Click to join our community


Saving rainforests by not wasting money.

Do you believe that tropical countries should be rewarded for preserving their rainforests in their original state?

Do you believe that donations should pay for rainforests and not for administrators?

Do you believe that it is unacceptable that only 10% of environmental donations reach the rainforest?

If so, then join us in developing a web app that delivers money more directly to the rainforests!

Previous
Next

21st century solution for the rainforests

You will already know that the tropical countries and their rainforests have been doing a great job over the past centuries in sequestering (removing) carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to limit the rate of climate change.

It is only in recent decades that they are looking to gain economic value from their land through deforestation.

You may not know that this is not only accelerating us towards an environmental  tipping point, but also it is creating increased disease pressure.

Industrialised countries deforested their ‘wild woods’ centuries ago.  Furthermore their increasing use of coal and other fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has caused the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to rise sharply.

If you’re anything like us you will agree that it is not unreasonable that if the industrialised world wants the tropical countries to preserve their rainforests with their carbon sequestration and biodiversity they should stop preaching to them and start paying more for it.

You may be shocked to learn that current off-setting and international funding schemes with budgets running into the billions only deliver around

30% of their received donations with some dropping as low as 10%. The remainder is swallowed up by “the system”.

You would think that there has to be a 21st century solution that can deliver more money to the forest floor and that loses less money to “the system”. Surely there must be a simple app that delivers your money directly to the people on the forest floor.

Well the good news is that one is on the way in the shape of our web app whose goal is to deliver at least 50% of the donated money to the rainforest during the pilot phase rising to 70% once we start to scale things up.

As we don’t have all the answers it would be great if you were to join our community which will help us to put the finishing touches on our app before we launch it.

Also check out our other web pages which include a gallery of stunning photoscalendars, creative art and a library of our favourite YouTube videos.

If you have any questions, check out our faq page. If you can’t find what you’re looking for there, please use the email icon in the header to send us an email.

Join our community to be part of this exciting project.

Previous
Next

Why?

Over the last 4,000 years europe has reduced its forest area from almost 100% to 45% coverage to create economic value from the land.

The global forest easily absorbed the rising emissions until the industrial revolution in the 18th century saw a steep climb.

Things have deteriorated over the last decades as tropical countries have started to clear their forests to gain economic value. The reaction of the industrialised nations has been to criticise and sanction them.

We, at selvador, believe that the industrial world, instead of sanctioning, should be incentivising the tropics to maintain and increase their stewardship of the rainforests.

The name, selvador, is a word smash between selva (spanish and portuguese for jungle) and salvador (spanish and portuguese for saviour).

How?

We are looking to build a community of enthusiasts to join us in developing a novel tech model which will channel funds directly to the forest floor. 

We want to bypass the bureaucracy that results in many off-setting and international schemes’ delivering 30% or less of their revenue to the target communities that are the rainforest stewards. 

What (our mission)?

To use technology to connect our subscribers to the rainforest floor with the aim of generating funds to incentivise communities and landowners to preserve rainforests in their natural state.    

Our Values

What we value:

What we don’t:

Our Who

Jim

Having spent 30 years in the food supply chain I have become very aware of the need for environmental balance. For me the protection of the rainforests is the key to preserving that balance

Donald

During my 42 years as a leader in the Costa Rican banana industry coupled with my education as a Biologist, I came to appreciate the need to work in partnership with the rainforest with the aim of preserving its biodiversity.

Jacqui

Having run companies that have supplied supermarkets with fresh produce, I am very aware of the environmental impact and the need for transparency in everything that we do.

Abi

I am a Psychology graduate from loughborough university. My role is to use social media to connect with and grow our subscriber group. i also create the look and feel of the website pages.

Joe

An experienced network and systems project manager who has implemented large scale projects including hosting, securing and maintaining bespoke web applications.

Join our community:

signup for our blogs, newsletter & forums!

Videos



Frequently asked questions

1. general

  • a. why the name Selvador?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • b. why are you covering only Costa Rica?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • 2. environment

  • a. what does sequestration mean?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • b. how much do the rainforests contribute to carbon sequestration?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • c. why do you feel that there is a need to say thank you to tropical countries?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • d. Won’t mass reforestation mess up the natural carbon cycle?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • e. what about wildlife?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • f. you talk about local communities. where do they fit in?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • 3. tech

  • a. you mention tech solutions for channeling funds to the tropics. what is this tech solution?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • b. so why do you not just launch this tech solution?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • 4. security

  • a. how do I know my personal details are in safe hands?

    why pick on coal?

    of all the fossil fuels used in power generation coal is the dirtiest, emitting the most kg CO2 /kwh (kilowatt-hour)

    the coal emissions per kwh vary depending on the source.  so, for the sake of ease I will make the acceptably accurate assumption that for every kwh of electricity generated, coal emits 1kg CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. 1.0 kg CO2 /kwh.

    again, data sources vary on the emissions from natural gas but if you assume it is around 0.3 kg CO2 /kwh you won’t be too far wrong.

    coal emissions

    in 2018 global emissions from coal fired power generation rose 2.9% to over 10 gigatonnes (gt). this is more than one quarter of total annual global CO2 emissions, including transport, industry, belching cows and all.

    if one couples replacing coal-fired power generation with renewable energy sources and reforesting the tropical rainforests to the levels in the 1950’s net carbon it would reduce emissions by more than 50%.

    biggest culprits

    so which countries are the primary offenders? the table below shows the 10 countries that firstly meet the threshold of 250,000 gWh (gigawatt-hour = 1 million kWh) of total electricity generation per year (2017 data) and secondly generate more from coal than from renewables. it ranks them in order of ratio of coal generated energy to energy generated from renewables (not including nuclear)

    [table id=1 /]

    what is the prospect of changing?

    the table below shows the commitments called nationally determined contributions (ndc) under the paris agreement. these originated from the conference of parties meeting in paris in 2015 (cop21 paris). based on 2017 figures (the most complete data) it outlines the size of the reduction needed in mt (megatonnne = 1 million tonnes) to meet their ndc targets (estimations from a number of available data sources). it then compares this with the reductions that they would achieve if they just replaced coal as a generation fuel with renewable energy sources.

    [table id=2 /]

    noteworthy pondering points:

    • the usa withdrew from the paris agreement in 2017.
    • The global CO2 (all countries) emissions from coal in 2017 amounted to around 9.9 Gt CO2 e (Gt = gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes). the top 10 offenders (including the usa) above constitute 85% of that total
    • as a group, if the 9 of the top 10 who remained within the paris agreement were to convert coal power generation into renewable energy generation, they would achieve nearly 70% of their ndc without doing anything else.
    • 6 of the 9 would more than achieve their ndc if they were to replace coal with renewable energy sources.
    • since 2017 the use of coal has shown a decline in power generation. low natural gas prices and more recently the coronavirus pandemic have driven this decline. on 11th february 2020 power generation from coal was surpassed by that of renewable energy in the usa. while promising it remains to be seen if this continues when the economy re-opens.

    final thoughts with a final question:

    • the removal of just one fossil fuel can achieve most of the reductions in the paris agreement.
    • the paris agreement reduction of the Top 10 (or 9) only takes us around a quarter of the way to global net carbon neutrality (around 40 gt CO2 e)
    • the deadline for all countries, under the paris agreement, to phase out coal is not until 2040.
    • did the paris climate agreement concede too much to economic interests?

    data disclaimer

    as ever with climate change data you can look at 10 different data sources and come up with 12 different figures. so, while I have done my best with the accuracy of the data it is at best directional. but it is sufficiently accurate to illustrate the points being made. also, I have used 2017 data as this is the most up to date complete data that covers all the countries

  • Submitted Successfully

    We will respond soon