UPDATE: SATURDAY 25^TH OCTOBER 2008: THE FIRST CURVED FOLDING IS PERFORMED BY INDUSTRIAL ROBOTS

Expect more updates as we progress the technology; a demonstration day will be organized in the next few weeks…Videos of the fold are up on the web on youtube:

Original blog posting - Written by Karla Bell on Wednesday, 23 July 2008

Efficient car manufacturing using curved folding technology
The efficient manufacture of vehicles will be essential and “Curved Folding” developed by Gregory Epps, recently graduated from the Royal College of Art, Industrial Design Engineering Department in London maybe the technology that allows vehicle manufacturing set-up to become flexible, fast, efficient and cost effective.  Curved folding eliminates the need for expensive retooling with each vehicle type, the largest expense in car manufacturing. Gregory Epps said in an article published in Eureka Magazine by Tom Shelley 13th of August 2007, that, “Apart from doing away with the need for press tools – which typically represent 70% of car body panel costs – the curved folding methodology produces parts that cannot be produced by pressing”.

In the future vehicles will utilize a variety of fuels such as: ethanol, electric-petroleum, natural gas, bio-diesel or hydrogen. Car companies will have to produce a range of vehicle running on different fuel types. Vehicle manufacturing will need to become flexible and adaptable to produce the range of small, medium and large vehicle in whatever fuel source is available.  Tom Shelley further noted that, Epps said that, “By manipulating sheet metal with robotic arms, complex sheet metal forms can be created, with curving folds that avoid the need for press tools.  While applications are mainly seen in low production run automotive body panels at present, the technique could be applied to anything made out of sheet metal.  “His professed goal now is to take the method and turn it into an industrial process – To do this, Epps has been developing technology that will put the process into the grippers of industrial robots.  “Once computer modeling is used to predict the behavior of the deformed sheet so that it can be guaranteed to deform as required, it becomes a rapid manufacturing system, he points out, and one that could be used to produce one-offs, or many-offs, without the need to fabricate press tools.  With pressing, you are limited to a minimum draft angle, to be able to get the tool and panel apart,” Epps explains. “But with curved folding, you can make an enclosed volume. One of the interesting things about this method is that it is possible to use it to make parts that crumple in a predictable way, so you could make safer cars.”

The U.S. is emerging as a major player in the global efforts to combat Climate Change. Today the Canadians asked to join the U.S. Emissions Trading scheme, which does not even exist just yet, although planned for 2009.

“Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Thursday called for a North America-wide plan to curb CO2 emissions linked to warming” Such is the clout of the U.S. even though Canada is a Kyoto nation and the U.S. is not yet. Canada wants to be linked into whatever program the U.S. wants to adopt in 2009.

“We want to work with the Americans on regulatory systems relating to greenhouse gas emissions in order that we can work toward the same goals,” said Harper.

“We want to work with the next US administration and we hope that there will be a continental approach in the future,” Mr Harper told reporters.

Canada has a plan to cut emissions by 20% based on 2006 levels, by 2020.

The Canadian baseline, set at 2006 underlines my view that there is a need for legislative harmonization of Emissions Trading schemes, within the US, North America and indeed within the Kyoto Protocol, which has a 1990 baseline. Harmonization would assist in making carbon a global fungible commodity.

(more…)

The last post, “The Presidential Candidates on Climate Change”, noted bi-partisan support for Cap and Trade legislation to be enacted in 2009 with a target of 60 or 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Beyond the cap a consensus exists also for the target to be reached with 15% offsets of CO2e from projects from overseas. What does that mean?  In Kyoto Protocol speak it would amount to either the US accepting the existing CDM process or allowing for offsets to be purchased from developing countries, which is effectively the same thing. Simon Dawes, contributing author explains the benefits of CDM and new methodologies called programmatic CDM, which will allow multiple projects to proceed. (Editor Karla Bell)

The first concept of a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was for developed countries to support the clean tech projects in developing countries through technology transfer and by the purchase of Certified Emission Removals (CERs) from implementation and operation of CDM projects. Developed countries and organisations can use CERs to offset some of their own emissions and comply with the obligations of emission trading schemes (such as the EU ETS) and with the Kyoto Protocol. There has been some criticism of the CDM, (greenwash, approval of projects that would have happened anyway), but the overwhelming sense of independent reviews is that the CDM has been a success - almost too successful for its own good.

(more…)

Today a webinar by the American Bar Association on the position of the Presidential Candidates on Climate Change was hosted. The panelist, representing the position of the McCain campaign was the adviser R. James Woolsey to the McCain Campaign, (A Venture Partner in VantagePoint Venture Partners, McLean, Va). The panelist representing the position of the Obama campaign was Kenneth Berlin, Adviser to the Obama Campaign, (From Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Washington, D.C). The two panelists each spoke outlining their respective campaigns positions and then questions were submitted.

There was considerable agreement about Climate Change, in fact neither side presented a dissenting view on the science of Climate Change, so that war has been won. In fact the commonality of view was quite striking although some specific program initiatives differed.

The McCain campaign adviser James Woolsey put it very directly “there is a massive opportunity to restructure huge industries like oil, natural gas and electricity, which have business plans from the 19^th century”.  The track record of McCain was mentioned pointing to the McCain-Liebermann bill. James Woolsey quoted Thomas Friedman, an excellent speaker, advocate and writer on the case for the Clean Tech sector, especially energy efficiency to be the next trillion dollar industry. Friedman has been quoted as saying, “Not since the American civil war have we funded both sides, referring to the war on terror”.

James Woolsey further stated that the reason for moving in this direction were overwhelmingly compelling - for reasons of National Security, Climate Change and the Price of oil. Woolsey talked about breaking the oil monopoly and he should know. He referred to it as a non sensical reason to go to war. In the same way today we would consider the idea of going to war over salt, the commodity in the 19^th century, which was the only preservative for meat, prior to refrigeration.

The Obama campaign adviser Kenneth Berlin, focused on the development of the Clean Tech sector and how it would deliver Green collar jobs and revitalize the economy through investment in clean technology.  Berlin stressed international negotiation and cooperation and providing industry with certainty.

However, beyond the questions of approach they both said their respective Presidents would engage in the process of the post Kyoto agreement via an identical process of engagement with the world via the G8 first. It was said that everything hinged on the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen in December 2009, which was all important to the post Kyoto negotiations.

Both also said they would adopt domestic US legislation in 2009 prior to attending this meeting and that U.S legislation will come into force in 2012 in line with the post Kyoto 2012-2017 time line.

As you drill down to the detail, pardon the pun some differences emerge. Kenneth Berlin for Obama said that, “their legislation would be very ambitious and that they would introduce a ‘Cap and Trade’ Emissions Trading scheme with an 80% target.  (I missed the baseline or it wasn’t stated). They will auction 100% of the permits and allow pre-allowance revenue in 2011.

James Woolsey of the McCain campaign stated that, “they also had a Cap and Trade scheme with a 60% reduction target. (Again the base year was unclear). The auction process will be phased in and the proceeds of the auction will go to less carbon emitting technologies including nuclear, carbon sequestration carbon capture, renewable energy and natural gas

Both have included a purchase of 15% of offsets domestically (perhaps energy efficiency) in the case of Obama and in the case of McCain agricultural offsets domestically will be accepted, the rural lobby no doubt working here.

Further rhetoric followed by both sides about US leadership and creativity and the opportunity to lead by example.

Interestingly, both have agreed to a 15% purchase of CDM credits, which indicates a softening position on China. There was talk of China and both seemed to accept CDM as a measure, previously a sticking point for the USA and a reason for not ratifying Kyoto. The US-China 10 year Clean Tech agreement signed a couple of weeks ago seems to have changed all that. (Discussed on this blog).

Another question that was not settled, but seemed to be moving in the direction of U.S. National legislation superseding U.S. state legislation. This is pertinent as California has adopted only a week ago the Western Climate Initiative and the North Eastern States have adopted the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

At the level of programmes differences emerged and can be summarized as follows.

The Mc Cain campaign is more pro-nuclear, pro oil-drilling and has set aside $2 billion dollars for carbon capture. McCain has a “DARPA” funded competition - a moon project - to discover the key to the long-life of batteries for electric vehicles. There are tax credits for hybrid / flexible vehicles and corporate tax cuts to stimulate the Clean Tech industry sector.

The Obama campaign accepts nuclear with conditions on dealing with the waste and nuclear proliferation. Obama is low key about offshore oil-drilling but accepts it as part of the mix.  Obama has a Renewable portfolio standard, with targets of 10% by 2012 and 25% by 2025. There is a goal for a 10% reduction of Greenhouse Gases from fuel. Obama has a plan for $ 15 billion to go into Clean Green jobs via investment in Clean Technology. There is a smart grid commitment and a bio-fuels mandate that does not raise the price of food in the process.

Both Campaign are definetely trying to grapple with the tripple reasons for action energy security, climate change and the price of oil

A Chinese commitment to Clean-tech and a new US-China 10 year Trade Agreement have sparked stories about the next trillion dollar industry whilst, the market was experiencing its worst conditions since the great depression.

This week, U.S. trade officials estimated the value of China’s clean technology market at $186 billion by 2010, soaring up to over half a trillion dollars by 2020. The Green Chip Review, ran a story on the “next half a trillion dollar” opportunity. Clean energy in China will be worth $555 billion-or over half a trillion!-in the next twenty years.

What is happening in Clean-tech in China?

After the Olympics finished on August 29^th the Communist Party leadership in Beijing passed what’s known as the Circular Economy Law (CEL), which will stimulate national clean-tech spending through efficiency and emissions regulations. The C.E.L. is aimed at setting China on a more sustainable path towards national wealth and power and takes effect on January 1^st 2009.

The Chinese have embarked on the following in support of Clean Energy.

• A renewable energy budget of $293 billion for the next 12 years
• A 15% renewable energy target for 2020
• A $205 billion environmental protection budget through 2010
• A new “circular economy law” that forces industrial enterprises to adopt water-saving technologies, strengthen management, and install water-saving equipment in new buildings and projects

The U.S. Government was not absent in picking up what was happening in China, in fact it was concluding a successful trade mission with the signing of a  10-year framework agreement that will expand cooperation into areas such as clean electricity production and transmission, as well as efficient transportation.

The U.S. Deputy Commerce Secretary David Bohigian lead the Mission of 19 clean energy and environmental protection companies such as General Electric (NYSE:GE), 3M (NYSE:MMM), Honeywell (NYSE:HON), and other companies with worldwide wherewithal to help China reach its goals while boosting their own shareholder value.

Statements along the lines that China can’t do this alone were the reason touted for the US-China agreement. This is in contrast to the stated reason the Bush administration used to reject Kyoto. President Bush used China’s lack of initiative regarding clean technology as their main reason for not ratifying Kyoto. Now, the US is signing a decade-long clean technology cooperation agreement with them. Apparently, China does have progressive energy policies and targets after all.

Another way of looking at this same dynamic is that China is creating demand for US technologies and that although China is the biggest competitor to the US in global economic power, the Kyoto Protocol and CDM with this 10 year Framework Agreement to use US technologies may mean the US could really benefit from this next trillion dollar industry. A partnership approach with China would be the basis, for the top 2 global polluters developing a cooperative model on sustainable energy. This approach would allow the US to sign up to CDM in its own best interests

Up until now, some of those critical of Kyoto and CDM have said that if the US joined it would join in the wealth transfer from the 1^st world to the developing world, which involves a transfer of technology and a transfer of real dollars to developing countries like China and India. Under the Kyoto Protocol, CDM allows for 1^st world nations to buy carbon credits from carbon offset projects like wind, solar, landfill in developing countries, as it can be more cost-effective to purchase a ton of C02e reduced from a developing country to meet their targets. There are many sites on CDM where debate is fierce. See Business Green,  Wikipedia, The Great Asian Carbon Swindle

Europe has been reaching its targets in this way. According to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development 19^th February 2008, the value of the global carbon market in 2007 was  worth €40.4 billion and CDM accounted for approximately €12 billion.

Remembering the fact that China has 1.3 billion people and powering their economy is the main way of bringing people out of poverty, if done with renewable energy and the help of US Clean tech companies, we could have a win-win for the stock-market and the planet.

The Carbon markets are continuing their rapid rise in the face of the economic meltdown. Initiatives are taking place throughout the US that will have far-reaching and beneficial effects on arresting the development of human induced Climate Change.from regional initiatives to voluntary standards.

However, does it matter that these standards vary, baselines differ and the sectors that are covered vary also. Or is it, just the way market formation occurs in the US, starting with different state-based activities, which over time will merge into a US-wide compliance market. Additionally, how will these US regional carbon schemes link into the global Accord the Kyoto Protocol? Or Won’t they?

Where do voluntary schemes fit in? Do they fall by the way-side, No, not if an 800 strong on-line webinar hosted by APX, Carbon Finance and Eco-System Marketplace that took place this morning is anything to go by.  This webinar was absolutely fascinating describing the various Voluntary markets. Go to APX site for download.

Voluntary markets are driven by the demand by large Corporations going ‘carbon neutral’. Corporations unable to reduce emissions sufficiently internally but nonetheless want to be good corporate citizens buy offsets of C02e emissions to balance their emission books from all kinds of projects, the most popular being energy efficiency and methane projects.

Examples of voluntray standards include the Gold Standard, Voluntary Carbon Standard, CCB Standard , a forestry standard and other standards under development include urban forestry and agriculture. Voluntray standards have in common some kind of broader benefits beyond reducing carbon that makes them appealing.

However, let’s return to the recently passed bill, the Western Climate Initiative 23^rd September 2008 in Sacramento, California, where, “Seven Western states and four Canadian provinces proposed a comprehensive program to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, manufacturers and vehicles. The plan is aimed at cutting the region’s carbon emissions below 2005 levels by 2020″.

The Western Climate Initiative has a base year of 2005 below, which emissions have to be reduced. This is a different base year to the Kyoto Protocol countries, which have a base year of 1990. Under the Kyoto Protocol developed nations except the USA have to reduce emissions on average by 5% on 1990 levels. Does it matter that the base year is different in the Western Climate Initiative?

After the US elections in November the relationship between state-based US Climate Bills and the Kyoto Protocol, the global accord will be looked at, whether it is John McCain or Barack Obama, as both are committed to Climate Change legislative Initiatives. No doubt, seeing this the Europeans will want to talk to the US about harmony - harmonisation on many things will be on the agenda I suspect. How will the US link into the global accord?

Do baselines matter? May be or maybe not. Or is this just a negotiating point.

The Western Climate Initiative is hailed by Arnold Schwarzenegger as much broader than the Regional Gas Initiative (RGGI) discussed on this blog by David Poloncartz, launched recently by 10 Northeast states of the US. RGGI has a narrow focus of sectors capping emissions from power plants mostly. (rggi.com). The Western Climate Initiative according to Mr Schwarzenegger has boldly stated we are much broader in the number of sectors we cover.

Is it about politics, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement,. “We’re sending a strong message to our federal governments that states and provinces are moving forward in the absence of federal action, and we’re setting the stage for national programs that are just as aggressive.”

Does the Western Climate Initiative headed by California believe that it’s program for action, will become the blueprint for the rest of the USA. To be fair the initiative is similar to other global initiatives in so far as the basic idea, “is to allow industries that emit greenhouse gases to buy and sell credits for their emissions. Businesses that cannot cut their emissions enough can buy the right to pollute from cleaner companies”.

Supporters say the program will combat global warming, spur green technologies, clean up the region’s energy supplies and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

The start date for the Western Climate Initiative is also interesting - Jan 1^st 2012, far enough out to for the detail and changes to be made post the U.S. election. Interestingly, the start date for the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme was initially set for 2010 but 2012 is looking more likely. This happens to be the same year as the end of the 1^st commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Next year in Copenhagen the Conference of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol will meet and hopefully the US will attend formally, to decide the program for the next commitment period for the targets for the Kyoto Protocol from 2012-2017.

So maybe different kinds of Climate plans are enacted but sit on the shelf waiting to be implemented until after we see what happens globally at the end of  2009 in Copenhagen for the next period.

Interestingly, in the wake of the financial melt-down, the US will probably have to be in many ways more cooperative than unilateral as all these issues dovetail into each other at the global level, climate change, energy independence, and terrorism. One tends to have to be more cooperative when financially strapped. Unilateralism only works when you are flush with cash - cooperation works when times are tough.

My next blog concerns the fascinating potential for the about face on CDM, the US could make in its own best interest.

EcoSecurities Report on Carbon Offsetting Trends Survey 2008

EcoSecurities and Climatebiz released a  report titled: Carbon Offsetting Trends Survey 2008. The report concerns the trends in the Voluntary Carbon Market. The data was collected from 65 large and multinational organizations. The responses were collected via an online questionnaire posted on www.greenbiz.com, www.climatebiz.com, www.cleantech.org, www.ecosecurities.com, www.2degreesnetwork.com between the 23rd July 2008 and 22nd August 2008. In addition, EcoSecurities also directly emailed more than 300 contacts from their own in house database in order to ensure the response sample was geographically and sectorially diverse.

The report paints a bright future for the Voluntary market in the US and North America particularly, which is growing and developing in response to companies indicating they will become carbon neutral. EcoSecurities is one of the largest and leading organizations in the business of sourcing, developing and trading emissions reductions or carbon credits. Their portfolio covers Voluntary markets such as the Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and in the Kyoto compliance markets the Clean Development Mechanism or (CDM) credits.

According to the report, “88% of responding companies are either offsetting/looking to offset or would consider offsetting in the future. In contrast, only 4% of the sample surveyed would never offset. If 74% have already implemented internal emission reduction activities, the fact that 56% of companies already offset or will consider offsetting in the next 1-2 years suggests that offsetting is valued as a complementary part of an organization’s overall carbon management strategy…Companies are planning ahead with regards to their offsetting, which is a good  thing. 25% of companies are planning to offset in the next 1-2 years“.

The Survey’s respondents showed that, “the most important and effective emissions reduction activity was energy efficiency at 33.9% compared to only 8.7 % of respondents indicating interest in renewable energy. Another interesting finding is that, “the most desirable location for emission reduction projects is in North America. It seems that US buyers desire most to purchase offsets from domestic projects. The least preferable ‘not preferable’ ratings were Australasia, the Middle East and Western Europe”.

Dr Jan Hamrin, from the Environmental Tracking Network of North America commented at a private luncheon hosted by Neal Dikeman, CEO of Carbonflow in San Francisco in September 08, “that adding renewable energy to the utility grid still faced decade old challenges with the lack of investment in infrastructure for transmission lines out to renewable power suppliers“. This remark seems to be in common with the Ecosecurities report findings that perhaps, utilities did not provide or were slow to respond in a number of ways including:  ”the lack of choice of competitive renewable tariffs from electricity suppliers”, which would encourage renewable energy uptake.

The report emphasized the importance of energy efficiency and the use of offsetting under the Voluntary Carbon market as a very powerful tool for companies to use in addition to work on absolute internal emission reductions and carbon footprint analysis.

However, there are issues with the on-going use of energy efficiency in the future in California, which concern how these Voluntary Energy Efficiency Credits would work with the new CA Cap and Trade system.

The future use of energy efficiency credits in the Voluntary market under a proposed California, Cap and Trade system requires that regulators understand the issue of how to deal with ‘double counting’ on the one hand and how to manage the issue of ‘verification’ on the other.

The issue of “double counting” has been best addressed in a Linked-In discussion by Cleantech.org called, “Discussion on energy efficiency carbon credits in the California Cap and Trade”, Simon Dawes of Carbonflow has commented that concerns about double counting on energy efficiency credits under a Cap and Trade system in CA can be worked through.

He states that, “Double counting is clearly the issue that drives concern over this process. In essence, if an energy efficiency program receives credits under a cap and trade system (when it is within the cap) and no other action is taken then double counting can happen. The energy provider sees a reduction in attributable emissions and the end user gets a credit to sell to someone else.

However, depending on the design of the system this effect can be readily prevented. Essentially, if the issue of an energy efficiency credit is matched by the cancellation of an emission permit or a reduction in the cap then double counting will not occur.

An alternate process could include the requirement that all energy efficiency credits are acquired and retired within the sector where they are created. The cancellation process is adopted for international trade in JI credits (one sending country reduces its cap and the receiving country increases its cap) and with the Voluntary Carbon Standard where a Volintary Emission Reduction originating from within a capped sector of an economy has to be matched with the cancellation of a regulated compliance instrument. Exactly how energy efficiency projects can be included depends on the design of the cap and trade scheme. Critical issues are banking and borrowing of permits, the balance of free allocation and auction of permits, and how the cap is managed over time. In any case, there are measures whcih can be taken to allow energy efficiency proejcts to operate within a capped sector without double counting”.

Simon Dawes, was an auditor with DNV for over 12 years, specializing in auditing of the emerging carbon markets before joining Carbonflow.

Dr Hamrin, in May 24^th 2007, in a report, “The Potential for Energy Savings Certificates (ESC) as a Major Tool in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs”, indicates support for this view where she says that, “Energy efficiency savings that meet additionality standards and have not been claimed elsewhere could be sold/traded in the voluntary GHG emissions market”.

The second issue is a practical one concerning verification. Both the EcoSecurities and the Hamrin report commented on the time and cost of the verification of micro-generation of energy efficiency credits from project activities for the VCS market.

Dr Hamrin’s, report elaborated this issue as follows, “Some of the major barriers to utilizing energy savings was the instituting of a rigorous system of energy savings evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) as it introduces additional costs, while at the same time, there are also benefits associated with greater certainty of the energy savings results that give these programs greater credibility”.

Neal Dikeman CEO, of Carbonflow has been aware of this problem for some time and has successfully set up a company, which in part will address the issue of verification of micro-credits. He has said that the ‘Carbonstep’ software is designed to automate and reduce the transaction of collecting energy efficiency micro-credits at the utility level”.

My conclusion, from this report is that there needs to be great attention to making sure that when mandatory systems are put in place some of the good initiatives that have thus far occurred in the voluntary market are not lost.

Clean living is part of everyday life, the human and environmental interface is the juncture between you and the planet.

It is the interface we all have everyday with our environment.  Some articles in this section will be practical such as ‘what (not) to eat’, ‘what (not) to wear’, ‘what you build’ and ‘how you transport yourself around’.

Other aspects will be cultural not just ancient cultures, how do and will certain cultures relate to the environment. An interesting segment just released this morning, radio National ABC, Sydney Australia from the United Arab Emirates was about a 900 hectare live-in zoo development. A zoo environment as a native habitat for humans - with mountains and lakes and many wild animals. Just as people are collecting seeds to maintain earth’s bio-diversity, zoos are now the repository for many endangered and in some cases extinct species in the wild. The necessity to expand Zoos as safe havens for wild life I understood, but as a  form of property development!. It never occurred to me nor did I think it would appeal to people. Living with Lions and Cheetahs would be interesting. Other cultural attitudes will be looked at also. We all live on the planet - so there is no wrong or right way to preserve the environment.

Clean living, which is situated in this blog, which is mostly concerned with the macro Global and National perspectives on Emissions Trading as a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol to combat Climate Change, can provide a link between the macro and micro. The mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI) under the Kyoto Protocol at heart rely on projects to be done to reduce emissions. These projects at this phase of the game are undertaken by what is considered to be out of the hands of ordinary people, the electricity sector, the oil / gas and energy sectors, but this will change as the big chunky emission reductions, the low hanging fruit are exhausted. In time what people do everyday, the micro credits, will become much more of a focus. There  will be interest by macro-economic players in your everyday habits as the whole global economy is transformed into a trillion dollar industry that is now opening up in the wake of the economic meltdown.

Resource Economist, Planner & Author

Ms Hoisington is a resource economist, planner and author with 20 years of field experience in the US, Asia, Africa, Former Soviet Union and Europe. She has worked with numerous development agencies, including The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), several bilateral aid agencies, including USAID, DGIS (Netherlands) and GTZ (Germany), as well as with United Nations agencies, the European Union, non-governmental organizations and commercial firms.

Hoisington has participated in national planning and policy work and sector studies (World Bank and DGIS-funded National Water Resources Planning work in Indonesia, National Water Resources master-planning in Egypt and Turkey, World Bank Forestry Sector work on several projects in India and the first World Bank Agricultural Sector Studies in Russia and Kazakhstan). She has been resource economist, environmental economist and/or regional planner on project preparation and implementation teams in Africa, Asia and the former Soviet Union, and she has been team leader on numerous occasions, including for large multinational teams. She has been economist on planning projects to clean up (Suzhou Creek; Yunnan Lakes) and/or reduce sediment transport (Yellow River) in rivers in China with Delft Hydraulics Institute.

All of Hoisington’s work has included report-writing and often aural presentation. Most papers have been part of loan project preparation work (The World Bank, ADB, others) or sector studies (The World Bank) or national planning agencies (Indonesia, Egypt, China, Sri Lanka, etc.) and as such are not public documents. Some work has been published, including a book, listed below. She has been involved in teaching, training and capacity-building activities on many of her assignments. She now lives in Sydney, Australia.

GHG professional

GHG professional with broad experience in general management, engineering design and construction, quality, safety and environmental management for a broad range of industry and service sectors. Recent experience in the review and assessment of climate change related projects and activities, specifically in the verification of greenhouse abatement projects, emission inventories and greenhouse lifecycle inventories; review of regulatory compliance; assessment of the effectiveness of projects and formulation of critical improvement recommendations.

These activities at a project and corporate level have significant interaction with the broader strategic opportunities for organisations exposed to climate change regulation. This has extended over recent years to involvement in the development of corporate social responsibility standards and the assessment of corporate social responsibility reports