A “CityTree” that is like a Green Wall

Would a “CityTree” that is like a Green Wall, provide an environmental impact equal to that of up to 275 normal urban trees.  in any case this has begun being used to filter toxic pollutants from the air of some cities in Europe and possibly alleviate Climate Change.
The decision of Donald Trump to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement was not a surprise. It was part of his electoral campaign anyway.  It is still too early to assess the consequences of the withdrawal from a text that will not take effect until 2020.  By the way, that will be election year when D. Trump would go back to the polls for presumably a possible second mandate.
Meanwhile, China’s commitment would be beside the fact that its leaders have expressed their disappointment and concern at the announced withdrawal of America from the Paris Agreement, part of all those countries who intend to support it.
There are several reasons for this.
The first reason is institutional. For Beijing an agreement signed by several countries in an international forum is worth more to the Chinese leaders than bilateral commitments.  The second reason is environmental and is obvious that pollution is at unprecedented levels in that country, recurrently causing social tensions mostly related to the quality of air or water, power or respect for nature.
Would we be wrong if we assume that D. Trump envisages building a number of these walls?
An CNN article written by Chris Giles, CNN and updated on June 8, 2017 is about a particular solution that could make some difference to the issue of air pollution.  It is per this article already being put to use in Europe. 

This ‘tree’ has the environmental benefits of a forest

The “CityTree” has the same environmental impact of up to 275 normal urban trees. Using moss cultures that have large surface leaf areas, it captures and filters toxic pollutants from the air.

CNN) Air pollution is one of the world’s invisible killers.

It causes seven million premature deaths a year, making it the largest single environmental health risk, according to the World Health Organization.

In urban areas, air quality is particularly problematic. More than 80% of people living in areas where pollution is monitored are exposed to air quality levels that exceed WHO limits. And given that by 2050 two thirds of the global population will be urban, cleaning up our cities’ air is a matter of urgency.

One well-established way to reduce air pollutants is to plant trees, as their leaves catch and absorb harmful particulates.

But planting new trees is not always a viable option.

That’s why the “CityTree”, a mobile installation which removes pollutants from the air, has been popping up in cities around the world, including Oslo, Paris, Brussels and Hong Kong.

A CityTree in Paris, France.

Moss is in the air

Each CityTree is just under 4 meters tall, nearly 3 meters wide and 2.19 meters deep, available in two versions: with or without a bench. A display is included for information or advertising.

Berlin-based Green City Solutions claims its invention has the environmental benefit of up to 275 actual trees.

But the CityTree isn’t, in fact, a tree at all — it’s a moss culture.

“Moss cultures have a much larger leaf surface area than any other plant. That means we can capture more pollutants,” said Zhengliang Wu, co-founder of Green City Solutions.

The CityTree includes Wi-fi enabled sensors that measure the local air quality.

The huge surfaces of moss installed in each tree can remove dust, nitrogen dioxide and ozone gases from the air. The installation is autonomous and requires very little maintenance: solar panels provide electricity, while rainwater is collected into a reservoir and then pumped into the soil.

To monitor the health of the moss, the CityTree has sensors which measure soil humidity, temperature and water quality.

“We also have pollution sensors inside the installation, which help monitor the local air quality and tell us how efficient the tree is.” Wu said.

Its creators say that each CityTree is able to absorb around 250 grams of particulate matter a day and contributes to the capture of greenhouse gases by removing 240 metric tons of CO2 a year.

Read more in the original document.



Solar Power production and storage

In our article A Clean Energy Revolution is Underway  we tried to elaborate on Solar Power production and storage that is getting preponderant in our life literally by the day.  We are increasingly seeing how Energy is more and more appreciated but from as clean a source as it can be mustered by the available technology and like for anything else, it is no more a matter of generation but rather of storing or stock piling what has been produced.  In this particular case it is about batteries and / or different types of batteries. Here are some of the most noteworthy ones to date.
“To smooth out the production of a solar plant on a 24 hours basis, store a day production of electricity at night. For this batteries are a Classic solution.”  said André Gennesseaux of Energiestro, specialist in the field for 15 years explaining in an article in French of EDF’s Electrek  post.  This is Voss, rewarded by EDF Pulse 2015 priced invention.
Alternatives abound such as for instance the beautiful promises of the hydrogen to address the Intermittency of renewable energy, hydrogen could be the ideal solution to store excess production of wind turbines or solar power stations. EDF has also committed on this topic via its Electranova program.
More recently, Tesla TESLA TESLA BATTERY  commissioned researchers hit good results with a revolutionary battery system.  This is elaborated in this proposed article of electrek posted on May 9, 2017 written by Fred Lambert .  Here it is reproduced for its obvious interests, etc.

Tesla battery researcher says they doubled lifetime of batteries in Tesla’s products 4 years ahead of time [Updated]


Almost a year into his new research partnership with Tesla, battery researcher Jeff Dahn has been hitting the talk circuit presenting some of his team’s recent progress. We reported last week on his talk at the International Battery Seminar from March and now we have a talk from him at MIT this week.

He went into details about why Tesla decided to work with his team and hire one of his graduate students, but he also announced that they have developed cells that can double the lifetime of the batteries in Tesla’s products – 4 years ahead of schedule.

Update: Dahn reached out to clarify that the cells in question were tested in the lab and they are not in Tesla’s products yet.

During the talk titled “Why would Tesla Motors partner with some Canadian?” – embedded below, Dahn explained how they invented a way to test battery cells in order to accurately monitor them during charging and discharging to identify causes for degradation.

Like he admitted in his talk at the International Battery Seminar in March, Dahn doesn’t claim that he understands perfectly the chemistry behind the degradation, but the machines that they developed enabled them to test new chemistries more accurately and much faster – resulting in significant discoveries for the longevity of the cells.

One of his students working on the project went on to work for Tesla’s in-house battery cell research group and another started a company to commercialize the battery cell testing machines that they developed. Their client list includes Tesla, but also Apple, GM, 24M, and plenty of other large battery manufacturers and consumers.

In the second half of the talk, he explained how their new testing methods led them to discover that a certain aluminum coating outperformed any other material. The cells tested showed barely any degradation under high numbers of cycles at moderate temperature and only little degradation even in difficult conditions.

When it was time to talk about how those discoveries are impacting Tesla’s products, Dahn asked to stop recording the talk in order to go into the details.

While we couldn’t get that valuable information, when they started recording again, it was for a Q&A session and the first question was about his team’s ultimate goal for the lifetime of li-ion batteries.

He hesitated to answer, but then he said:

“In the description of the [Tesla] project that we sent to NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) to get matching funds from the government for the project, I wrote down the goal of doubling the lifetime of the cells used in the Tesla products at the same upper cutoff voltage. We exceeded that in round one. OK? So that was the goal of the project and it has already been exceeded. We are not going to stop – obviously – we have another four years to go. We are going to go as far as we can.”

This is impressive, especially since their research partnership started only in June 2016 and in February 2017, Dahn said that his team’s research is already “going into the company’s products“ – just a month after Tesla and Panasonic started production of their new ‘2170’ battery cell at Gigafactory 1 in Nevada.

It’s not necessarily related, but the timing is certainly interesting. It can take some time for products successfully tested in the lab to make it to production products.

It’s also important to note that Dahn’s research was focusing on Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) battery cells, which Tesla uses for its stationary storage products (Powerwall and Powerpack), and the first cell production at Gigafactory 1 was for those products.

Dahn explained that by increasing the lifetime of those batteries, Tesla is reducing the cost of delivered kWh for its residential and utility-scale projects. He gave examples of the costs at $0.23 per kWh for residential solar with storage and $0.139 per kWh for utility-scale, based on Tesla’s current projects:

For the batteries in its vehicles, Tesla uses Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) and Dahn said that they are also working on this chemistry. Tesla and Panasonic are planning to start production of battery cells for vehicles, starting with the Model 3, at Gigafactory 1 by June 2017.

He added that considering Tesla’s use of aluminum in its chassis, there’s no reason why both the cars and the batteries couldn’t last 20 years.

Here’s the talk in full (update: MIT made the video private after we published our article):


Further reading :

How clean is solar power? The Economist wondered in an article dated December 10, 2016 http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21711301-new-paper-may-have-answer-how-clean-solar-power where all production parameters were critically reviewed in the light of their impacting Climate Change in the process of manufacturing of the necessary hardware.



Awareness of Early warnings of an out-of-control climate

An article about climate change concerns published by EINNews of NEW YORK, USA, on April 16th, 2017 gives us in more alarming details the latest intellectual as it were developments of the thinking in the domain of climate change control and awareness to its occurring before our eyes.  These are about and as title of this new book as the Awareness of Early warnings of an out-of-control climate .
First let’s get the basics such as by The European Commission in one of its numerous pages declares that :
Humans are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth’s temperature by burning fossil fuels, cutting down rainforests and farming livestock.
This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Greenhouse gases

Some gases in the Earth’s atmosphere act a bit like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun’s heat and stopping it from leaking back into space.
Many of these gases occur naturally, but human activity is increasing the concentrations of some of them in the atmosphere, in particular:
  • carbon dioxide (CO2)
  • methane
  • nitrous oxide
  • fluorinated gases

Early warnings of an out-of-control climate

— Global warming is edging perilously close to out-of-control, according to a growing number of scientific reports from round the planet, a leading science writer has warned.
“Time is running out if we want to preserve our world in a stable, healthy and productive state, capable of feeding and supporting us all,” says Julian Cribb, author of ‘Surviving the 21st Century’, a book on the ten greatest challenges facing humanity and what we can do about them.
“The great concern is the rapid rise, over the last three years, in methane levels in the atmosphere. Methane is a gas with 28 times the planet-heating power of carbon dioxide. Scientists estimate there may be as much as 5 trillion tonnes of it locked in permafrost and seabed deposits.
“There is mounting evidence that, as the planet warms due to human activity, these vast reserves of greenhouse gas are now starting to thaw and vent naturally. The Earth’s past history indicates this could unleash runaway global warming, driving up planetary temperatures by as much as 6-9 degrees Celsius.
“At the upper end of such temperatures, some scientists consider there is a high risk the planet would become uninhabitable to humans and large animals,” Mr Cribb says.
“Runaway heating and nuclear war are the two most likely triggers for human extinction – and it is time everyone took them both a lot more seriously.”
Reports of methane escaping into the atmosphere have been growing steadily, ever since a group of students demonstrated the risks by setting fire to venting Arctic gas in 2008. However, scientists report a sudden surge in global methane emissions in the last three years, 2014-16.
“So far the rise in methane has been attributed mainly to cattle raising, rice farming and gas extraction – but there is now disturbing evidence that more gas is emerging from Arctic soils as the permafrost melts, and from the seabed where methane has been trapped as ice for millions of years.
“Russian scientists have reported the discovery of thousands of potential ‘methane-bombs’ – frozen gas-filled mounds – across Siberia, primed to erupt as the ground thaws out. A one degree increase in global temperature is enough to thaw out an area of permafrost the size of India.
“Swedish scientists have observed the waters of the Arctic ocean ‘fizzing like soda water’ as the currents warm, causing frozen seabed methane to turn back into gas and erupt.”
Mr Cribb says that so far humans have released about 2 trillion tonnes of CO2, which has warmed the planet by one degree C. By 2040, we will release another trillion tonnes and push the planet’s temperature up by 2 degrees or more.
“This we can possibly control, by cutting back on our use of fossil fuels and by ceasing to burn coal,” he says. “However, there is no way to stop the methane venting naturally from the seabed and permafrost once it starts – and there are potentially 5 trillion tonnes of it.
“This phenomenon is known to scientists as the ‘clathrate gun’. If it fires, the fate of the entire human species is in question.”
Mr Cribb said that technical difficulty in measuring the Earth’s natural methane emissions and estimating the size of its reserves has until now led to the gas being discounted, or downplayed, in warnings about dangerous climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other agencies.
“That time is over. We are now witnessing early warning signs of major methane release. If it gets out of control, there will be nothing humans can do to prevent the planet overheating quite rapidly.”
Mr Cribb said it was more urgent than ever that governments and corporations of the world unite to combat climate change. “The recent Climate Turning Point report says the world has until 2020 – just two and a half years – to reverse global carbon emissions by cutting fossil fuel use. Time is running out – and the methane gun makes matters all the more urgent.
“This means that countries like America and Australia have to cease their dangerous do-nothing policies, countries like India and China need to stop building coal-fired power stations immediately – and every country and business needs to make a far greater effort to scale back its carbon emissions.
Surviving the 21st Century (Springer International 2017) is a powerful new book exploring the main risks facing humanity: ecological collapse, resource depletion, weapons of mass destruction, climate change, global poisoning, food crises, population and urban overexpansion, pandemic disease, dangerous new technologies and self-delusion – and what can and should be done to limit them.

More information:
Publisher: Dr Sher Saini, Springer International, New York,
email: Sherestha.Saini@springer.com
Author: Julian Cribb, +61 418639245 or Julian.cribb813@gmail.com

Further reading as recommended by EINNews :


Julian Cribb

email us here

[the_ad id=”24213″]


Green Building – More Than Just a Trend

In the MENA countries, some concerns about sustainability started to be heard of, back in the 1970s. it was in fact more of a follow-on trend than anything else.

European consultants however started ringing the bell about the 4 factors that lie behind the lack of progress but that have to be addressed at the earliest.  These are:

  • Lack of adequate legislation to enforce change towards incorporating sustainability
  • Absence of any discernible incentive towards sustainability
  • Unbalanced subsidies on energy, water, etc. leading to wastage
  • Limited awareness of environmental issues.

Nevertheless some legislation that was sporadically taken in certain countries, apart from not being regionally coordinated, did not also confront the real issues and for lack of not taking account fully the reality as it stands on the ground was across the board fairly ineffective.

The truth is that people slowly come to realise that we are having a devastating impact on the planet that we live on. In less than 2,000 years, human kind has led to the extinction to more species from the face of the earth than its entire existence. Considering that this is just a tiny bit of the overall time for which our planet exists, this is something that raises a lot of concerns. It’s obvious that people start to take initiatives through different LEED programs, sustainable development and through prioritising investments in different green initiatives. One of the most impactful fields is the construction. With this in mind, some things need to be pointed out.


Green Building – The Things to Consider


The truth is that green building, especially in Europe, has become something far more than just a simple development trend. And, of course, this is quite logical. It has paved the way for an approach which entails building homes and commercial constructions tailored to the demands of their time – not just to the demands of the occupants. And this is something that has to be particularly appreciated. The advantages are multiple.

Water Conservation

It’s worth mentioning that it’s estimated that the lack of fresh drinking water is going to be one of the tremendous burdens for future generations, should we keep wasting it with the temps we are right now. Recycling rainwater, for example, can preserve potable water and yield tremendous amounts of water savings which is definitely to be considered.

Emission Reduction

Fossil fuel emissions contribute to development and furthering of the biggest environmental burden of our times – global warming. Harmful emissions directly impact the quality of the breathable air and bring in a lot of different threats to human’s health such as lung cancer and other respiratory issues.

Storm water Management

This is also something that you might want to account for. Green building as defined in the majority of the LEED Programs can help manage storm water runoff. The latter can cause waterway erosion as well as flooding. The most troublesome thing, however, is that it could introduce potentially dangerous pollutants to water sources, hence incentivising potential diseases outbreaks.

In any case, Europe is definitely riding the wave when it comes to sustainable development, and you can easily observe this in a range of national and multinational projects. What is more, the Union is leading active policies, and it is actively funding initiatives in this particular regard through a range of different grants targeting both individuals and corporations. This is something particularly important. However, the same needs to be employed throughout the rest of the world as well. We can observe companies pioneering the field of sustainable development, and the examples here become more and more. This is definitely something particularly important, and it needs to be taken into proper consideration when it comes to it.

Thousands Marching for Native Nations

The Native Nations Rise march was the culmination of a week of workshops, actions, and prayers to battle for native rights in the face of the right-wing Trump administration and the ongoing fight. [ . . . ]

This most beautiful article produced and published on Friday, March 10, 2017 by Common Dreams and written by Nika Knight, staff writer about Thousands Marching for Native Nations, a movement of populations reacting to the newly elected president of the United States standing for the Big Oils forcing their way with a pipe-line through indigenous lands in the Dakota plains.

We would take this opportunity to remind that the right of marginalised indigenous individuals as well as communities are almost unknown or unheard of in the MENA region populations. The very best example that could laid out for illustration would be the Kuwaiti Bidoons that are by the way found in pockets in almost all countries of the Gulf, Palestine and North Africa.

We recommend reading the article in its original setting for a better appreciation of the embedded message of justice, and eventually provision of some equity as it were in our consumption of the environment.


‘We Exist, We Resist, We Rise’: Thousands March for Native Nations


‘Standing Rock was just the beginning’


The Native Nations Rise march was the culmination of a week of workshops, actions, and prayers to battle for native rights in the face of the right-wing Trump administration and the ongoing #NoDAPL fight.

The march began at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters and ended at Lafayette Square, in front of the White House. En route, demonstrators erected a tipi at the Trump Hotel to “reclaim stolen land”:

Afterward, the rights and land defenders marched on to the White House:

The march culminated in a rally at Lafayette Square. Indigenous people and protesters spoke, prayed, played music, and repeated calls for environmental justice, sovereignty, and a meeting between President Donald Trump and leaders of tribal nations.

“Standing Rock was just the beginning, “said a journalist with Indigenous Rising Media, speaking to a plaintiff in one of the multiple lawsuits against the U.S. government for permitting the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction.

A live broadcast of the march and rally can be found here. Throughout the day, participants and journalists are also posting photos and videos of the action under the hashtag #NativeNationsRise:


Technosphere from a Geological Perspective

How best to start this article on the Technosphere from a Geological Perspective than by quoting this paragraph of that other article titled “Harvesting the Biosphere: the Human Impact” of Vaclav Smil. It goes like this: “Five thousand years ago the earth most likely contained fewer [ . . . ]

How best to start this article on the Technosphere from a Geological Perspective than by quoting this paragraph of that other article titled “Harvesting the Biosphere: the Human Impact”  of Vaclav Smil. It goes like this:

“Five thousand years ago the earth most likely contained fewer than 20 million people; at the beginning of the common era the total was about 200 million; a millennium later it had risen to about 300 million; in 1500, at the onset of the early modern era, it was still less than 500 million, and one billion was passed shortly after 1800. In 1900 the total was about 1.6 billion, in 1950 2.5 billion, in 2000 6.1 billion, and in 2010 it approached 7 billion. Consequently, there has been a 350-fold increase in 5,000 years, more than a 20-fold gain during the last millennium, and roughly a quadrupling between 1900 and 2010.”

It is now quite obvious that human presence on earth as evolved during the recent millennia has in an indelible way been marked for good on the earth’s crust. Unlike the lengthily debated climate change veracity, the now known as technosphere (see below) is for all to see and appreciate literally with the naked eye. The question would be that of whether this human activity induced layer of technosphere be uniformly spread through the world’s continents, regions of the lands and oceans. Or on the contrary, there are areas with thicker layers as opposed to others elsewhere.

A short article of the WEF written by Robert Guy, Content Producer, Formative Content and published on Friday 3 March 2017 is straight forward and quite educational.

Somebody finally measured humanity’s impact on Earth. And here’s the answer

New research has weighed up total material output from human activity Image: REUTERS/Faisal MahmoodWe know that no other species has had so great an impact on the planet as us. What we haven’t known – until now – is how to quantify that impact. Thanks to the estimates in a new report, however, we can now place the sum total of our material output on Earth at over 30 trillion tonnes.

Who came up with the number?

The research was published in the Anthropocene Review, a scientific journal that gathers together peer-reviewed articles on the nature of the current geological epoch, one defined by the presence of man.

While our biosphere would incorporate the total mass of all living things on Earth, the technosphere includes the summed material output of the human race. It’s this that the research aims to calculate.

Image: Statista

Biggest material contributors

The report breaks down the human effect into different aspects of activity. Here are the top 10 aspects, visualized in the Statista chart above. Urban areas have the greatest impact by far (at 11.1 trillion tonnes) with rural housing coming second, at 6.3 trillion. The authors note that while these numbers are difficult to guarantee with precision, they are of the correct order of magnitude.

A weighty issue

In the present day, the biomass of the entire human race is approximately equal to 300 million tonnes. This is more than double that of all large terrestrial vertebrates that lived on Earth prior to human civilization, and an entire order of magnitude greater than that of all vertebrates currently living in the wild.

At 30.11 trillion tonnes, the size of the technosphere is five orders of magnitude greater than even that. It is the equivalent of every single square metre of Earth’s surface being covered with nearly 50kg of matter.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide makes up just a small part of the technosphere, and our production of the harmful gas currently sits at 1 trillion tonnes. Although that only contributes to one-third of the total, it is still enough to balance out 150,000 Egyptian pyramids. It is also enough to fill a layer approximately 1 metre thick across the entire planet – a layer that grows thicker by a millimetre every fortnight. And that’s not even counting the quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions that sink into the oceans.



The US commitment to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change

The US commitment to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as signed off at the COP22 seems to be dependent on the recently invested president of the country. Should we, in all humility, remind that on 5 October 2016, the minimum required for this agreement [ . . . ]

The US commitment to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as signed off at the COP22 seems to be dependent on the recently invested president of the country.

Should we, in all humility, remind that on 5 October 2016, the minimum required for this agreement were effectively reached and these now are up and running as of November 4th, 2016. The ensuing conference (COP22) in Marrakesh consecrated that.
The Paris Agreement brought for the first time all nations representatives to sit together in a single hall and agree on a course of actions on a global climate effort.  Is this now in jeopardy?
This article of the Brookings PLANETPOLICY published on February 24th, 2017, of which excerpts are reproduced here, does help to enlighten us on the possible and as put by a US media on the “potentially deep fissures developing in the international consensus” with far reaching outcomes due basically to such lack of commitment on the rest of the world and to the detriment of all.


American soft power, the Paris Agreement, and climate finance under Trump

by Timmons Roberts and Caroline Jones


The Trump administration might think that the United States can’t afford to maintain our pledged contribution to climate aid, but what we really can’t afford is to walk back on that commitment. The real costs of retreating from the Paris climate treaty—the geopolitical, humanitarian, and domestic economic costs—far outweigh the relatively small amount of aid that the U.S. has previously agreed to contribute.

To renege on our commitments to climate finance made in support of the Paris Agreement would weaken America’s ability to muster enthusiastic support on important international policies we might care about. Flash forward a year, when the U.S. administration is attempting to lead on a policy it cares about, and requires some willing allies for a coalition to put boots on the ground, or wants votes in the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. Which countries will be there when we need them?

If we stop or sharply reduce our funding to the world’s most vulnerable and poor nations as they struggle to cope with rising intensity of heat waves, sea level rise, strengthened hurricanes, and crop-withering droughts, we will be party to a preventable humanitarian crisis. The poorest nations were scarcely responsible for creating the problem of climate change, and they are ill prepared to handle the consequences. To be isolationist and shortsighted on the question of climate change will bring blowback beyond what we can afford. Adhering to the Paris Agreement and meeting our climate finance pledges will in the end be far cheaper.


Many governments are watching closely to see if the new administration in Washington will choose to remain a party to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Already, some foreign negotiators have said that, if President Donald Trump refuses to play fair on climate change, they similarly won’t cooperate on other global issues, like trade and security. The deal struck in Paris was a delicate one, but in the end nearly every nation on Earth agreed that it was in their interest to be part of a collective effort to avoid the most dangerous impacts of heating the planet with unrestrained fossil fuel consumption. The innovation of Paris was that the whole agreement is built on voluntary national pledges, called “nationally-determined contributions.” The only binding part of the entire package is that actions toward meeting those pledges must be reported transparently back to the U.N. agency that coordinates the process, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Paris Agreement also calls for five-year reviews of progress toward its ultimate goal of keeping average global warming below 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C).

Early in the Paris text, there is some language that “[s]upport shall be provided to developing country Parties” by developed countries to help reduce their emissions and cope with the impacts of climate change with finance that is adequate to those needs. The agreement reaffirms an earlier collective pledge from the developed nations to jointly provide $100 billion a year in grants, loans, and investments in developing countries, from public and private sources.

The authors are : Timmons Roberts, Nonresident Senior Fellow – Global Economy and Developmenttimmonsroberts and Caroline Jones, Researcher – Climate and Development Lab, Brown University