Today I went to a lunch meeting with the Apps 4 Climate folks. It is basically a challenge for developers to make apps using the vast archive of open data at the Bank.

It was great to see such a motivated team behind the project. We talkedabout the challenge itself, requirements and timelines. It was very appropriate for Habiba Gitay to point out the importance of rightful sourcing attribution (Most times the Bank acts as a portal that archives someone else data). Alex Barth also gave a talk about building maps with World Bank Climate Data (slides here).

The main part of the event were focus groups to brainstorm about ideas and about the potential of such competition. Here are 9+ ideas with mock names to motivate your brain:

1. “Gap Finder“. The Bank has a massive amount of data. But, do we know all we ought to address climate change rightfully? Where are the gaps? There are obviously things we don´t know we don´t know, but there are many we know we don´t know.  The app would poinpoint/rank/visualize these and perhaps try to fill this gaps with proxy data, crowdourcing or advocate to contact those responsible to fill them.
2. “So What“. This is an app thinking from the point of view of average citizen, not researchers, govs or NGOs. What should the average person know about climate change. In general and in particular around a topic or a place.
3. “Climate Birds“. The idea here is to leverage highly motivated specialized groups of people. For example bird watchers. There is a huge outcome if we can find a way to articulate their motivation towards addressing climate change. To increase awareness, to crowdsource data gathering or data verification… Say an app to report location and volume of migratory species, or an app to monitor nesting behavior and match or correlate them to available relevant data.
4. “Climate UI“. An app to weed out non relevant data for your purposes. There are thousands of indicators, countries, years, models, options, documents, … Figuring out which ones are relevant for you, and gathering them is in itself a non-trivial task. An app to help select and provide guidance in this regard would be certainly helpful. Something like VirGo or Simbad in Astronomy, but for climate.
5. “Climate liberator“. With the increasing number of dataset and work being done in the climate arena, it becomes increasingly difficult to decide how to publish your data, with which criteria, where to host it, … This app would guide the whole process and help you create the documentation, as well as streamlining the pipeline to make it available for every one.
6. “What if Calculator“. What if I were to reduce my energy consumption by 40%? What if I use the bike instead of the taxi? What if I use reusable bags instead of plastic ones? Some of this calculations are harder than others, but a qualitative answer is in itself valuable and might also connect to relevant data available in the Bank. Now, what if 10% of the population wold do the same? What would the impact be then?
7. “Climate Changes You“. Most of the apps and effort is put into working the available data, which is mostly national level. However, solutions to climate change are generally local, and we as individuals can help face the challenges. This app would leverage the potential of everyone to fact check and gather data. Just like Wikipedia allows everyone to collaborate in articles, just like OpenStreetMap allows everyone to collaborate maps, this app would allow anyone to collaborate in the data effort for climate. The trick here would be to ensure/address data quality, perhaps with a reputation system on the data and the collaborator.
8. “Climate Cloud“. As data becomes more complex, more used, and more needed, properly hosting and serving the resources becomes a challenge. This app would bring climate data to a dedicated cloud service,with centralized resources to streamline comparisons, calculations, push updates, request explanations, …
9. “Climate fact sheet generator” The Bank has a very nice online API and other resources to access almost any piece of data any time. However, sometimes you need to have offline material for moments and places where there is no resources or time to go online. This app would help create quick fact sheets with the relevant data you choose, for your set of countries, region or the whole world. This app would use the available API and an automated preparation tool like LaTeX or ImageMagick to create quick beautiful handbooks with a few clicks (and a printer, or perhaps a cloud printer)
   

   ¿ Rails+api.worldbank.org+LaTeX ?

10. What other ideas can you come up with? I´ll be glad to include them here*.

*I am tempted to include our Index at the Global Adaptation Institute. Unfortunately, the Index (and its website) is not eligible for this competition, because part of our team at the Institute is related to the Bank. However, the Index is open source and open data (using  also World Bank climate data) , and I would be more than glad to guide anyone to build something on top of it, and present it to the competition. I would actually love that. Including building from our node.js site (source code available on request)

As you can see, and it was specifically mentioned on the meeting, apps can be of any nature, as long as they fulfill the rules. Roughly, I can see a few (interlinked) types of apps:

• Visualization or mapping. Quite powerful as message carriers. There are many amazing tools to make your life easy, like TileMill
• Tools for technical users: To make your life easy to select, download, upload or mine the data.
• Awareness/Advocacy for the general audience: Quizzes, Games, Calculators.
• Mashups: Combine several sources to discover new outcomes.
• Crowdsourcing: Leverage the audience to provide input, not only to consume the output.
• Portals: Index and categorize available data or projects.

Good luck!

You can see now the whole text in the feed.

Thanks @zugaldia for noticing.

[Cross posted at Global Adaptation Institute]

Today I´ve published the article “Más Acción, Menos Palabras,” in the Madrid-based daily national newspaper, La Rázon. One of the goals of the article is that in the wake of no clear path forward on tackling climate mitigation, concrete steps taken by world leaders attending the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting can harness the power of the private sector in helping those most vulnerable adapt to the challenges of climate change and other global forces:

The harsh reality is that, after seventeen annual international [UNFCCC COP] conferences, intentions still fall far behind action. The necessary consensus for taking global steps to address climate change becomes lost among competing agendas. They have become business meetings where solutions are not coordinated. Adaptation is a parallel track, and complementary to tackle climate change.

The meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos this week brings together over a thousand leaders representing many sectors of the economy that drive its evolution. Not surprisingly, one of the issues at the top of the agenda is climate change and global adaptation to this phenomenon.

Read the whole article, in spanish, here.

Nota: El primer borrador del artículo tenía el doble de extensión de la recomendable para su publicación, con más ejemplos y explicaciones de la lógica de adaptación y del papel del sector privado.

Yes, the Sun is pretty active lately. Not many hours ago it did flare on its surface. With such luck that the ejecta pointed towards us. That´s rather unusual considering the tiny size of the Earth in comparison to the huge distance from the Sun.

Origianl source: https://www.facebook.com/game.esp

The flared occurred because a massive magnetic rope emerged from the Sun, it twisted once there and, hence, there was a reconnection (like a shortcut) that liberated huge amounts of energy and light to space. (that´s magnetohydrodynamics 101… the how, no one really knows why)

Right then the Earth reacted to the light. We have an atmosphere to protect us from that massive light in Ultraviolet, but that also can blackout radio communications, heat the outer atmosphere and endanger low lying satellites. Luckily this one wasn´t that big.

The ejecta, a massive cloud of highly magnetized plasma travels through space and hits the Earth (in this case partly sideways). The Earth has its own magnetic field to shield us. That makes the plasma bend towards the poles, where they enter our atmosphere. When they hit the atmosphere it shines (the auroras, greenish/reddish lights in the sky)

Source: http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html

The sun has cycles of 11 years of activity. We approach a peak in the next 2 or 3 years.
btw. There was a hypothesis that the Sun might be an influence in climate change, but it was largely proved irrelevant. If it does, the effect is way smaller than other causes, like us.

If you want to procrastinate more. Here´s the tool I made for shortly before coming to gai.org
The region that erupted is on the upper band, to the right.
http://solphys.nrl.navy.mil/users/bruno/docs/euvi-synoptic/284/movietool.html

Hope my fellow astrophysicists don´t mind my quick & dirty explanation

Subtle but important difference

I predict passwords to be replaced by smartphones with a qrcode-esque solution. Seriously. it.slashdot.org/story/12/01/13…

—
Antonio Zugaldia (@zugaldia) January 13, 2012

I tend to agree, and this is one way, I think, it could work. Just scanning 2 QR-Codes either by using your phone’s camera or the computer´s camera.

Your computer has a camera.

1. The server (e.g. Gmail) asks who you are. You show your QR-code. That code would be created on the phone using the algorithm that changes the patter every few seconds. The QR-code is read by the integrated camera most computers now have.
2. The server accepts the ID, but still needs to confirm he is a trustworthy server and that that the login/QR-code was just not used by someone else. The server connects with the phone (since it knows the info from the QR-code) and send a random number with which the phone makes another QR-Code. The user has to show the new QR-code.You are now sure that the person holding the phone is the person trying to access the account.
   
3. [Extra] The server (or the phone) shows few pieces of information only the user would know. Some correct, some not. If you click the wrong one, you are out. Both server and phone log you out.

If the phone has a camera:

As a research posdoc:

I sent three emails to those places I wanted to work with. Short email with three short paragraphs: My name and affiliation, why I like of what they do and why I think I can help them with their research. CV was linked (not attached to keep the email light)

Two replied and we talked about what I would do and if I could do it. I then requested a visit to the one I liked best so that they knew me and I could know them and the place. They paid the trip and I gave a seminar.

Once back, they offered me a job. Important since you can´t seek or accept jobs while on VWP. In research there isn´t much of a discussion about salary ( ~60k ) or benefits ( health, retirement, life insurance, … ) so it was quite straight forward to sign the offer with the University. Then we had to play a bit of bureaucracy of sending an receiving papers and singing them. The visa is J1 and it’s rather easy if you are a PhD.

I believe the cost was negligible (not the salary overhead, but that´s another story) and time wise the whole thing from offer letter to visa stamp was around 3 months, and included a quick interview at the US embassy in Madrid. Crossing the border involved a short interview but they like and appreciate scientists coming to do science. My place of work also required a security clearance with the DoD. That thing took a bit longer and more documents, so I had to be escorted while on the work place for another month, but it went by quickly.

As a scientist at an NGO:

Some years later I decided to move on.  I met a very interesting NGO at a conference and we talked about common interests. I helped them solve some issues (remotely, from Spain) and they raised their interested and offered a very good position.

I got the offer while in Spain and they sponsored the H1B visa. Until getting the visa I would work remotely (here´s a post about dealing with taxes and other things). Basically the H1B are quite limited but there is a “no cap” exemption for ”nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization.” [8 CFR 214.2 (h) (19) (iii) (C)]. Time wise is around 4 months, but chances are you won´t get it. Cost is around what is mentioned in HN (~5k). Best hiring a lawyer to take care of the whole thing but still be on top of it and read about it.

While the process is running you can´t apply to any other visa. However, you can still enter the USA under the VWP (again not for working , looking for a job or accepting the job, but conferences or turism is ok). The H1B bureaucracy involves several steps like translating your degrees into the US system, posting your job offer in the office and newspaper to search for an american candidate (including salary) and an interview with the US embassy are the most important.

–

Overall I am highly impressed. In principle I would prefer to stay in Europe, but there is just no comparison on the opportunities, and the process is fairly bureaucratic but doable. At least in my case. I suspect the stakes are tougher in CS.

 Report from the World Climate Summit, Dec. 3-4, in Durban, South Africa.

The World Climate Summit (WCS) began with a keynote from President Zuma, followed by a set of 7 high level speakers who discussed how greening the global economy is not simply a reactive “who pays the bill” debate, but a whole new direction for better growth. The question is: is change happening at the pace it could and should, and if not, why not?

The conversation started right on topic with Christina Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, stating that governments are moving slower than what the UNFCCC wants, and much behind of what science says. Businesses, however are moving much faster, in a way that sets the bar, but she urged them to do more.

Juan Costa Clement, Global Leader for Climate Change at Ernst & Young, argued that a prominent agent of that change is transparency, information and advice. Focusing on servicing these three can speed up the process. Once people have full information, they will make the right choices.

He also noted that we should redefine the way we measure economies. Metrics like pure GDP do not take into account factors that we now see to be relevant, like environment and ecological values. Value in these new green economies is created not only by increasing GDP.
 In this regard he also noted that there is a misconception that “green economies” are more expensive than “carbon economies.” Studies by E&Y show that that this is not always the case and, in fact, employment creation potential can be twice that of current carbon-intensive economies.

Barbara Kux, Siemens Chief Sustainability Officer, made the interesting observation that all three recent crises, and actually most others, have in common the absence of long term thinking that includes sustainability.  Not only that, according to their studies, we could reduce global emissions 38% by using technologies that are already here, but underused (e.g. LED lights).
 Paradoxically these viable opportunities to green our economy are not only doable in the short term, but also they are extremely profitable. Independently of COP, the estimations of green market opportunities keep increasing and are already beyond the €3 trillion mark

Elizabeth Littlefield, CEO of OPIC, the US government branch that invests overseas, recalled that last year in Cancún she committed to increase their investment in renewables from $10 to $500 million. She reported that she not only succeeded, but reached $1 billion per year.
 She also commented on the common misconception that green energy is more expensive. In some cases it is, especially if we keep subsidizing non-renewables, but there are multiple cases were it is not. For example, most of the energy in DRC comes from oil that in many cases needs to be flown into the country. How hard could it be to beat that?

Beatriz Perez, Coca-Cola Chief Sustainability Officer made a very pragmatic argument. Greening your company is not only an environmental duty, but it also increases efficiency very fast, allows companies to sell goods at lower prices and helps secure the production pipeline and resources (water security is a great concern for any beverage company). In essence, it brings returns on investments in the short, medium and long term.

Mike Brown, CEO of Nedbank, gave an overview on how his company has worked internally and externally to green its operations and services.

The main message of the panel is that creating green economies is not about about “sharing the burden,” but it’s about realizing there is a whole new way of making things better. It´s about realizing that changing the business model is a good thing, and the time is now. Even putting a price on carbon is not necessarily a cap on economies, it is an incentive for competition on efficiency, on innovation. Siemens noted that already 30% of their revenue comes from renewable energy. This new market is here, it is huge and growing, and it´s a priority at hand.

Roughly 20 minutes of discussion focused on criticism of “the anti climate change mafia,” with strong stances expressed by every panelist and clapping from the audience. Christina Figueres started this discussion when exploring the limitations for faster, stronger action and its consequences.  It was noted that the US generates most of this push back, which harms the task globally. After some debate the conclusion was reached that companies ought to be clear on where they stand, because above all, it´s about “reputation, reality, image and responsibility and truth.”

Reporting from Durban, with contributions from Ian Noble watching from the web.

In the morning I joined the Climate Communications Day. Attendees were mainly environmental journalists.  It is part of a continuing process to assist journalists, especially those from developing countries, to understand both the process of climate change and the state of the negotiations.  After all, what society will hear mostly comes from the media, not scientists directly.

My main event of the day was a discussion of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), sponsored by the IETA and the Standard Bank. Dr. Robert Dixon, from the Transitional Committee of the GCF, gave an informal introduction. There was a panel on the role of the private sector in the GCF that included representatives from KPMG, the Carbon Finance Unit of the World Bank and the Climate Markets and Investment Association.   

There is much hope set on the GCF which is a fund to support mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries. Indeed, the “operationalization” of the GFC and the role of adaptation in it was one of the most salient statements by ICC observers during the Opening Session of COP17.

The GCF was agreed to last year at the COP in Cancún. The target for the Fund is $US100 billion per year by 2020 with the mitigation-adaptation mix being as yet undecided. Developing countries will prepare plans for both Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and the incremental costs arising from climate change should be funded from the GCF. A “Transitional Committee” was directed to draft a governance instrument to translate the political intent into a tangible form, and it is hoped that it will be accepted in Durban.  However, in the initial round of talks several countries, including the United States, Saudi Arabia and the ALBA coalition of Latin American countries sought further adjustments.  Backroom discussions continue.  Some of the objections may be show-stoppers; others may be there as bargaining chips in the wider debate.

Currently no one knows from where the money is going to come. It is clear that the public sector alone won´t reach the $100 billion target. The view of most developing countries is that the funding commitments are the responsibility of the developed country parties (i.e. public sectors) and that this responsibility cannot be transferred to the private sector even in part.  They are also suspicious of funding mechanisms that are derived though market mechanisms as they are seen as neither predictable nor sustainable.  Instead, they prefer direct commitments from developed country public resources – although these are also unlikely to be predictable and sustainable in the current situation – or from international taxes such as on financial transactions or bunker fuels, etc.

Developing country parties are also concerned about access to the GCF by the private sector.  Some developed country contributors would like to use the Fund to transfer resources directly to the private sector, or civil society, within developing countries.  Clearly the recipient country governments would prefer that the resources are funneled through them as they are responsible for implementing their agreed NAMAs and NAPs.  They would be able to support a national company to implement investments that make them more resilient to climate change; but what about a multinational company investing to increase the resilience of its supply chains?  If the multilateral company cannot be supported, can its use of its own resources be counted as contributions to the $100 billion target? A narrow approach to the private sector may restrict financial flows from the public budgets of developed countries, while a more open approach may lead to significant leakage in accounting; both can lead to the target being undershot.

The panel here made the case that mitigation seeks to drive a positive change via a market based mechanism. It then becomes logical to wonder if there could be a market based model for adaptation equivalent to the Carbon Market. Markets are driven by demand, and in the Carbon Market, the demand is derived from caps on emissions. These caps only work when there is global consensus and will to move ahead. The Carbon Market depends on a COP consensus, which of course, is the other focus the Durban meeting.

What transpires to me, is that you can continue to pursue consensus after COP, debate short and long term goals, facilitation measures, penalties for non-compliance or withdrawal, and so on.  OR we can focus on pragmatic measures; on real local solutions driven by experience and evidence. It appears that the many unilateral steps to do this are the first steps to achieve the same goals as those of the COP; i.e. a climate resilient future. The solution come not from consensus, but from pragmatism. This is what GaIn was designed to aid — to navigate reality and measure what matters to adaptation and the private sector.

From the panel discussions it was apparent that there was indeed a growing interest to bring both adaptation and the private sector to the table. Probably 60% of the time was spent on this.  An unfortunate side effect of the tussles in Durban is that the wider challenge of how to engage and support the private sector, particularly in appropriate adaption activities, is not getting the attention it deserves.  The NAPs need to identify truly ‘national’ adaptation plans with the roles of government, private sector and civil society identified and adequately supported.  Let us hope that the GCF governance is resolved in Durban and we can focus on the challenge of real action on the ground.  After all, a navigation tool like the GaIn is only useful on a ship that can actually leave the habour.