Social acceptance of renewable energy: Some examples from Europe and Developing Africa

Current energy systems are in most instances not fully working sustainably. The provision and use of energy only consider limited resources, risk potential or financial constraints on a limited scale. Furthermore, the knowledge and benefits are only available for a minor group of the population or are outright neglected. The availability of different resources for energy purposes determines economic development, as well as the status of the society and the environment. The access to energy grids has an impact on socio-economic living standards of communities. This not fully developed system is causing climate change with all its related outcomes. This investigation takes into consideration different views on renewable energy systems — such as international discussions about biomass use for energy production, “fuel versus food”, biogas use — and attempts to compare major prospects of social acceptance of renewable energy in Europe and Africa. Can all obstacles to the use of renewable energy be so profound that the overall strategy of reducing anthropogenic causes of climate change be seriously affected

Creating market for biodiversity by using habitat banking: preliminary assessment of applicability to Finland

The aim of this study is to make a preliminary assessment of the applicability of habitat banking in Finland. The pros and cons of the mechanism as well as the most essential aspects from the Finnish perspective are assessed. The study concludes that habitat banking is one of the mechanisms which could be used in Finland to prevent or slow down the degradation of biodiversity. The mechanism includes ecological and economic risks, and thus the possible implementation in Finland should be preceded by a careful and relatively long-lasting piloting phase. Habitat banking could be used as a mechanism to compensate direct or indirect ecological harms caused to conservation areas e.g. by large scale infrastructural development projects or to compensate negative impacts of peat production. Furthermore, it could be used to compensate harms caused by large-scale development projects to other sites with specific ecological importance. However, the application of the mechanism should be carefully defined and restricted so that compensation demand would not lead to the hindering of ordinary economic activity