Call for papers: Special issue on CCS Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change”
The Journal for Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change will be publishing a Special Issue on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in 2011. The Special Issue is entitled “Five years after the IPCC Special Report on CCS: state of play”. The editors are looking for a broad range of review articles that examine and analyze the developments in a variety of CCS-related areas and/or build on the review done by the IPCC in 2005.The articles will be subjected to normal peer review.
———————–
The timeline for submitting articles is as follows:
October 30th 2010First submission. It is possible to send an abstract to the editors in advance for an early quick scan
November 2010Editors send the selected papers to reviewers
March 2011Final submission by authors – June/July 2011Publication
The aim is to have a critical review of several topics in CCS, for instance(but not limited to):
·Overview of technical progress in the field of capture technologies in power systems and/or in specific industrial processes
·Review of storage integrity studies: Is the “fraction retained” outcome in the IPCC Special Report still suitable?
·Economics of CCS, including retrofits versus new power plants with CCS
·Review of assumptions in scenario studies: what explains high CCS, high nuclear or renewable
·Biomass and CCS: what can we expect in terms of short- and long-term feasibility?
·CCS-readiness: what does it mean in practice?
·Insights from research on public perception, community engagement and communication issues around CCS
·Knowledge sharing, capacity building and technology transfer: How realistic is CCS in emerging economies and developing countries?
·Government policy and industry business models for CCS
The UN FOUNDATION has a question to you. They want to know if you think that climate change is everybody’s business, and then traps you into having to decide to let the money be distributed by the UN, as a help to its member State Governments.
We thought that this is a really interesting question and that our readers may have ideas of their own which we hope you could pass to the UN Foundation for consideration.
The UN Secretary-General and his climate finance advisers are exploring private financing options to deliver resources to combat climate change. Developing countries pledged “fast-start” financing — $10 billion per year for the next three years, growing to $100 billion annually by 2020 — for those nations least responsible for, and most affected by, climate changes. Should private donors contribute to aid to mitigate the effects of climate change in developing countries?
UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE 15 July, 2010 =========================================================================
UN ADVISORY GROUP SEEKS TO ENHANCE PUBLIC-PRIVATE LINKS TO BOOST ACCESS TO ENERGY.
The potential of new public-private partnerships to enhance energy access and efficiency topped today’s discussions by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s high-level advisory group on the nexus between energy and climate change.
“Governments alone will not be able to deal with the challenges,” said Kandeh K. Yumkella, Director-General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), at the latest meeting of the Energy and Climate Change Advisory Group.
“We need a commitment from all sectors of society, including the private sector, academia and civil society, as well as from international organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations],” he added.
The meeting in Mexico City was hosted by Carlos Slim Helú, Mexican businessman and one the world’s wealthiest people, who is also a member of the Group, set up by Mr. Ban last year and comprising 20 business leaders, academics and representatives of the UN and civil society.
In April, the Group launched a report calling on nations to commit themselves to two complementary goals.
First, it urged universal access to modern energy services that are reliable, affordable, sustainable, and, if possible, from low-emissions sources by 2030.
It also underlined the need to slash global energy intensity, measured by the quantity of energy per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).
Currently, some 3 billion people worldwide rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating, resulting in adverse health effects if used in inadequately ventilated buildings, with 1.6 billion having no access to electricity.
“This is why we are looking at launching a worldwide campaign to ensure that access to modern energy services no longer represents a barrier to development,” Mr. Yumkella said. “A reliable, affordable energy supply is the key to economic growth and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs],” the eight anti-poverty targets with a 2015 deadline.
Private companies, he pointed out, already have the technology needed to make global energy systems less dependent on fossil fuels, while many governments are offering financial incentives and support for this transition.
“What we need today is to forge strong public-private partnerships to tackle these goals,” the UNIDO chief, who chairs the Advisory Group, said.
Today’s meeting, co-hosted by Mexican Energy Minister Georgina Kessel Martínez, drew top UN officials and business executives, while representatives of Sharp and other corporations presented some of the latest renewable technologies.
In a related development, a new report launched today by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) found that the United States and Europe have added more capacity to their electricity supplies from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, for the second consecutive year.
In 2009, renewables accounted for 60 per cent of newly-installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the USA.
“The sustainable energy investment story of 2009 was one of resilience, frustration and determination,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.
The sector was able to weather the global financial downturn, but faced setbacks given that last December’s UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, did not achieve the targets that had been hoped for, he noted.
“Yet there was determination on the part of many industry actors and governments, especially in rapidly developing economies, to transform the financial and economic crisis into an opportunity for greener growth,” the official said.
* * *
TODAY’S GLOBAL CRISES HIGHLIGHT NEED TO PROMOTE HUMAN SECURITY – BAN.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has emphasized the need to promote the concept of human security, noting that the challenges facing the world today threaten the lives of millions and undermine development efforts.
“Everyone has a right to enjoy freedom from fear…freedom from want…and freedom to live in dignity,” Mr. Ban said in a video message for a symposium on human security taking place in Tokyo.
“These mutually reinforcing aspirations are at the heart of human security and our mission to build a better world for all,” he stated.
More than ever, “we live in an interconnected world,” where crises transcend borders and threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions of men, women and children, he noted.
“They increase human insecurity and undermine progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” he added, referring to the targets world leaders have pledged to achieve by 2015, ranging from ensuring quality education and a clean environment to reducing hunger and disease.
He said the symposium can help inform and advance discussions at the high-level summit he will be convening in New York in September at which world leaders will gather to push for further progress on the MDGs.
The landmark 2005 World Summit referred to the concept of human security, recognizing that “that all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.”
In May, the General Assembly held its first formal debate on human security, during which Mr. Ban presented his report on the issue.
Addressing that meeting, he had stressed that “we must ensure that the gains of today are not lost to the crises of tomorrow,” calling for actions focusing on “people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and preventive strategies at every level.”
Such an approach, the report pointed out, helps address both current and emerging threats, as well as their causes. The report also emphasized the need for strong and stable institutions to advance human security.
Swedavia Swedish Airports Chooses Tricorona as Supplier of Gold Standard CDM Carbon Offsets.
Recently, Swedavia Swedish Airports, which runs
Sweden’s state-owned airports, announced that it
has chosen Tricorona as supplier of Gold Standard
CDM carbon offsetts for the next three years.
The initiative is part of Swedavia’s comprehensive climate
strategy, which includes reducing and offsetting
climate impact of the organization’s operations.
“Gold Standard CDM” represents the highest quality
level available for offset projects,” said Lena Wennberg,
environmental manager at Swedavia, “and Tricorona is
one of the few companies worldwide whose projects
meet its strict criteria for genuine carbon reductions
and contribution to sustainable development.”
The offset projects chosen are Sri Balaji, a biomass power
plant in India, and Yinyi and Yangjiayao, two wind
farms in China.
These projects save carbon emissions
by displacing coal power, and have a wide range of
benefits, such as reduced local air pollution and greater
security of energy supply for rural communities.
The emissions to be offset arise from Swedavia’s energy
use in buildings and fuel use in vehicles at all 14 of its
airports, as well as the organization’s business travel.
Information excerpted from Tricorona press release
dated May 25, 2010, see www.tricorona.se.
Full Article If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can’t be done. Peter Ustinov
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Developing countries are definitely looking for different results in global climate negotiations. We want industrialized countries to comply with their obligations to reduce emissions. We want the effective transfer of technology. We want industrialized countries to provide the necessary financing to mitigate and adapt to climate change. And, we want the system we construct to address climate change to be fair and equitable, including the financial mechanism, and not like the present system utilizing the Global Environment Facility (GEF) where donor countries dominate the decision-making process.
We have already invested 16 years in climate negotiations under the UNFCCC process since its entry into force in 1994. The last meeting of negotiators this June in Bonn showed some progress, or at least a bit more realism in defining possible achievements for the next key meeting to be held in Cancun later this year, but negotiators clearly have not overcome their incapacity to offer pragmatic solutions to what has become the most important global problem humanity has ever faced.
Meanwhile, the science of climate change continues to solidify and tell us in no uncertain terms that inaction or late action means unavoidable and likely irreversible problems later. Of course, as always, the world’s most socially and economically vulnerable will also be the primary targets of the most catastrophic impacts of the planet’s changing climate.
In this scenario, developing countries call over and over again for their legitimate claims over the deteriorating climate to be heard, but fail to obtain the necessary responses for these claims in the post-Kyoto rounds of negotiations. What should we do?
At the last meeting of the Montreal Protocol signatories, a representative of the Federated States of Micronesia employed a metaphor that can help us find a way. He likened our climate desperation to a hypothetical neighborhood fire.
It’s as if our house is about to be consumed by flames from a raging fire, and the city’s firemen show up at the door, with no truck, no water, no equipment and begin arguing about which technique would be most suitable to put out the encroaching flames. All of a sudden a group of experienced volunteer firefighters decked out with fire equipment, a water truck, and ready to put out the fire show up behind the others. As a homeowner in desperation over advancing flames, what do you do? The answer is a no-brainer, you ask the guys with the solution to put out the fire!
The metaphor alludes to the Montreal Protocol (MP), hailed as the most successful environmental treaty to date. From 1990 to 2010, MP’s control measures on production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 135 gigatons of CO2.This is equivalent to 11 gigatons a year, four to five times the reductions targeted in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Yes, this is amazing!
The Federated States of Micronesia used the metaphor of the house on fire to illustrate the opportunity before us to fully utilize the strength of the MP to combat the Planetary fire that climate change is becoming. Specifically, he referred to the opportunity to regulate the production and consumption of HFCs, which would produce the equivalent CO2 mitigation of more than 100 gigatons.
This proposal, without a doubt, implies a great opportunity for developing countries, not only in terms of the substantive issues involved, but it also fundamentally highlights the political implications underlying the process. If we are looking for different results from climate negotiations, we mustn’t always do the same thing.
Utilizing the maximum potential offered under the MP to mitigate climate change, regulating the production and consumption of HFCs would require that industrialized countries and developing countries both assume “mitigation” obligations. Mitigation obligations in the context of the MP do not mean specific CO2 reduction targets. What it means is that developed and developing countries assume the obligation to regulate the production and consumption of HFCs, which are super greenhouse gases, and by doing so we mitigate global warming. Therefore, to assume this “mitigation” obligation under the MP context should not terrify us. This is precisely the value of utilizing the MP. Our largest challenge as developing countries is not to assume or not assume mitigation obligations, but rather it is to assume them in a context that is fair, and not to assume them in the current context of the UNFCCC. From the perspective of a developing country, assuming mitigation obligations without financing, without the transfer of technology, and without decision-making power is simply suicide.
It would be however, politically wise to assume these obligations in the context of the MP and set a crucial precedent. The MP has demonstrated over its 23-year history that the technology is effectively transferred, and that industrialized countries have complied with their obligations, including financing what is needed so that developing countries can comply with their own obligations to control ODS after a suitable grace period. We, developing countries, have a full voice and equal vote on the decision-making process under the MP financing mechanism known as the Multilateral Fund. Finally, the MP has also demonstrated that it is capable of creating the necessary confidence amongst States to take bold and continuous steps forward in compliance with all of the established deadlines.
Moreover, developing countries have in many cases complied with obligations to reduce production and consumption of ODS before the established deadlines. Everything we are calling for under the UNFCCC process we have already achieved under the MP framework. Advancing with the inclusion of HFCs under the jurisdiction of the MP would substantially strengthen developing countries in a proactive forum as countries that actively contribute to solutions in a fair agreement, and not as countries that can only claim and denounce. Developing countries can demonstrate that with the right institutional structure we are ready to do the job.
The political strategy hence, is to take advantage of the opportunity that is offered by the Federated States of Micronesia’s proposal to advance on pro-climate actions available under the MP, and utilize the MP framework to negotiate from a different vantage point in the UNFCCC process. This “other vantage point” shows what developing countries are able to achieve when industrialized countries comply with their obligations, when transfer of technology takes place, when the decision-making process includes developing country voices in a fair and equitable way, and when financing is made available.
The latest report on the UN Millennium Development Goals recognizes that “the unparalleled success of the Montreal Protocol shows that action on climate change is within our grasp”.
Hopefully, we will wisely take advantage of this invaluable political opportunity that the Federated States of Micronesia and the Montreal Protocol are offering, and we will not succumb to Peter Ustinov’s foreshadowing of the tragic earth-ending expert voice suggesting a solution is beyond our reach.
*Romina Picolotti, formerly the Secretary of Environment of Argentina, heads the Center for Human Rights and Environment. She received EPA’s Climate Protection Award in 2008 for her leadership in securing historic commitment to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol.
Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation Meets in Samoa.
BY PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME.
Honiara, 15 July 2010
Press Release – “Climate Solutions: Invest in Biodiversity” is the theme of the thirteenth gathering of the Pacific Islands Round Table for Nature Conservation that opened in Samoa this morning.
The coalition of nature conservation partners works to improve collaboration and coordination towards effective conservation action in the Pacific region.
Close to 100 participants will discuss effective biodiversity conservation as the key frontline response to climate change.
Opening the meeting at the Development Bank Building in Apia today, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of the Government of Samoa, Hon. Faumuina Tiatia Liuga asked that participants not only focus on climate change but also recognise the importance of other environment concerns such as biodiversity conservation.
“While climate change is perceived as a hot topic on the international agenda, don’t lose sight of other environment issues in our region. Nature conservation is important and it is linked to our cultures and traditions.”
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity which underlies the importance of the meeting of the Pacific islands roundtable for nature conservation. Nations around the world are expected to have met key international targets for biodiversity loss as agreed to by Heads of State at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable development to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. The Pacific has adopted the theme “Value Biodiversity – It’s our Life” to celebrate this year.
Mr. Taholo Kami, Chair of the Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation and IUCN Oceania Regional Director, welcomed participants to the regional meeting and urged them to also celebrate good conservation efforts in the region.
“We haven’t come close to reaching the 2010 target to have a declining biodiversity loss and climate change hovers as a threat and challenges us as Pacific islanders with our livelihoods and as conservationists. From this meeting we should have exciting outcomes as we look at the link between biodiversity and conservation and take time to learn from each other in the region. “
Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation partners have been encouraged to sign a charter outlining their commitment to the 2008 to 2010 Action Strategies and Principles adopted at the 8th Pacific Nature Conservation and Protected Areas conference held in Alotau, Papua New Guinea in 2007. 13 key partners have now signed this charter.
This week the 2010 Round Table meeting aims at setting longer term priorities for the next 10 years which will be consolidated to develop as priorities for the next Action Strategy for 2013 to 2017. The role of biodiversity as a climate change solution may be reflected in the coming priorities.
Mr David Sheppard the Director of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) during his keynote speech on Climate change and Natural solutions outlined that effective biodiversity conservation is the key frontline response to climate change.
“We need to develop more effective links between climate change and biodiversity as well as Pacific solutions to Pacific problems. Nature based solutions to climate change should be given more emphasis.”
The conference ends on Friday with a presentation of meeting outcomes and resolutions. Participants are meeting in the Development Bank of Samoa in Apia and they represent nature conservation and development organisations, governments, inter-government, donor agencies, Pacific governments and community groups with an interest in Nature Conservation.
Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Discusses Advancing Agreement at COP 16
1 July 2010: The seventh Meeting at the Leaders’ representative level of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate took place in Rome, Italy, from 30 June-1 July 2010.
The meeting was attended by representatives from the 17 major economies, UN officials, and representatives from Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
Participants discussed various issues related to the international climate change negotiations and, according to the Chair’s Summary, they emphasized the importance of quickly implementing the Copenhagen Accord’s fast-start financing provisions, highlighting that maximum clarity and transparency will build international confidence and be an essential part of a balanced outcome of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 16) to be held Cancun, Mexico, in late 2010.
Participants exchanged ideas on Annex I Parties mitigation and support. They also addressed non-Annex I Parties mitigation, highlighting that it should be party-driven, non-politicized, have a “multilateral anchor” and be based on national communications. Participants discussed whether the targets and actions included in the Copenhagen Accord may be reflected in a future outcome and whether such outcome will be legally binding and contained in a single instrument or two. Extensive discussion focused on progress on measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) at COP 16 with regard to: Annex I Parties mitigation; financial and technological support of non-Annex I Parties mitigation; and non-Annex I Parties mitigation. Participants also emphasized the need to focus adaptation efforts on vulnerable countries.
Follow-up meetings were also announced, including: a Clean Energy Ministerial meeting to be held from 19-20 July 2010, in Washington, DC, US, to follow up on the Technology Action Plans of the Global Partnership launched by G-8 leaders in L’Aquila, Italy, in 2009; and a ministerial meeting on technology to be co-hosted by Mexico and India from 8-9 November 2010.
[Co-Chair's Summary] [Major Economies Forum website]
——–
The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) was launched on March 28, 2009.
The MEF is intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The 17 major economies participating in the MEF are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That is 16 + EU + Denmark as host to the Copenhagen Meeting.
Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.
There is now a wealth of perfectly acceptable evidence to support the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We should not be distracted any further from formulating effective policies to deal with it. London Independent 09 July 2010.
The need for countries to repair towering fiscal deficits is an opening for the environmental movement. As treasuries look for ways to raise more revenues, climate change activists should make the case for green taxes. London Financial Times 09 July 2010.
—————————-
Leading article: Climate change science is vindicated
Thursday, 8 July 2010 – London Independent.
Public scrutiny of science and the scientific method can never be a bad thing, especially when the research involves something as important as climate change. But there must come a time when the results are accepted by all reasonable people. This time has surely come in the case of the “Climategate” emails stolen from the University of East Anglia and posted on the internet last autumn with the evident purpose of discrediting scientists at the centre of the effort to understand climate change.
Yesterday, we were able to see the third and most detailed report on the affair, written by an expert team led by Sir Muir Russell. It broadly came to the same conclusion as the two previous reports, by the House of Commons science and technologycommitttee and by a scientific panel led by the distinguished scientist Lord Oxburgh. All three inquiries have failed to find any evidence of scientific misconduct, or any suggestion that the scientists were somehow engaged in a conspiracy to mislead their scientific colleagues, or the public, about the nature of climate change. Two inquiries by Pennsylvania State University have also exonerated the American scientists at the other end of the email exchange.
There are, of course, important lessons to be learnt from this affair. The first, most general one, is that scientists must, in the age of the internet, be more open to public scrutiny, rather than relying solely on the peer-review process. Informed bloggers have played an important role in identifying errors and misconceptions within mainstream science, just as they have in other spheres of life. Scientists must learn to live in this new atmosphere and open their notebooks and computer algorithms to inspection.
There is a corollary to this. Professional scientists have a right to conduct their research in a way that permits justifiable confidentiality. They have a right to privacy, but that does not mean that their data should forever remain private.
The most important message to emerge from the three British and two US inquiries, however, is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that climate scientists set out to manipulate or falsify data in order to boost the case for climate change. There is now a wealth of perfectly acceptable evidence the other way: to support the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We should not be distracted any further from formulating effective policies to deal with it.
———————–
Climate politics
Published: July 8 2010 19:57 – The Financial Times – an Editorial.
Over the past year, the momentum for climate change action has stalled. The cause was particularly damaged last November when e-mails between scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were stolen and leaked in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit.
The e-mails revealed intellectual arrogance and reluctance to engage critics: climate change sceptics were denied access to CRU data. Some e-mails seemed to imply professional deceit. The controversy rattled climate science. The CRU is small, but important. Some of its members have taken leading roles at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
A report into the affair, published this week, criticised the CRU employees. They failed to display the “proper degree of openness” required of scientists and were “unhelpful and defensive” in response to reasonable requests for information.
But the report found no evidence that the CRU employees’ biases polluted their output. Accusations that they cherry-picked statistical results have been knocked down. Furthermore, persistent sceptics would have been able to access most of the data by other means. But the episode has proved damaging for climate science.
There is dispute among climatologists about projections. Economists and scientists disagree honestly about mitigation strategies. But researchers in the field often see themselves as campaigners, and so try to stamp out dissent. This leads them to breach the rules of scientific discourse.
According to the Stern Review, a 2006 report into climate change, the average estimate for the cost of holding carbon at safe levels will cost 1 per cent of global output by 2050. This price is worth paying: a six degree rise in temperatures could reduce economic activity by more than 10 times that figure.
Even so, an insurance premium of 1 per cent of output is an enormous cost. Governments will struggle to impose this burden. So it is important that the evidence is fairly discussed. This report, drawing a line under the CRU fiasco, marks a moment when the climate change movement should rally.
Environmentalists have had a disappointing year. The Copenhagen talks fizzled and the economic crisis has overshadowed all other considerations. But the need for countries to repair towering fiscal deficits is an opening for the movement. As treasuries look for ways to raise more revenues, climate change activists should make the case for green taxes.
Washington DC is in the grip of an epic heat wave as I write these words. It hasn’t been enough to get our Senators and Congressmen to do anything about the climate crisis, but it is a constant reminder of the sun’s power, going to waste.
We thought we all could do something about that this summer, so today we’re launching a little campaign asking President Obama to put solar panels on the roof of the White House. It’s easy to sign on–just click the following link to add your name.
This new campaign is part of our huge push towards the 10/10/10 Global Work Party, where millions of people in 114 countries (and counting!) have already signed up to do something sustainable in their communities on that October day. We hope the president will join in both the work and the party, and help install those panels–if you agree, we’ve made it incredibly simple for you to send along your invitation. Just click here. And just so you don’t think we’re singling out the president, we’re launching this same campaign today in every other country in the world.
President Obama won’t, of course, be doing much to solve climate change with just that one act alone. We really need him to push for comprehensive laws that put a price on carbon and wean us off coal and oil–push much harder than he has so far. We’re a little worried that the Obama administration will use their new solar panels to claim that they’re sincere about climate change without working to pass the legislation and enact the regulations that really matter–none of us wants to be used for a photo opportunity. That’s why the message we’ll all be sending is: you’ve taken symbolic action, so now get to work on the real thing.
And the symbolic action is important. Solar panels sat on the roof of the White House during the Carter administration, but were pulled down by the next occupant of the building, and never replaced. That sent a simple message: renewable energy didn’t really matter. (Not surprisingly, when the panels came down the subsidies for solar energy also disappeared, and now other nations are leading the way on clean energy).
We need the opposite message: every roof in the country should have solar panels–for hot water and for electricity. Panels on the White House will remind every visitor to Washington of that simple fact–it will do as much good as the wonderful organic garden that the First Lady planted on the South Lawn. (In the year since, the number of Americans with vegetable gardens grew 19%; Burpee Seeds reported sales up by a third!).
Nothing replaces legislation that really cuts carbon.
But one way to build support for those changes is to show how easy it is to start to work. So tell President Obama-it’s time to roll up those sleeves, put solar on the White House and join the Global Work Party!
P.S. Good news arrived just as we were getting ready to launch this global campaign. President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives confirmed he’d be up on the roof of his official residence on 10/10/10 putting up a solar array. It’s fifteen degrees cooler today in his capital city than it is in Washington, so there’s every reason to hope President Obama will match his gesture!
:Call for Papers — Drowning Island Nations: Legal Implications and Remedies.
Many low-lying island states exist at or just a few meters above sea level, and in the coming decades as a result of sea level rise and other factors some of them may face population relocation, loss of water supply and vital infrastructure, disruption of marine resources and agriculture, and other impacts. The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands has approached Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law to explore creative approaches to the legal issues facing these nations. Among the legal questions that need to be explored are the implications of the loss of inhabitable physical territory for statehood, for maritime governance, for property, fishing and mineral rights, and for the legal status of displaced persons. International law, human rights law, environmental law, and admiralty law are just a few of the fields that may be implicated. We will be hosting a conference to explore these issues at Columbia Law School in the spring of 2011. We request legal scholars and practitioners who may wish to write papers for the conference to submit abstracts by September 1, 2010. Details are in the linked Call for Papers. http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/download?&exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=54692
——————————
Michael B. Gerrard
Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice
Director, Center for Climate Change Law
Columbia Law School
435 West 116th Street
New York, New York 10027
Tel: 212-854-3287
Fax: 212-854-7946 michael.gerrard@law.columbia.edu www.ColumbiaClimateLaw.com
UN-SUPPORTED RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTRE FOR WEST AFRICA OPENS IN CAPE VERDE.
A new regional centre to help develop the renewable energy potential for West Africa opened today in Cape Verde, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which is supporting the facility, said. The Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (ECREEE), a specialized agency of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), is based in Praia, the capital of Cape Verde. It is supported by UNIDO and the Governments of Austria, Cape Verde and Spain.
It will help develop renewable energy and energy efficiency markets in West Africa, formulate policy, build capacity and quality assurance mechanisms, as well design financing plans. The centre will also implement demonstration projects with potential for regional scaling up.
“The current energy systems in the ECOWAS region are failing to support the growth prospects of the over 262 million inhabitants, especially the needs of the poor. The creation of ECREEE is a central milestone in efforts to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and services in the region,” said Yoshiteru Uramoto, Deputy to UNIDO’s Director-General.
“Investing in renewable energy systems and introducing energy efficient technologies will contribute to the region’s economic and social development without harming the environment,” he added.
It is estimated that a total of 23,000 megawatts of large and small hydroelectric potential is concentrated in five ECOWAS member States, of which only 16 per cent has been exploited.
Traditional biomass is already the main source of energy for the poor majority and accounts for 80 per cent of total energy consumed for domestic purposes. There are also considerable wind, tidal, ocean thermal and wave energy resources available. The region has vast solar energy potential.
UNIDO has a number of projects in Africa where renewable energy sources like small hydro, biomass gasification, wind energy, solar thermal and photovoltaic energy are used to promote the development of small industries, particularly in rural areas, that contribute to growth and poverty reduction.
The agency has also developed an energy programme for 18 countries in West Africa, including all ECOWAS member States, funded by the Global Environment Facility. ECREEE will become the main implementing agency of the $150 million programme that will focus on the energy access agenda and energy efficiency in key sectors of the economy.
www.Solar-Aid.org‘,’aw0′)” onmouseout=”cs()” href=”http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=B3trMOO8vTIS9EIz1lAfg1e31BvO3GrKhD92JPQAQARgBIAAoBDgAggEGY2EtcHViiAEBkAGZlwSqAQo5NDMyNjgxOTA1sgENc29sYXItYWlkLm9yZ7oBCjMwMHgyNTBfYXPAAQLaARlodHRwOi8vd3d3LlNvbGFyLUFpZC5vcmcvyAMH&num=1&adurl=http://www.Solar-Aid.org/&client=ca-pub-4223870936880387&nm=9″ target=”_top” onfocus=”ss(‘go to www.Solar-Aid.org‘,’aw0′)”>Solar Energy Charity
Helping Relieve Poverty Through The Provision of Solar Energy. Join Us!
350 is the most important number in the world—it’s what scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Two years ago, after leading climatologists observed rapid ice melt in the Arctic and other frightening signs of climate change, they issued a series of studies showing that the planet faced both human and natural disaster if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remained above 350 parts per million.
Everyone from Al Gore to the U.N.’s top climate scientist has now embraced this goal as necessary for stabilizing the planet and preventing complete disaster. Now the trick is getting our leaders to pay attention and craft policies that will put the world on track to get to 350.
Is 350 scientifically possible?
Right now, mostly because we’ve burned so much fossil fuel, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 390 ppm—that’s way too high, and it’s why ice is melting, drought is spreading, forests are dying. To bring that number down, the first task is to stop putting more carbon into the atmosphere. That means a very fast transition to sun and wind and other renewable forms of power. If we can stop pouring more carbon into the atmosphere, then forests and oceans will slowly suck some of it out of the air and return us to safe levels.
Is 350 politically possible?
It’s very hard. It means switching off fossil fuel much more quickly than governments and corporations have been planning. But we can change that–if we mobilize the world to swift and bold climate action, and shift the world to a clean energy future.
What was the day of action in 2009?
On October 24, the International Day of Climate Action covered almost every country on earth, the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history.
There were be big rallies in big cities, and incredible creative actions across the globe: mountain climbers on our highest peaks with banners, underwater demonstrations in island nations threatened by sea level rise, churches and mosques and synagogues and ashrams engaged in symbolic action, star athletes organizing mass bike rides–and hundreds upon hundreds of community events to raise awareness of the need for urgent action.
Every event highlighted the number 350–and people gathered at some point for a big group photo depicting that all important message. At 350.org, we assembled all the photos for a gigantic, global, visual petition.
The thousands of events on October 24 will drive 350 and all that it represents into the human imagination, and helped shift the political climate around climate change. Countries on the front lines of climate change are no longer willing to settle for weak efforts and half-measures. All the actions on October 24 will help our leaders realize we need a real solution that pays attention to the science.
How did this make a difference?
October 24 has finally put the focus where it needs to be: on the science and the citizens, not the special interests and the backroom deals.
People have sent in thousands of images of citizens gathering at important places around the world—from the melting peaks of Mt. Everest to the sinking beaches of the Maldives—displaying the number 350 in a creative way. 350.org staff will display these photos on the big screens in Times Square and projecting them at the UN headquarters. Those photos are appearing in newspapers large and small—the same newspapers that politicians all over the world use as a barometer of public opinion. We’re also delivering copies of the images—and the stories that go with them—to national delegates, environment ministers, and heads of state the world over.
Grassroots global action will be useful to put pressure on world leaders. Together we can remind our leaders that they need to take physical reality—and not political expediency—into account when they’re making decisions about our collective future. 350 is a clear and specific goal (unlike vague demands to “stop global warming”) that helps move politics n the direction science and justice demand. At 350.org, we make sure your voice is heard, and this debate is re-framed in time to make a difference.
350.org is an international grassroots campaign that aims to mobilize a global climate movement united by a common call to action. By spreading an understanding of the science and a shared vision for a fair policy, we will ensure that the world creates bold and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.
What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in “parts per million” (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM-a “people powered movement” that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.
——————-
Dear World,
It’s been a tough year: in North America, oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico; in Asia some of the highest temperatures ever recorded; in the Arctic, the fastest melting of sea ice ever seen; in Latin America, record rainfalls washing away whole mountainsides.
So we’re having a party.
Circle 10/10/10 on your calendar. That’s the date. The place is wherever you live. And the point is to do something that will help deal with global warming in your city or community. We’re calling it a Global Work Party. http://www.350.org/
The 17 states that have ratified the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers are: Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden and Switzerland. The European Commission is also a party.
—–
GENEVA (Reuters) – Friday, July 2, 2010 – European citizens will be able to find out what dangerous substances are emitted in their neighborhoods under an environmental treaty to go into effect in 17 countries in October, the United Nations said on Friday.
Participating states will have to issue public inventories of major pollutants that their industries, traffic, agriculture and enterprises spew into the air, soil and water, including greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Some 86 categories of substances — ranging from mercury and other heavy metals, benzine, asbestos, pesticides including DDT, and dioxins — are covered under the pact.
“These inventories are made available to the public over the Internet and generally also through a downloadable map that helps people identify major pollutants that are traveling through their neighborhoods to discover what is in their backyard …,” Michael Stanley-Jones, an environmental expert at the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), told reporters.
“It doesn’t cover all chemicals, but it does cover the major releases of chemicals,” he said.
The pact, signed in 2003 by 36 countries, enters into force on October 8 after being ratified recently by a 17th country (France), according to the Geneva-based agency. It is open to all U.N. member states for ratification.
“It is truly a global instrument, part of a global movement initiated in the 1980s after the major accidents in Bhopal and Chernobyl,” said Stanley-Jones.
A catastrophic industrial accident in central India killed nearly 8,000 people in 1984 when tons of toxic gas leaked from a pesticide plant of Union Carbide, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co, the largest U.S. chemical maker.
The Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986, the world’s worst civil nuclear accident, sent radiation over most of Europe.
The protocol to the 2001 Aarhus Convention enables citizens to voice concern over pollution to industry or regulators.
“As the major greenhouse gas pollutants are included in the protocol, this will give decision-makers and the public powerful new tools for identifying the major industrial sources of greenhouse gas emissions,” Stanley-Jones said.
“Major exceptions are for national security (facilities) and also the nuclear industry — radioactive substances are not covered by the protocol,” he said, noting that countries may add further substances and facilities to their national registers.
Countries outside of Europe, including Chile and Mexico, have developed their own registers and China’s industrial region of Shanghai is also drawing one up, according to the expert.
The 17 states that have ratified the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers are: Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden and Switzerland. The European Commission is also a party.
Much of the drive in this direction emanates from Israel’s elder statesman, President Shimon Peres. For years he has described oil as “a great problem.” On the one hand he is well aware of Arab interests in black gold, and at the same time he realizes that fossil fuels will not last for ever. As a result of both factors, he plays an active role in trying to encourage Israeli entrepreneurs in the direction of cleantech.
At the Copenhagen gathering on climate change some six months ago, it was Peres who committed Israel to drastically reducing its carbon emissions. The country has set itself a domestic 10-year target of producing 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources.
Israel already recycles some 70 percent to 80 percent of its water. “Something that doesn’t happen anywhere else,” said Levy.
————————
by David Harris
The thousands of visitors to this week’s cleantech exposition in Tel Aviv likely cannot help but be impressed by the rows of stalls showing off the best of Israel’s green technologies. In a short time, Israel has become a world leader in the industries of tomorrow that capitalize on alternative energies and maximize the use of as little water as possible.
In the age of depleted ozone and climate change, Israeli inventors and entrepreneurs have joined forces to prevent desertification in Africa, bring water solutions to farmers in China and India and electricity generation to anywhere with a fair share of sunny days.
Yet all of this success is merely the by-product of years of desperation within Israel, where year-round heat and a lack of water combined to make farming tough in a country that was once predominantly desert.
—————
FROM SAND TO SUCCESS:
Israel’s move into cleantech began in the sphere of water, without which the country would not have survived.
“Israel had no choice. Being naturally innovative they looked for creative solutions,” said Karin Kloosterman, an editor of the Middle Eastern environmental Internet site Green Prophet.
Additionally, a research facility in the United States may have received a 10-Million-dollar grant for a water project, but a similar Israeli facility would be awarded perhaps only a tenth of the cash, meaning inexpensive solutions had to be found, Kloosterman said Wednesday.
Initially, Israeli companies worked only on finding technologies that would help solve Israeli problems. However, with time, the country’s cleantech sector has become increasingly focused on exports and profits rather than solutions for domestic use, according to Daniel Levy, an environment consultant whose client list includes the Israeli environment ministry.
These days Israeli inventions can be found around the world. Netafim dip irrigation is arguably the best example. “Grow more with less” is the company’s tag line. Since the company came into being in 1965, it has led Israel to the number-one spot in the industry, in which Israel controls at least 50 percent of the market.
In the potato-growing areas of China where Netafim know-how has been implemented, the company claims a 40 percent reduction in water consumption and a 15 percent to 16 percent increase in the tuber yield. Indeed, many people in the East and West alike will have tasted these potatoes in the form of the products of the Frito-Lay brand.
————————
PROFITABILITY:
While those days of finding solutions for Israeli farmers and households lie in the not too distant past, nowadays it is full steam ahead for Israeli scientists and cleantech firms. On Tuesday, the Israeli desalination giant IDE announced a deal with China’s Tianjin power plant that will make it China’s largest desalination facility, producing some 200,000 cubic meters of water every day.
“IDE’s technology will enable us to realize an environmentally- friendly power-seawater-desalination-salt production model, helping us to minimize our environmental footprint while reducing our costs,” the Tianjin plant’s general manager said in a statement.
Another Israeli success story, Solel, claims its ability to harness the sun’s energy and to create solar power plants is already so advanced it is challenging the competitiveness of gas- powered electricity generation stations in California.
“Israel has plenty of sun and a lack of oil and other fossils so the experience of Israel with basic solar heaters demonstrates the opportunity of Israel to use solar energy and our potential is very high,” said Sergey Biryukov of the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in the arid south of Israel.
Much of the drive in this direction emanates from Israel’s elder statesman, President Shimon Peres. For years he has described oil as “a great problem.” On the one hand he is well aware of Arab interests in black gold, and at the same time he realizes that fossil fuels will not last for ever. As a result of both factors, he plays an active role in trying to encourage Israeli entrepreneurs in the direction of cleantech.
At the Copenhagen gathering on climate change some six months ago, it was Peres who committed Israel to drastically reducing its carbon emissions. The country has set itself a domestic 10-year target of producing 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources.
Israel already recycles some 70 percent to 80 percent of its water. “Something that doesn’t happen anywhere else,” said Levy.
——————–
EXPORT PRIORITY:
Yet it is overseas sales that remain the key factor for the myriad cleantech companies operating in Israel today.
“There are many different pieces and pipes, valves, filters, monitors and meters that all fit together and in some cases each of those components is another company. When Israelis start up an idea they don’t think about really using it in Israel because the country is so small,” said Kloosterman.
Israeli companies see the Tel Aviv cleantech expo as a platform for them to display their wares, technologies and patents in a bid to expand their business into China, India and elsewhere.
“Companies, researchers and professionals display their newest developments, novel technologies and outstanding quality services in the fields of environmental protection and green solutions, infrastructure, renewable energy, waste treatment, water technologies for treatment, desalination, harvesting, purification, filtration and more,” reads the material in the exhibition’s press pack.
Its organizers are marketing Tel Aviv as being at the meeting place of three continents, namely Asia, Europe and Africa. The country boasts some 320 cleantech companies, which is quite a number for such a small state.
While Israelis wait for domestic improvements in the sphere of electricity generation from renewable sources and for a major desalination plant to come on line in 2013, the country’s entrepreneurs continue to sign deals, particularly in China, and soon they hope that they will, along with Chinese companies, be able to offer advanced cleantech solutions countries around the world.
MELBOURNE, June 29 (IPS/TerraViva) – Australia’s newly appointed prime minister, Julia Gillard, has hardly warmed her seat, yet she has already been urged to take action on climate change. “We call on Prime Minister-elect Gillard to make good on her party’s promise to take the threat posed by climate change seriously,” said Dr Linda Selvey, chief executive officer of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, last week after Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Australia’s prime minister.
Gilliard, who was sworn in Australia’s 27th prime minister on Jun. 24, is the first woman to hold this country’s highest political office. The parliamentary members of the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) last week lost confidence in Rudd’s ability to lead the ALP to consecutive election wins after a disastrous few months and elevated 48-year-old Gillard, Rudd’s former deputy, to the top job.
Despite riding high in opinion polls conducted in the first two years of his term, Rudd’s popularity had shrunk considerably in recent months. While part of this slide can be attributed to policy blunders, including the failure to counter the conservative Opposition’s claims that the Rudd government was soft on border security and the recent battle with mining companies over increased taxation,
Rudd’s perceived inability to match action with his own rhetoric on climate change was a decisive factor in his downfall.
Rudd, who famously dubbed climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” led the ALP to victory in the 2007 election partly as a result of perceptions that he had better policies on climate change and the environment than the then incumbent John Howard.
But while Rudd was widely applauded for immediately taking steps to ratify the Kyoto Protocol – under which countries committed to reductions in greenhouse gases (GhG) and which Howard had refused to back – his government was heavily criticised when it announced in December 2008 that its target for 2020 was just a five to 15 percent reduction in GhG emissions on 2000 levels.
This was even less than the cut of between 10 and 25 percent that had earlier been recommended by Prof Ross Garnaut, the Rudd government’s chief climate change advisor, and which had also been slammed.
But things went from bad to worse for Rudd, who had been banking on an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to deliver the 2020 reduction target.
Also known as a cap-and-trade system, an ETS puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage major polluters to reduce their emissions.
The ETS legislation failed on three occasions to make it through parliament, with the Opposition and the minor Australian Greens Party both against the scheme, albeit for quite different reasons.
The Opposition was divided over climate change policies while the Greens regarded the ETS as too weak to be effective.
This led Rudd to delay the ETS, which he did in April, declaring that his government would not seek to implement the scheme again until after the current Kyoto commitment period concludes at the end of 2012.
“By the end of that period the governments around the world will be required to make clear their commitments for the post-2012 period. And that will provide, therefore, the Australian Government with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change prior to the implementation of [an ETS],” said Rudd at the time.
For a prime minister who promoted himself as a genuine leader and who, last November, slammed suggestions that Australia should wait until after the Copenhagen climate conference before acting to reduce its GhG emissions as “absolute political cowardice” and a “failure of leadership,” such weak policies undermined his own image and added to growing disquiet among voters.
“The electorate felt betrayed by Kevin Rudd when he walked away from such a fundamental commitment. It is clear the government vastly underestimated the desire in the community for real action on climate change,” said Selvey.
That desire does seem genuine. According to a poll conducted in March and released earlier this month by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, 72 percent of respondents wanted Australia, among the world’s biggest carbon polluters per capita, to take action to reduce its GhG emissions even without a post-Kyoto global agreement in place.
And that is what the new prime minister, aiming to get a mandate on action from an election likely to be held within months, is now being implored to do.
“I congratulate Ms Gillard and urge her to lead an Australian shift from a pollution-dependent economy to a clean economy and a healthy environment,” said Don Henry, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, a non-governmental community-based organisation.
Others, including representatives from the Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents investors concerned with the impact of global warming, and the Climate Institute, an independent research organisation, have also called on her to act.
For her part, Gillard has labelled climate change as a top priority of her government in a nationally broadcast media conference last week, along with refugees and reaching an agreement on the mining tax.
“If elected as prime minister [at the next election], I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad,” said Gillard, who has also raised the possibility of introducing a carbon tax to promote renewable energy sources to reduce GhG emissions if no broad-based support for an ETS exists.
Whatever policies she makes on climate change, failure to match her words with action is likely to be as politically fatal to Gillard as it was to Rudd.
The sudden resignation last week by Kevin Rudd, following a revolt within his own party, capped a stunning fall from grace for a politician who until recently had been one of Australia’s most popular prime ministers ever. His success in navigating Australia through an economic crisis was not enough for voters angered over his policy reversals on issues such as taxes and climate change. The Labour party dumped Mr. Rudd, naming Ms. Julia Gillard to pick up the pieces and deliver election success.
After taking command of the party in 2006, Mr. Rudd led Labour to election victory in November 2007, ending the party’s 11 years in the political wilderness. A former diplomat and fluent Mandarin speaker, Mr. Rudd promised to reinvigorate a nation fatigued by more than a decade of conservative rule. After taking office, he pledged to pull all Australian troops from Iraq (a move that was completed in July 2009), offered a historic apology to indigenous Australians for past injustices, and then reversed his predecessor’s policy on climate change, promising to put that issue at the center of his legislative agenda. He honored that vow by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and by helping to broker the final compromise at the Copenhagen climate conference.
Finally, Mr. Rudd helped steer the economy through the worst of the recession: A stimulus program with aid to banks kept the Australian economy growing in every quarter except one during his term in office. Unemployment remained at half that in other Western economies. No wonder that at the beginning of 2010, Mr. Rudd was polling as high as any Australian prime minister.
Then it all unraveled. In April he reversed course on climate policy, shelving legislation that would introduce a carbon trading system and make the country’s worst polluters pay for their carbon emissions. Coming from the man who called climate change “the greatest moral challenge of our time,” that switch alone risked his term in office. Then in May he proposed a “super tax” on Australia’s minerals producers. The tax on the profits of the huge mining concerns that dominate the economy of western Australia and had helped buoy the country through the difficulties of the past two years would rise to 40 percent. During that campaign, he broke yet another pledge — that he would not use taxpayer money for political advertising.
Those reversals destroyed his popularity among voters and his standing in the party. Mr. Rudd once enjoyed a 73 percent approval rating, a number that put him among the top of Australian prime ministers of the past several decades. But polls earlier in June put voter dissatisfaction with him at 55 percent. His weak showing in districts that were crucial to Labour’s 2007 win prodded party bosses and faction heads to take action — though Mr. Rudd was always more popular with voters than with his own party.
When it became clear he did not have the support to beat back a challenge by his deputy, Ms. Julia Gillard, Mr. Rudd withdrew from the leadership ballot. Ms. Gillard was named prime minister the next day and immediately sworn into office.
The new prime minister announced she was prepared to negotiate over the super tax and has made no commitment on the emission trading scheme. Otherwise, continuity is likely to be the guiding principle of this government. A former lawyer, Ms. Gillard had been Mr. Rudd’s deputy since he took the helm of Labour in 2006 and was part of his inner circle while he was in office. She served as ministers of education, employment and social inclusion, and led the dismantling of the previous government’s anti-labor work laws.
Ms. Gillard’s first task is winning back Australia’s disaffected voters. Her demeanor should help: She is said to be “softer” than her predecessor, less wonkish and considered one of the best communicators in Parliament. She is more of a team player. Still, it remains a difficult assignment. The policy reversals and the coup last week have taken a toll on Labour’s credibility. Resolving the tax row and getting climate policy back on track are her first priorities.
In one of her first phone calls in her new job, she spoke to U.S. President Barack Obama and assured him that Australia’s relationship with the U.S. and its commitment to Afghanistan would not change with the new administration. She promised to find a place for Mr. Rudd in the new government — perhaps in foreign affairs — if her party wins in the election.
Similarly, relations with Japan are unlikely to experience difficulties. Canberra is likely to continue to look to Tokyo as a like-minded partner. Tightening security ties has been a key feature of Japan-Australia relations for the past several years. Ms. Gillard’s more “collegial” style should help her when it comes to dealing with Asian leaders as well as Australian pols: Mr. Rudd’s proclivity for espousing bold steps without preparing the ground — such as his proposal for an Asia-Pacific Community — antagonized diplomatic partners in this region. They, like us, wish the new prime minister luck in her new job. She will need it.
BANGKOK, June 28 (IPS) – Buy a hairpin and the sales clerk has a microscopic plastic bag for it. A soda purchase from a corner store may end up having the liquid poured into a plastic bag, and then topped off with a plastic straw. There is no plastic bag yet that could fit a car, but if there was one country that could come up with one, Thailand would probably be it.
But here in the capital, local authorities have restarted a campaign to wean the residents of the Thai capital from their plastic bag ‘addiction’. For the second year in a row, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) is holding its 45-day ‘No Bag, No Baht’ project, which offers consumers a one-baht (three U.S. cents) discount for every 100 baht (nearly three dollars) purchase if they use their own cloth bags when shopping in several local markets. Meanwhile, each plastic bag will cost them one baht.
This year’s BMA campaign was launched on Jun. 5, World Environment Day. Last year, the campaign targeted a cutback of 4.4 million plastic bags among Bangkok consumers. This year, BMA authorities want a cutback that is three times that figure. BMA figures show that every day, more than 600,000 plastic bags are used in this city of nine million people.
Their annual disposal cost reaches more than 600 million baht (18.4 million dollars), city officials have said. Local media have quoted BMA deputy governor Porntep Techapaibul as saying that of the city’s daily 10,000 tonnes of trash, about 1,800 tonnes are plastic bags, a number projected to increase by about 20 percent each year.
By now, many Bangkok residents have heard of the health and environmental hazards posed by plastic bags. Made from a non-renewable natural resource, petroleum, the bags have for their main ingredient polyethylene – or polythene – which is said to take 1,000 years to decompose on land and 450 years in water.
But even green-minded residents have problems avoiding the use of plastic bags. Thai Fund Foundation coordinator Chomphu Rammuang says that although she brings a big cloth bag to the supermarket and a lunch pack to work, she can still wind up with a plastic bag in hand by day’s end.
Thailand, after all, is a major manufacturer of plastic. That could help explain why even micro-entrepreneurs here think nothing of shoving their merchandise in plastic bags.
For instance, Yakult health drink vendor Suprathit says that a 100-piece pack of small plastic bags costs her only five baht (15 cents). Pusadee, who sells office lunches in clear plastic bags, also says she buys a kilo of these for 70 baht (two dollars). She says a kilo’s supply lasts her two days.
Thailand produces other plastic products. According to Greenpeace South- east Asia-Thailand country representative Tara Buakamsri, the country is among South-east Asia’s biggest manufacturers of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is the third most widely produced plastic after polythylene and polypropylene.
Cheap, durable and easy to assemble, it is often used to make pipes, water bottles, credit cards. It is also non-biodegradable.
In April, the English-language daily ‘Bangkok Post’ reported that domestic demand for PVC is about 450,000 tonnes per year.
A study presented in 2009 by Wuthichai Wongthatsanekorn at the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology in Dubai, says that the recovery rate of plastic waste in Thailand in 2000 was only 23 percent.
It also says that only about 35 percent of the solid wastes collected from parts of Thailand outside of Bangkok are properly managed, while the rest of the waste products are “piled up in open dumping areas waiting to be dissolved.”
For a campaign to be effective, Tara says, consumers have to be aware of the importance and the long-term effect of the scheme.
“We need to study what economic mechanism will work if plastic bags are banned in Thailand,” he says. “What would be the reaction of the huge plastic industry in the country? What will be the economic incentive for people to follow this campaign?”
The good news, though, is that many establishments like supermarket chain Tesco Lotus and furniture store Home Pro are open to taking part in the BMA project. In fact, even before the ‘No Bag, No Baht’ project was relaunched, Tesco Lotus already had its very own ‘Green Bag Green Point’ campaign. For each bag saved, a customer can earn one Green Clubcard point.
Tesco Lotus senior corporate affairs manager Saofang Ekaluckrujee told IPS in an email interview, “We are very pleased to see policymakers such as the BMA making this issue a national priority. Our Green Bag Green Point scheme’s initial target is to reduce plastic bag usage by 9.8 million bags in 2010.” Other huge shopping malls like Siam Paragon and Central also give incentives like bonus shopper points for not using their bags – plastic or paper ones for that matter – or a 5 percent discount at certain times of the month.
Even small businesses are joining in. During the BMA campaign’s soft relaunch in May, than 5,000 stores in Bangkok’s famous Chatuchak weekend market participated.
Chomphu also reports that her monthly visits to the Chatuchak weekend market have become a pleasant experience, plastic bag-wise. “The vegetarian store near Chatuchak that I go to is actively participating in the project,” she says. “Buyers are encouraged to bring their own bags.”
Yellow Sub Finds Clues To Antarctic Glacier’s Thaw
Date:21-Jun-10 Author: Alister Doyle, Reuters, from Greece.
A huge fragment of a giant iceberg is seen through the window of an airplane, floating toward Tierra del Fuego, the tip of South America shared by Argentina and Chile.
A yellow submarine has helped to solve a puzzle about one of Antarctica’s fastest-melting glaciers, adding to concerns about how climate change may push up world sea levels, scientists said Sunday.
The robot submarine, deployed under the ice shelf floating on the sea at the end of the Pine Island Glacier, found that the ice was no longer resting on a subsea ridge that had slowed the glacier’s slide until the early 1970s.
Antarctica is key to predicting the rise in sea levels caused by global warming — it has enough ice to raise sea levels by 57 meters (187 ft) if it ever all melted. Even a tiny thaw at the fringes could swamp coasts from Bangladesh to Florida.
The finding from the 2009 mission “only adds to our concern that this region is indeed the ‘weak underbelly’ of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” co-author of the study Stan Jacobs at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory said in a statement.
West Antarctica’s thaw accounts for 10 percent of a recently observed rise in sea levels, with melting of the Pine Island glacier quickening, especially in recent decades, according to the study led by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Loss of contact with the subsea ridge meant that ice was flowing faster and also thawing more as sea water flowed into an ever bigger cavity that now extended 30 km beyond the ridge. The water was just above freezing at 1 degree Celsius (33.80F).
SATELLITE BUMP:
Satellite photographs in the early 1970s had shown a bump on the surface of the ice shelf, indicating the subsea ridge. That bump has vanished and the 7 meter (22 foot) submarine found the ridge was now up to 100 meters below the ice shelf.
Adrian Jenkins, lead author at BAS, said the study raised “new questions about whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent climate change or is a continuation of a longer-term process that began when the glacier disconnected from the ridge.”
Pierre Dutrieux, also at BAS, said the ice may have started thinning because of some as yet-unknown mechanism linked to climate change, blamed mainly on mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
“It could be a shift in the wind, due to a change in climate, that pushed more warm water under the shelf,” he told Reuters.
The U.N. panel of climate scientists projected in 2007 that world sea levels could rise by between 18 and 59 cm (7-24 inches) by 2100, excluding risks of faster melting in Antarctica and Greenland. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the 21st century rise might be 2 meters in the worst case.
——————
But then there is an additional effect we keep writing about – the pressure the ice is having on the land in the Antarctica. The disconnect from the surface of the land creates a release of pressure on the tectonic plates, and this could cause earthquakes, tsunamis etc. The increase on the level of water does not mean that there is an equal increase of pressure – this because the water is distributed on the surface of the oceans globally and thus is nowhere equal to the localized loss of pressure at the Antarctica. SustainabiliTank.info editor).
“We can create a more sustainable, cleaner and safer world by making wiser energy choices”. Robert Alan
The professor was touring villages in Karnataka, gathering information for a program called Sustainable Transformation of Rural Areas. Soil and growing conditions were harsh in much of the area, and many of the villages were poor. In one such village, the professor and his team of research assistants stopped in a tea stall.
Naturally, the strangers drew attention in the small village. One villager struck up a conversation with the professor, and asked what the visitors were doing.
“We’re looking for ways to use science and engineering principles to solve real-life problems in villages like this one”, Professor Shrinivasa told the man.
The villager thought for a moment. “Well, we use oil from the Honge tree to light the lamps in our temples”, the man volunteered. “Maybe you could find some other use for that oil”.
Indeed he could. The professor, who is based at the Indian Institute of Science, found that the Honge tree (whose Latin name is Pongamia Pinnata) grew throughout the village, and oil could easily be extracted from the tree’s plentiful pods. He also recalled that many years ago Rudolf Diesel had used peanut oil when demonstrating his invention, the diesel engine. The professor told his colleagues, “Let’s try this oil in a diesel engine right here in the village”.
They got some oil, borrowed a small diesel engine, started it up and – boom! – the engine fired up, ran smoothly and kept running smoothly. Villagers immediately began using the local oil instead of spending money to buy diesel fuel.
That was a decade ago, and since then Professor Shrinivasa has traveled to relatively less fertile lands across India to promote the planting of Pongamia trees as a source of alternate fuel.
My wife Girija and I met Professor Shrinivasa recently, and found that he had lost no passion for his cause. He talked enthusiastically about the benefits of Pongamia-based bio-diesel. For one, it is grown in dry lands and hence does not lead to the food shortages sometimes caused when farmers grow corn or soya for bio-fuel instead of other crops for food. Second, in terms of emissions, bio-diesels are carbon neutral: the carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees is released when the fuel is burnt. Third, in terms of particles that cause pollution and respiratory diseases, bio-diesel emissions are less harmful than petrol and diesel.
The economics are compelling. A hectare of wasteland growing Pongamia trees can yield 10 tonnes of seeds worth around Rs. 40,000. Horticulture is far less labor intensive and hence can be done at relatively low costs, providing a good return to the farmers. The professor’s calculations show that India has adequate availability of wastelands that can be planted with enough Pongamia trees to meet the entire nation’s petrol and diesel requirements. But this calls for enormous political will and an ability to overcome the petroleum lobbies. As a lone champion, Professor Shrinivasa has yet to build the momentum to battle these forces – but continues on his path regardless.
The Connected Age requires us to look for viable alternatives in various aspects of our daily lives. It requires us the boldly embrace these new alternatives – as they emerge. It requires us to battle the vested interests and the entrenched beliefs of the industrial age with the vision of creating a more inclusive and sustainable world. And it requires us to step forward the way the professor has, and to support people like him who have stepped forward. Do share your own insights in this area.
Europe Moves Closer To Electric Car Infrastructure.
Date:25-Jun-10
Christiaan Hetzner, reporting from Germany for Reuters.
Europe’s carmakers moved a step closer creating an infrastructure for electric cars after agreeing on plug and socket standards for slow or overnight charging of the battery-driven vehicles due to hit roads from next year.
The European auto industry association ACEA said on Thursday its recommendation will enable the EU to progress rapidly in defining common charging systems for electric vehicles (EVs) such as the Tesla roadster.
“We want to avoid a situation where customers have to carry a multitude of charging cables to use their vehicles in different cities, regions and countries, just as we see today with items like mobile phones,” said ACEA Secretary-General Ivan Hodac in a statement.
The industry body’s proposal foresees a transition phase for the next few years, with a uniform interface first taking effect by 2017 for slow charges off Europe’s 220 volt grids.
No agreement has been reached yet on how to quickly recharge depleted EV batteries, a more controversial issue since it will require far more investment in infrastructure and may not even be used by anyone but commercial owners of EV fleets.
Typically private owners are expected to charge their EVs overnight while a fast charge could take as little as an hour.
Alongside developing the safest, most powerful lithium-ion auto battery, agreeing on a norms for EVs is considered to be a competitive advantage in what many auto executives believe is the dawn of a new era for the industry.
ACEA argued that the European specifications could form the basis for a global standard, since Japanese and South Korean carmakers were closely involved in developing the joint industry recommendations for the European market.
Coninck,mw H.C. de (Heleen) <deconinck@ecn.nl>
Honiara, 15 July 2010
