate and natural environment during design, construction, or operation. It can also have positive effects. Green structures protect priceless natural resources and raise our standard of living. The green building strategy, also referred to as sustainable building encourages ecologically friendly and resource-conserving techniques that endure the entire life of a project.
A network of high-quality natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features, built and managed to provide a variety of ecosystem services and safeguard biodiversity in both rural and urban settings, can be widely referred to as “green infrastructure.” In addition to improving community safety and quality of life, green infrastructure is efficient and cost-effective. The goal of green infrastructure, which is a physical structure that allows people to benefit from nature, is to improve nature’s capacity to provide a variety of essential ecosystem goods and services, such as clean water and air.
The nation’s economy is primarily supported by the construction industry, which plays a vital part in that. It is common knowledge that the building sector requires important inputs and outputs.
Providing pertinent structures like schools, hospitals, and other important facilities, which are employed to create commodities and services for the populace, helps to shape the socioeconomics of the residents.[1] But both the people inside and the building itself are affected by the building’s location, materials utilized, and construction methods[2]. The industry has a negative impact on the environment, the economy, and society despite the beneficial inputs and output activities. The building industry uses around 40% of the energy consumed worldwide and emits 30% of greenhouse gases annually, according to the United Nations Environment Programme[3]. Cement and steel are overused in the construction business.
The extensive resource use of developing nations like South Africa results in air and water pollution, land degradation, excessive energy consumption, and the extinction of the wildlife habitat[4]. The concept of green building was developed by professionals in the construction industry to address the need for environmental compliance and attempt to mitigate the consequences of global warming by creating environmentally-friendly infrastructure[5].
Environmental, economic, and social sustainability are the three pillars that make up sustainable development. A crucial tactic for reducing adverse effects and enhancing the sustainability of the construction sector is green building[6]. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency[7], green building is the practice of designing buildings and implementing procedures that are resource- and environmentally conscious throughout a facility’s life cycle. Green construction can lessen carbon dioxide emissions, energy use, water and air pollution, excessive raw material consumption, and other harmful effects on the environment. Implementing and constructing more green structures in developing nations like Ghana and South Africa saves money because they will eventually have a less carbon footprint. The recent construction of infrastructure has given special attention to the green building idea to promote healthy, energy-efficient, and environmentally friendly practices[8]. Due to urbanization and rising energy consumption, it has become essential for the construction sector to implement the green building idea. This study aims to evaluate the advantages and motivators of putting green building initiatives into practice in South Africa.
What are Sustainability Construction and Green Building?
Sustainability is a term used to describe actions taken with the intention of achieving eco-friendliness[9]. The building sector can harm the environment by producing trash, using too many natural resources, polluting the air and water, and causing other environmental harm[10]. It involves the overuse of raw materials, which degrades the land and pollutes the atmosphere.
Green buildings are planned, constructed, and operated to increase productivity and the health and well-being of occupants[11].
2. Benefits of Green Buildings Projects
According to the United Nations Environment Programme[12], the world’s population is expected to expand from 7 billion to 9 billion people by the year 2050. The environment will be strained because of tremendous air and water pollution brought on by population growth. Additionally, it overtaxes the ecosystem by increasing the demand for water, energy, and natural resources. The advantages of green construction are numerous and include the sustainability facets of the economics, environment, and society[13],[14]. Researchers suggested that green construction outperforms conventional building from the building life cycle perspective, and they found several advantages associated with green architecture. Reduced water and energy use, lower maintenance and operating expenses enhanced health and increased production efficiency all have financial advantages that outweigh the additional construction costs needed to satisfy green design standards by a factor of ten.
Additionally, it is asserted that using green building practices results in energy savings of around 30%. Furthermore, Yudelson J, (2010)[15] claims that green buildings utilize between 30 and 50 percent less water and energy than traditional structures. According to a study by Madew R, (2006)[16], energy and water consumption in buildings is reduced by about 60% in green buildings, which greatly lowers operating expenses. He continued by mentioning that green buildings have higher market values of 10% and higher rental rates that vary from 5% to 10%. There are six green buildings using from 25 percent to 75 percent less energy and code-compliant buildings in the United States[17]. Adding to this, Ries R., and Ors., (2006)[18] found that green manufacturing facility by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Buildings (LEED) green rating system reduces energy by 30 percent and increases the productivity of the employees by 25 percent. Like in developed countries, developing countries can benefit greatly from green buildings.
3. Drivers of Green Building
Green building techniques have been steadily used in recent years to reduce the detrimental effects of the construction industry on the environment, the economy, and society. A better and more thorough comprehension of the factors influencing the implementation of green building technologies is required to promote their wide adoption. According to a study by Love[19], the need to improve occupant health and well-being, enhance multidisciplinary collaboration, raise awareness of non-renewable resources, lower total life cycle costs, market research and landmark development, and draw in high-end customers and rental returns are the driving forces behind a green building in Australia. Energy conservation, resource conservation, and waste reduction are the major forces of sustainable construction, according to Manoliadis and Ors., (2006)[20]. Additionally, Zhang X. and Ors., (2011)[21] revealed that the most significant driving factors of green building in the Chinese built environment sector are developing unique green products, reducing construction costs, gaining a competitive advantage, committing to corporate social responsibility, and lowering maintenance costs. According to Serpell[22], in Chile, corporate image, cost containment, and market differentiation are the main forces behind green building. According to Bond[23], the factors that influence sustainable development in New Zealand’s commercial real estate include ecological consequences, tenant demand, financial benefits, corporate social responsibility, and individual beliefs. Based on earlier studies into sustainability, Falkenbach[24] divided the forces behind green buildings into external, corporate, and property-level forces.
i. External Green Building Drivers
The drives that are established by organizations like the United Nations (UN), governments, trade unions, organizations, and businesses engaged in green construction are referred to as external drivers. In recent years, numerous governments have increased their involvement in the creation of green buildings. As a part of encouraging green building technology and energy efficiency, governments also created legislation and policies that provide incentives[25]. In many nations, the green construction phenomenon is spreading, and it is anticipated to expand and incorporate additional regulatory requirements[26]. The necessity to lower the energy consumption of the traditional structures led Europe to be the first region to develop legislation that mandates energy efficiency and comfort upgrades of the buildings[27]. The effectiveness of governmental laws and policies in fostering and advancing knowledge of green building has been demonstrated[28]. The United Nations (UN) has endorsed the Kyoto Protocol, an international policy that calls on all state parties to agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally[29], one of the laws influencing the development and use of green buildings.
ii. Corporate-Level Green Building Drivers
One corporate-level driver that was mentioned by Falkenbach H. and Ors. (2010),[30] is image benefit. One approach to give the property a competitive edge is through uniqueness. In order to succeed in their respective industries, corporations must build a solid reputation. According to Andelin[31], a firm’s corporate image represents its ideals and determines how marketable the company and its goods are. According to Zhang and Ors.,[32] a company’s dedication to green building can be a positive reflection on the organization and developing a positive reputation and being more competitive demands one to adopt a smart green business plan. The business image, culture, and vision are the three main motivators for adopting green construction methods. Investment in green building and achieving high standards for social and environmental performance that draw customers and enhance organizational culture are key drivers for organizations to adopt green building.[33],[34]. A positive public image was found to be the most important factor for construction enterprises to consider when thinking about green practices, according to a study conducted in South Africa[35] A business can improve its reputation by demonstrating its commitment to social responsibility.
iii. Property-Level Green Building Drivers
Due to the advantages green buildings provide, such as reduced environmental impact and higher occupancy costs, stakeholders including tenants are requesting them.
By lowering expenses, raising revenue, and lowering capitalization rates, according to Reed[36], stakeholders can maximize the capital value of the structures. The green building market is driven by the ability of green buildings to lower building operations and maintenance expenses.
4. Criteria that make a building green & reduce its carbon footprint
Reducing a building’s carbon footprint is the goal of the Green Building Index (G-B-I) assessment system. It lists the six criteria that a building must meet to be considered green in Malaysia. What are the criteria that a building must meet in order to be designated as green?
To begin with, a building must maximize its orientation to harvest as much natural light as possible, minimize solar heat gain, and employ renewable energy in building services. The air quality, acoustics, visual comforts, and thermal comforts must all be considered by architects to create a high-quality indoor environment. Also, having good parks and landscaping with greenery and plants fosters a healthy atmosphere. In addition, living close to public transportation encourages individuals to use this type of transportation rather than purchasing their own automobile. Furthermore, reusing and recycling existing materials can help you avoid making new ones, which lowers carbon emissions.
The building needs to be reviewed for a time of at least every three years to maintain its G-B-I certification reason being that a building is given a rating of Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum depending on its score (out of 100).
Future construction will be characterized by green architecture, as everyone aspires to do their part to protect the environment. An environment that is greener and healthier for everyone is a result of more green buildings, which also means a more sustainable lifestyle with lower carbon emissions. Having a green home is a great place to start if we want to make a difference without having to travel far.
5. Why green buildings are beneficial to society as a whole?
The advantages of green buildings for energy savings are now generally acknowledged. According to a study, green buildings can lower city temperatures by up to 2°C. People living in frigid climates may benefit from green buildings since they provide the same advantages as spending time in nature. With plants covering the roof, an uninsulated structure can save money by using up to 5% less energy for heating in the winter. Even in relatively chilly places like Toronto or New York, planting 50% of the roof would help to lower the area’s summertime temperature by around 1°C.
Also, for improved air quality, indoor air pollution is one of the top five environmental threats to human health, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. For instance, in downtown Toronto, a 20% increase in the surface area of green walls and rooftops could significantly reduce indoor air pollution.
Faster recoveries are another advantage of green building. It reveals that hospitals with green infrastructures, like an ornamental green wall, have shorter average hospital stays, quicker recovery times and lower rates of secondary infections. Plants also improve acoustics, aesthetics, and air quality, as well as energise the medical professionals who work there.
Another added advantage of green building is lower emissions. This reveals that a green-certified building emits 62% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the typical Australian building due to the addition of green walls, roofs, and other low-energy interventions. Plants on building roofs and courtyards, as well as permeable outdoor surfaces like soil, rock wool, and vermiculite minimize echoes.
6. How green buildings can help fight climate change
2016 and 2020 were the warmest years since records began, according to NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Buildings produce close to 40% of all greenhouse gas emissions. By building sustainably, we can increase the resilience of our homes and communities while reducing the contribution that buildings make to climate change.
Green buildings generate less greenhouse gas:
A structure’s planning, design, construction, operations, and end-of-life recycling or renewal, while considering energy, water, indoor environmental quality, material choice, and location, are all included in a green building. Green communities and buildings encourage the establishment and preservation of vegetated land areas and roofs, as well as the reduction of trash sent to landfills. High-performing green structures, in particular LEED-certified structures, offer the means to lessen the effects of buildings and occupants on the climate.
Buildings constructed to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards produce fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) than buildings constructed conventionally, according to a study. The credits that promote compact construction and connectivity to amenities and transit help reduce the GHGs related to transportation. The energy—and GHGs—needed to remove, treat, and pump the water from the source to the building are saved when a building uses less water. Additionally, the amount of fuel used to transport materials to and from the structure is reduced.
Beyond what energy efficiency alone does, each of these methods greatly lowers the carbon footprint of buildings and their occupants. Further reductions can be achieved by giving residents feedback through systems like Arc, which displays a building’s environmental efforts and performance. Green construction can contribute to the fight against global warming. Discover more about LEED and the green buildings in your area by looking through the LEED project database.
Conclusion
According to this paper’s findings, the top five advantages of implementing green building projects include better indoor air quality, ecosystem protection, increased energy efficiency, improved health and well-being of occupants, and reduced CO2 emissions. The most important factors influencing the adoption of green building projects are the expansion of financing options, the expansion of the market for green goods and materials, the provision of economic incentives, education and training about green building technologies, and the affordability of green building materials. The results of this study will aid in raising awareness and promoting the adoption and execution of green building initiatives, which could address the serious environmental problems brought on by the operations of the construction sector.
[1] Ofori, G., 2012. Developing the Construction Industry in Ghana: the case for a central agency. A concept paper prepared for improving the construction industry in Ghana. National University of Singapore, 3-18.
[2] Choi, C., 2009. Removing market barriers to green development: principles and action projects to promote widespread adoption of green development practices. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 107-138.
[3] UNEP, 2011. Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
[5] Gunnell, K., Du Plessis, C. and Gibberd, J., 2009. Green building in South Africa: emerging trends. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).
[6] Shen, L., Yan, H., Fan, H., Wu, Y. and Zhang, Y., 2017. An integrated system of text mining technique and case-based reasoning (TM-CBR) for supporting green building design. Building and Environment, 124, 388-401.
[7] USEPA, 2016. Definition of Green Building (Mar. 28, 2017). https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/about.html.
[8] Darko, A. and Chan, A.P., 2016. Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals. Habitat International, 57, 53-63.
[9] De Schrijver, R.E.M. (2009). Green public procurement. The Netherlands: Amersfoort. Developer’s perspective in China. J. Manag. Eng. 31(3).
[10] Aigbavboa, C., Ohiomah, I. and Zwane, T., 2017. Sustainable Construction Practices: “A Lazy View” of Construction Professionals in the South Africa Construction Industry. Energy Procedia, 105, 3003-3010.
[11] MacNaughton, P., Spengler, J., Vallarino, J., Santanam, S., Satish, U. and Allen, J., 2016. Environmental perceptions and health before and after relocation to a green building. Building and environment, 104, 138-144.
[14] Ibrahim, M., El-Zaart, A. and Adams, C., 2018. Smart sustainable cities roadmap: Readiness for transformation towards urban sustainability. Sustainable cities and society, 37, 530-540.
[15] Yudelson, J., 2010. The business case for green buildings. In Sustainable investment and places–Best practices in Europe (88-91). Union Investment Real Estate AG Hamburg.
[16] Madew, R., 2006. The Dollars and Sense of Green Buildings, A report for the Green Building Council of Australia. Green Building Council of Australia.
[17] Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., Griffith, B., Long, N. and Judkoff, R., 2006. Lessons learned from case studies of six high-performance buildings (No. NREL/TP-550-37542). National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
[18] Ries, R., Bilec, M.M., Gokhan, N.M. and Needy, K.L., 2006. The economic benefits of green buildings: a comprehensive case study. The Engineering Economist, 51(3), 259- 295.
[19] Love, P.E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P.A. and Edwards, D.J., 2011. Achieving the green building council of Australia’s world leadership rating in an office building in Perth. Journal of construction engineering and management, 138(5), 652-660.
[20] Manoliadis, O., Tsolas, I. and Nakou, A., 2006. Sustainable construction and drivers of change in Greece: a Delphi study. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 113- 120.
[21] Zhang, X., Platten, A. and Shen, L., 2011. Green property development practice in China: costs and barriers. Building and environment, 46(11), 2153-2160.
[22] Serpell, A., Kort, J. and Vera, S., 2013. Awareness, actions, drivers and barriers of sustainable construction in Chile. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(2),.272-288.
[23] Bond, S. and Perrett, G., 2012. The key drivers and barriers to the sustainable development of commercial property in New Zealand. Journal of sustainable real estate, 4(1), 48-77.
[24] Falkenbach, H., Lindholm, A.L. and Schleich, H., 2010. Review articles: environmental sustainability: drivers for the real estate investor. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 18(2), 201-223.
[25] DuBose, J.R., Bosch, S.J. and Pearce, A.R., 2007. Analysis of state-wide green building policies. Journal of Green Building, 2(2), 161-177.
[26] Andelin, M., Sarasoja, A.L., Ventovuori, T. and Junnila, S., 2015. Breaking the circle of blame for sustainable buildings–evidence from Nordic countries. Journal of corporate real estate, 17(1), 26-45.
[27] Allouhi, A., El Fouih, Y., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., Zeraouli, Y. and Mourad, Y., 2015. Energy consumption and efficiency in buildings: current status and future trends. Journal of Cleaner production, 109, 118-130.
[28] Arif, M., Bendi, D., Toma-Sabbagh, T. and Sutrisna, M., 2012. Construction waste management in India: an exploratory study. Construction Innovation, 12(2), 133-155.
[29] Parnell, P., 2005, April. Sustainability: what’s the fuss all about? In RICS annual conference.
[30] Falkenbach, H., Lindholm, A.L. and Schleich, H., 2010. Review articles: environmental sustainability: drivers for the real estate investor. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 18(2), 201-223.
[31] Andelin, M., Sarasoja, A.L., Ventovuori, T. and Junnila, S., 2015. Breaking the circle of the blame for sustainable buildings–evidence from Nordic countries. Journal of corporate real estate, 17(1), 26-45.
[33] Gou, Z., Lau, S.S.Y. and Prasad, D., 2013. Market readiness and policy implications for green buildings: case study from Hong Kong. Journal of Green Building, 8(2), 162-173.
[34] Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Tan, L.L.G., 2015. Green building projects: Schedule performance, influential factors and solutions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(3), 327-346.
[35] Windapo, A.O. and Goulding, J.S., 2015. Understanding the gap between green building practice and legislation requirements in South Africa. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(1), 67-96.
[36] Reed, R.G. and Wilkinson, S.J., 2005. The increasing importance of sustainability for building ownership. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 7(4), 339-350.
