tagged w/ Moral Imperative
-
It is widely acknowledged that greenhouse gas emission-fueled climate change is having a profound and negative impact on fresh water systems around the world. Warmer weather causes more rapid evaporation of lakes and rivers, reduced snow and ice cover on open water systems, and melting glaciers.
What is less understood is that our collective abuse and displacement of fresh water is also a serious cause of climate change and global warming. If we are to successfully address climate change, it is time to include an analysis of how our abuse of water is an additional factor in the creation of global warming as well as solutions that protect water and watersheds.
There are two major factors. The first is the actual displacement of water from where it is sustaining a healthy ecosystem as well as healthy hydrologic cycles. Because humanity has polluted so much surface water on the planet, we are now mining the groundwater far faster than it can be replaced by nature. New Scientist reports of a “little-heralded crisis” all over Asia as a result of the exponential drilling of groundwater. Water is moved from where nature has put it in watershed and aquifers (where we can access it) to other place where it is used for flood irrigation and food production – where much of it lost to evaporation – or to supply the voracious thirst of mega cities, where it is usually dumped as waste into the ocean.
AUTHOR: Maude Barlow, former senior advisor to the UN on water issues, is co-author of the bestseller Blue Gold (New Press) and chairperson of the Council of Canadians.
Water is also lost to ecosystems through global trade – water used in the in the production of crops or manufactured goods that are then exported (known as virtual trade in water). Over 20% of daily water used for human purpose is exported out of watersheds in this way. Water is also piped across long distances for industry leaving behind parched landscapes.
The second factor is the removal of the vegetation needed for a healthy hydrologic cycle. Urbanization, deforestation and wetland destruction greatly destroy water-retentive landscapes and lead to the loss of precipitation over the affected area.
Slovakian scientist Michal Kravcik and his colleagues explain that the living world influences the climate mainly by regulating the water cycle and the huge energy flows linked to it. Transpiring plants, especially forests, work as a kind of biotic pump, causing humid air to be sucked out of the ocean and transferred to dry land. If the vegetation is removed from the land, this natural system of biosphere regulation is interrupted. Soil erodes, reducing the content of organic material in the ground, thus reducing its ability to hold water. Dry soil from lost vegetation traps solar heat, sharply increasing the local temperature and causing a reduction in precipitation over the affected area. This process also destroys the natural sequestration of carbon in the soil, leading to carbon loss.
Of course, these two factors are deeply related. Just as removing vegetation from an ecosystem will dry up the soil, so too will removing water from an ecosystem mean reduced or non-existent vegetation.
Taken together, these two factors are hastening the desertification of the planet, and intensifying global warming. Even if we successfully address and reverse greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels, Kravcik says, we will not be able to stop climate change if we do not deal with the impact of our abuse of water on the planet.
Unless we collectively address the crisis of fresh water and our cavalier treatment of the world’s water systems, we will not restore the climate to health.It is widely acknowledged that greenhouse gas emission-fueled climate change is having... more
-
-
Al Gore's interview with Harry Smith.
Video at the link.
-
-
There have been bad seasons before but poor monsoon has left the city facing its worst water crisis. As tempers rise and protests grow, Mumbai has enough to last just another 200 days.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and these are desperate times for Mumbai. Delayed monsoon and poor rainfall have pushed India’s commercial capital to the brink of its worst water crisis. According to officials, at present rates, there is enough water to last the city just another 200 days.
With the supply down by about 3 lakh million litres of water per day, options from desalinating the Arabian sea water to recycling sewage water, digging wells/borewells, cutting supply for one day per week and the drastic move of not providing water connection to new high-rises are being considered.
Civic officials are also grappling with the fear of an impending public backlash — the protests for increasing the supply of water have already seen one death, vandalisation of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) offices, hunger strikes, in addition with morchas practically everyday.
While the city’s demand for water is 4,200 million litres per day (mld), only 3,450 mld can be supplied. The present availability of water is around 7 lakh million litres as against 10 lakh million litres last year. Even with the water cut in place since June (imposed just before the monsoon as the rains were delayed), the situation hasn’t improved due to poor rainfall, which failed to fill the lakes, leaving many areas without adequate water.There have been bad seasons before but poor monsoon has left the city facing its worst... more
-
-
Though James Whitlow Delano has devoted years of his life to photographing the global water crisis, he was not paying much attention to the recent conference on climate change.
It’s not that he didn’t care about what the world’s leaders did in Copenhagen. But he couldn’t follow the negotiations over the earth’s future because he was cut off — virtually incommunicado — working in the Gobi Desert in Inner Mongolia. Lens reached him at an Internet cafe in a small settlement as a sandstorm approached.
“The problem is that you have growing population, greater consumption of water per person and expanding deserts due to global warming,” said Mr. Delano. “There is unprecedented development in desert areas and little or no acknowledgement that water will run out.”
Mr. Delano cites rapidly receding glaciers, the diversion of rivers, the overuse of aquifers that cannot be replenished and the rapid development of semi-arid and desert areas.
It is a complex and subtle issue that Mr. Delano illustrates with dreamlike black-and-white images that drive home the point that water is running out in many places across the world. He puts his photographs of spreading deserts in Morocco, Yemen, China and Mali side by side with photographs of the American West to show that this is not a distant problem and that America is subject to the same laws of nature.
Mr. Delano, 49, remembers growing up “blissfully” unaware in California as water alerts would come and go. It was not until he moved to Japan 16 years ago and started photographing in China that he became concerned about the use of water in the United States.
“The problem became particularly apparent when I began to see remarkable echoes of American history in the development of China with massive dam building, mining, fouled air and the ploughing of the steppe/prairie resulting in a new Chinese dust bowl,” Mr. Delano wrote in an e-mail message.
Carrying a Leica with a 35-millimeter lens, Mr. Delano photographs fast and unobtrusively. He says that photography is part of his D.N.A. “I am moved by light,” he said. “I like to tell stories. There is this need to travel and learn that I have been lucky enough to indulge.”Though James Whitlow Delano has devoted years of his life to photographing the global... more
-
-
Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore has a new book out entitled, Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis. In reading this book however, it became more to me than just a plan to solve the climate crisis. It is a book to solve the human crisis. What I mean by that is, it lays out the answers to all of our moral dilemmas and the walls we put up to block progress. If we were to follow the plan outlined in this book which includes alternate energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc. along with sustainable agriculture, reforestation, and a progressive direct tax on carbon that holds polluters accountable where consumers benefit, we would also be on our way to solving the crises of pollution, poverty, food and water scarcity, and perhaps even war.
Before I go any further though I must mention that I have been reading and commenting on Mr. Gore's books for about 18 years now. My first experience was reading Earth In The Balance where then Senator Gore laid out a Global Marshall Plan for the environment and stated correctly that it must be our central goal. He has never wavered on this conviction and as we are now seeing he was absolutely correct in that assessment as the environment impacts so many other facets of our lives. In the time since that groundbreaking book we have seen the erosion of our planet take place through natural processes being exacerbated by human forcings that are now bringing it to a precipice. The burning of excessive amounts of Co2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur dioxide are now rendering Earth and the species of our world victims to the ravages of those excesses. Our Choice as laid out in Mr. Gore's new book is simply this: Do we continue along this path that will surely lead to our destruction, or do we choose the path that may seem harder but where the rewards are greater?
Our Choice is the result of thirty "Solution Summits" Mr. Gore held with experts in various fields since the time An Inconvenient Truth was released seeking to chart the best course of action for our world to avoid the results of continuing on the path we are currently on. This book however, goes one step further than just telling you what those solutions are. It also shows you how the solutions work, how they can be implemented cost effectively, and how you as a citizen can benefit from them. And perhaps that is why detractors now go to bookstores shouting in Mr. Gore's face and burning this book: because it gives them no excuses for ignoring their own responsibility in this.
That being said, there were a couple of points mentioned in this book that I was not entirely in agreement with. As an environmentalist I am not supportive of the current scheme being put forth by coal companies and other interests regarding "biochar" (as mentioned in Chapter 10-Soil) as a mechanism to now gain carbon credits and profits from the climate crisis by indebting farmers as GMOs are now doing globally. I believe farmers know better. I was also hoping to see GMOs mentioned specifically in regards to the environmental and economic devastation they have wrecked on this planet and their dangers to human health, but in a roundabout way the suggestions laid out for reviving agriculture did do that which I was heartened to read.
to be continued.Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore has... more
-
-
Biodiversity loss does not get center stage, but nevertheless it is an environmental tragedy that must be addressed along with climate change. I do believe they are intertwined. Take potatoes as an example. We have gone in this world from thousands of seed varieties to about ten or less worldwide. That does not bode well for sustaining a growing population, especially with GMOS contaminating natural seed varieties. It is the same with the corn varieties of Mexico. And those actions alone can effect species that feed on them as well as other factors regarding Forests being cleared to grow them. Also, climate change effects such as drought, deforestation, etc. as well as air and water pollution. Biodiversity is the reason we thrive on Earth. If we can't find time to pay attention to that, then I don't understand how we can begin to think this planet can be saved for the future.
But hey, MSM, let's focus on Sarah Palin and her book for another day, shall we?Biodiversity loss does not get center stage, but nevertheless it is an environmental... more
-
-
No reason. We decide our fate.
-
-
Three years after this documentary debuted, and still we wait for definitive action to face the moral test of our generation. Is it that we truly on the whole don't get it, or that we simply don't want to?Three years after this documentary debuted, and still we wait for definitive action to... more
-
-
The last meeting before Copenhagen next month, and as with Bush we see the same obstructionism with the Obama administration? WTF? Is this really why Obama is so fervent about shoving healthcare bills down our throat now? Shouldn't we have tackled the most crucial crisis leading to our health ills first?The last meeting before Copenhagen next month, and as with Bush we see the same... more
-
-
I think many are reaching the point where all of these meetings and words and promises are bringing us to this question: Where's the action? This is a planetary emergency but you would never know it by the way governments are moving so slow. It is as if they wanted the Arctic to melt so they could rape it for its resources... silly notion, isn't it?
Excerpt:
'Gland, Switzerland: An environmental coalition made up of research organizations, private businesses, trade unions, and environmental organizations is calling on G20 nations to accelerate the transition to a green economy and to ensure a visionary global climate deal.
In open letter published today, The Green Economy Coalition, hosted by the International Institute for Environment and Development, warns that G20 nations are failing to match their rhetoric with action, are delaying the transition to sustainable development and are promoting climate change through their subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption.
It calls on G20 nations to honour aid commitments and provide new funds to enable developing nations to shift to sustainable development pathways.
“We support the progress that has been made in stimulating a low carbon economy through investments in a range of initiatives such as improved rail transportation, water infrastructure, grid expansion and improved building efficiency,” the letter states. “However, in many cases there remain large gaps between government declarations and practice.”
“Many G20 members have not included sufficient green investments in their overall stimulus packages, and the effectiveness of the green stimulus risks being compromised by delays in the allocation of funds. At the end of the first half of 2009, only around 3% of committed green funds had been disbursed.”
Signatories include the heads of WWF International, UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Green Economy Initiative, Consumers International, International Trade Union Confederation, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Global Reporting Initiative, Ecologic Institute, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, Bellagio Forum for Sustainable Development, IISD-Europe, the Inspire Foundation for Business and Society, and the Centre for Human Ecology.
The Green Economy Coalition focuses on the policy changes needed to transform the global economy into one that is clean, green and equitable.'I think many are reaching the point where all of these meetings and words and promises... more
-
-
As world leaders gather in New York for the highest-level conference yet on climate change, European leaders are expressing growing unease about the United States’ stance in international talks aimed at reaching a global agreement in Copenhagen in December.
Officials of several European countries have cited what they see as a lack of political will on the part of the United States to adequately address climate change. The American reluctance to accept any agreement that would require legally binding and internationally enforceable targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could doom the Copenhagen session, they said.
Ahead of this week’s climate talks at the United Nations, the Europeans also expressed little hope that the United States Senate would act on a climate bill before the Copenhagen talks begin. They said the lack of domestic consensus sows doubt about whether the United States can keep any pledges it makes at Copenhagen, either on the level of reductions in global warming emissions or on financial commitments to help developing nations adapt to a changing climate.
Inaction in the Senate also limits the flexibility of America’s chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern.
The Obama administration is trying to satisfy European demands for firm targets and timetables, while reassuring a wary Senate that it is not signing on to a system that would impose steep economic costs on the United States that are not shared by developing countries like China and India.
Although the administration and its allies in Congress say they are deeply committed to meaningful action on climate change, they do not want to repeat the experience of Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, when the Clinton administration signed an international agreement that was repudiated by the Senate because it made few demands on the developing world. The United States never ratified the agreement, called the Kyoto Protocol.
John Ashton, the British foreign secretary’s special representative for climate change, said several large gaps need to be closed among the major industrialized countries before there could be any hope of success in Copenhagen.
Chief among them, he said, is the “ambition gap” between the United States and the nations of the European Union. While the United States discusses the broad outlines of climate policy, the Europeans have already pledged to cut their emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and more deeply if there is an international agreement.
The Europeans say a bill passed by the House in June showed American goodwill but still fell short of the European target and what scientists say is necessary to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over the planet’s temperature early in the Industrial Revolution, which means limiting future changes to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures. This limit is the internationally accepted goal.
The Senate has yet to act, but its targets are likely to be less ambitious.
Mr. Ashton said that the path forward is clear, but that politics are hampering movement in the United States and several other large countries. “There is no technological obstacle. There is no macroeconomic obstacle,” said Mr. Ashton, in Washington late last week for a meeting of major industrial countries on climate change. “The barriers are political.”
end of excerptAs world leaders gather in New York for the highest-level conference yet on climate... more
-
-
So I write this as we sit on the threshold of possibly for the first time passing climate change legislation. A goal Mr. Gore and many have been hoping to see fulfilled for thirty years. On that note I can state that yes, it is momentous if it indeed happens. However, I cannot in good conscience be happy about the bill in its entirety because the most important aspects of it namely carbon caps and methods suggested for decreasing carbon emissions fall glaringly short of scientific recommendations to avert a tipping point in our climate. A tipping point that I believe has already been reached regarding glacier melt, and a tipping point we are coming dangerously close to regarding global water resources.
Therefore, while I can be grateful that the legislation exists at all I cannot support it in its entirety and stand up with all other groups to call for a much stronger bill to pass the Senate. Of course, in order for that to happen carbon caps would have to be tremendously increased in this bill and cap and trade would have to be dropped in lieu of a revenue neutral carbon tax.
And to be totally honest that is what I thought Mr. Gore would be vocally fighting for in this bill based on his previous speeches and his call for 100% renewable energy in ten years. However, while he has called for a stronger bill in theory I don't notice any really vocal opposition to the bill as is either from him or Repower America. Mr. Gore was very vocal about instituting a revenue neutral carbon tax which is actually the most effective and fastest way to bring down carbon emissions. With this being such a planetary emergency shouldn't groups like Repower America be more vocal in calling for Mr. Gore's vision instead of just accepting what politicians are only willing to give us?
Make no mistake however, I still respect Mr. Gore immensely for all of his work past and present, but to be honest I have been a bit disappointed of late for his lack of voice firmly taking on the Obama administration on this and other environmental policies as he rightfully did during the Bush administration. Just recently the State Department issued an OK for a pipeline (the Alberta Clipper) to be built from Canada to the U.S. in order to pump dirty bitumen laden tar sands crude from the tar sands of Alberta. This is the dirtiest most carbon intensive crude on the planet and is responsible for destroying the Boreal Forest and the biodiversity of one of the richest carbon stores on Earth. And yet, I have heard no condemnation from Mr. Gore on this matter as of this writing. Also, the Obama administration's EPA also issued a certificate to allow mountaintop removal mine ponds and has to date not kept its promise in calling for the end to mountaintop removal. Again, no condemnation of this move from Mr. Gore who previously as with the tar sands was very vocal against mountaintop removal.
So what gives? Is he waiting for what he feels is the right time? Is he too busy otherwise to even know this is happening? Or dare I ask, is the silence driven by party politics? I sure hope it isn't the latter, because it is the man who wore the black shirts and suit and who stood up to rail against the political partisanship of both sides that I respect and love. The conscience of the environmental movement. Not the political deal maker.
So yes, while a climate bill in our Senate is momentous for all including myself who have worked hard over these last thirty years, please do not sell us short by supporting this just for the sake of its existence. Support it because it is a bill with adequate measures to provide for a truly sustainable future and climate balance. I hope Mr. Gore understands just where those of us who care about this world for our children stand on this, and we hear his voice on it soon.So I write this as we sit on the threshold of possibly for the first time passing... more
-
-
A broad coalition of more than 300 faith, human-rights, social justice, and environmental groups sent a letter to U.S. senators today calling for energy and climate legislation that is much stronger than the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives June 26. That bill contained massive giveaways to polluting special interests and would fail to ensure a rapid transition to clean energy.
The groups plan to hand deliver the letter to senators' state offices next week as part of a larger, grassroots mobilization demonstrating far-reaching support for bold leadership in the fight to solve the climate crisis.
In the letter, the groups express "profound concern" about the House bill and ask senators to usher in "the transformational change and greenhouse emissions reductions required to avert catastrophic climate impacts." The letter calls for legislation that:
•Reduces atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a safe level of below 350 parts per million;
•Maintains existing Clean Air Act protections against global warming pollution;
•Minimizes the use of offsets and other loopholes;
•Protects vulnerable populations and communities;
•Promotes abundant clean energy;
•Eliminates polluter giveaways; and
•Adheres to preexisting U.S. commitments to the rest of the world.
Comments from a few groups that signed the letter follow:
"We haven't yet seen the bold leadership from Congress that's required to solve the climate crisis," said Church World Service Director of Education and Advocacy Rajyashri Waghray. "We're sending this letter to demonstrate broad grassroots support for such leadership."
"We have to have a stronger climate bill than the watered-down version that passed the House," said San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society Conservation Chair Drew Feldmann.
"We're organizing on the ground, in communities around/throughout the country, to mobilize the everyday people who will feel climate impacts, and to defeat the entrenched, polluting special interests in Washington and pass a truly strong bill in the Senate," said Appalachian Voices Legislative Associate J.W. Randolph.
"The everyday people of America have been left out of the climate debate. We are building a grassroots movement that reflects the diversity of America, to mobilize everyday people who are experiencing the affects of climate change. We aim to defeat entrenched fossil fuel polluting special interests in Washington and pass a truly strong climate bill," said Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network.
"There's an impressive breadth of groups on this letter, and it demonstrates that the status quo isn't acceptable. Congress must pass a bill that actually gives us a fighting chance of avoiding runaway global warming. There's no other option," said Tyson Slocum, who directs Public Citizen's energy program.
Other organizations signing the letter include the Center for Biological Diversity, Center on Race Poverty and the Environment, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Corporate Ethics International, CREDO, Communities for a Better Environment, Franciscan Sisters of Mary, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Global Exchange, Greenpeace, International Rivers, Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility United Church of Christ, Rainforest Action Network, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and many others.
For a copy of the letter, go to
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/action/toolbox/ACESA/sign-on_letter.html.A broad coalition of more than 300 faith, human-rights, social justice, and... more
-
-
When Al Gore wrote his best-selling book Earth in the Balance, he proposed putting a tax on energy based on its carbon content (which would raise the price of energy) and then cutting the payroll taxes of average Americans so they would not suffer economically while having new incentives to conserve. But over the years, Gore's 'tax shift proposal lost favor. The energy tax proposed by the Clinton administration in 1993 died a quick and brutal death (it raised taxes on energy but did not cut other taxes), while the cap-and- permit trading scheme for sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) turned out to be very successful.
So by the time the Democrats were back in control of Congress and the White House, cap-and-trade had become the preferred way to deal with climate change, and even Gore had moved away from the tax shift idea... [However,] the more voters hear about cap-and-trade [central to the bill passed by the House and now making it's way through the Senate], the more they are likely to flinch and the more politicians are likely to back off. Consequently, we all need an alternative, a 'Plan B.' Washington would be well-suited to go back to Al Gore's original idea -- tax carbon and cut payroll taxes. This is the preferred policy for most economists and for many environmentalists too. Once Congress looks past the word 'tax' in the title, it's easy to see the important political advantages this policy has over a cap-and-trade system.
"For starters, a carbon tax is predictable and easy to understand. It could be phased in over a period of five to 10 years. Businesses and consumers would know exactly how much the carbon in their energy and gas would cost, enabling them to plan accordingly. The second major advantage of a tax is that its costs to households could be directly offset. Citizens can see exactly how much more they will have to spend on energy and exactly how much more of their paychecks they'll get to keep from the corresponding payroll or income tax cuts. This carbon tax-shift is a much better way to go about putting a price on carbon than a cap-and-trade system. And fortunately, there's still an opportunity for the Senate to acknowledge this and to improve its version of the climate bill.
Though Congress has included a lot of good environmental policies in the 1,400 pages of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, its proposed carbon market isn't one of them. We don't have time to get this wrong. We don't have time to wait another five years -- the time it has taken Europe to discover that its cap-and-trade system has failed to effectively reduce emissions... Our leaders in Washington need to take pause and consider all the options available to make sure we enact the right policy."
Elaine Kamarck -- a lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and co-chair of the U.S. Climate Task Force -- is the author of the newly released reportWhen Al Gore wrote his best-selling book Earth in the Balance, he proposed putting a... more
-
-
I appreciate the ability to spread information and express my opinions on Current, but this is not the end. There is a big world out here with many other ways we need to use to reach people. Especially people in America who are bombarded with slick PR campaigns and political mouthpieces paid to deceive them. Our newspapers were once the tool people used to gather information and discuss it. With the advent of the Internet however, newspapers have been suffering, but do people in the majority actually read news on the Internet?
While I enjoy blogging and think it is an important part of the activism we need to see to get out truth about climate change and other issues, I also write letters to the editor of my local paper. Just today I had a letter regarding climate change printed in my local paper, and my next one will be on GMOS. That one small community paper reaches over sixty thousand people a week. Now while the chance of 60,000 people reading it today is not guaranteed, there may well be those who will read it who did not know that scientists predict that we cannot go over a two degree rise in global temperature and are already at one degree. They may not know that glaciers are melting at a rate three times faster than predicted by scientists. They may not know that islands such as the Carteret Islands, the Maldives, Vanuatu, Bangladesh, etc. are already feeling the effects of sea level rise. They may not know that the Northeast where I live is predicted to also be feeling the effects of sea level rise within the next 25 years. They may not know that water scarcity is having an effect on 40% of our planet which is also effecting agriculture. But they do today if the read my letter, because I wrote all that and a bit more about priorities and demanding government as well take responsibility for it.
Some simply choose to be defeatist and state that this kind of activism doesn't matter (like standing up against Monsanto and GMOS that are also destroying our environment) rather than doing anything. I do not believe in that course regardless of how hopeless it may look. There is strength in numbers and knowledge is indeed power. We as a species have proved it before and we can do it again.
The saying, the pen is mightier than the sword is true. And in all honesty, I cannot look at the young face of my son and do anything less. So I am asking, when was the last time you wrote a letter to the editor of your newspaper about climate change? Do you think depending on where you live that it would make a difference if you did?I appreciate the ability to spread information and express my opinions on Current, but... more
-
-
Our forests and our agriculture will save us.
Excerpt:
South Asian countries must be rewarded for afforestation, reforestation and carbon stock growth, say N. H. Ravindranath and Shamama Afreen.
In December 2007, at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Bali, Indonesia, governments from developed and developing countries alike adopted a 'roadmap' for stepping up efforts to combat climate change.
The roadmap included,among other measures,a commitment to establish policy approaches and incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). These are due to be agreed at the UNFCCC climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year.
Strategies for REDD have been much debated and some developing countries clearly stand to benefit from the proposals. But others, particularly those with low forest cover and low deforestation rates, have little to gain unless negotiators also consider the role of conservation and sustainable forest management.
REDD winners
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the forestry sector contributes about 17 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, making it the second largest source next to energy supply. Estimates put emissions from deforestation in the 1990s at 5.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Deforestation is certainly the largest source of emissions for many developing countries. Research estimates that 12.9 million hectares of tropical forest were lost each year from 2000–2005, mainly through conversion to agricultural land, but also due to expanding settlements and infrastructure.
Brazil, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia occupied the top five positions from 1990–2005, annually deforesting anything from nearly half a million hectares in Zambia to nearly three million hectares in Brazil. And unless action is taken, deforestation is likely to remain high in the tropics over the coming years and decades.
So reducing tropical deforestation is seen as a high-priority way of mitigating potential climate change. And in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that it would not cost much to do.
The UNFCCC's vision for REDD is to give developing countries financial incentives to reduce national deforestation rates and associated carbon emissions below a baseline (based either on a historical reference case or future projection). By doing so, REDD should contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.Our forests and our agriculture will save us.
Excerpt:
South Asian countries... more
-
-
Sequestering soil carbon could save 10-15% of all carbon emissions and that does not even include what can be added to that with a major reforestation effort. Agriculture makes up a third of all carbon emissions and yet it is being left out of the climate bill due to pressure by big ag. For any climate bill to be effective, soil management and reforestation must be part of it and farmers should be rewarded for working to preserve the climate balance of our planet because that in turn will bring us a more sustainable planet that benefits us all. We will need these sustainable and organic measures in order to conserve water as well as providing food to feed the world. Big ag simply cannot do it with the destructive industrial methods laden with the overabundance of fertilizers, poisons, GMOs, deforestation and monocrops they have employed.Sequestering soil carbon could save 10-15% of all carbon emissions and that does not... more
-
-
Will they be seen as 'terrorists' too? I stand with them and their message 100%. Especially since they did not hurt the mountain and stated they took proper precautions. Their message is true. True Leaders Lead. It's time we saw that on climate change.
Satyagraha.
Excerpt:
Greenpeace activists were arrested Wednesday for scaling Mount Rushmore and hanging a banner next to the carved face of Abraham Lincoln urging President Barack Obama to get tough on climate change.
A video posted on the environmental group's website showed the massive banner hanging on the South Dakota mountain face.
Its message -- "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming" and an unfinished portrait of Obama -- was barely visible as it was whipped by wind.
"Doing what it takes to solve global warming demands real political courage," Greenpeace USA deputy campaigns director Carroll Muffett said in a statement.
"If President Obama intends to earn a place among this country's true leaders, he needs to show that courage, and base his actions on the scientific reality rather than political convenience."
The protest comes as Obama meets with other G8 leaders in Italy.
G8 leaders agreed to bear the brunt of steep global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, saying developed countries should reduce their pollution by 80 percent by 2050, a summit declaration said.
Greenpeace said the 11 climbers "took special care not to damage the monument, using existing anchors placed by the National Park Service for periodic cleaning."Will they be seen as 'terrorists' too? I stand with them and their message... more
-
-
Coal Kills. We must quit coal. We have energy alternatives now that can be used to help clean this planet and maintain a stable climate balance. This also isn't only about climate change, it is about the health and safety of us and our children. Cutting emissions cuts asthma. It cuts cancer. It cuts toxic water pollution. It cuts mountaintop removal. It cuts the complete and utter environmental devastation of our only home. And, it holds governments and industries accountable to the people, as it should be. This is also just as much about environmental democracy, human rights, and national security as it is about CO2. Time to stop bowing to the very industries toxifiying this planet, and look upward.Coal Kills. We must quit coal. We have energy alternatives now that can be used to... more
-
-
Thousands of demonstrators have rallied across Australia to demand greater government action to protect the environment from climate change.
The National Climate Emergency Rallies called on Australia to take the lead at the UN environment summit in December in Copenhagen.
Activists also want an end to Australia's dependence on cheap and plentiful supplies of coal.
It is one of the world's worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gases.
'Strong grip'
Protesters were urged to wear red to highlight the risks of global warming.
In Sydney, rally organiser Moira Williams said that a coalition of trade unions and religious groups, as well as students and environmental campaigners, was pushing for immediate action.
"We need to be making these alliances and be stronger than the fossil fuel industry that currently has such a strong grip on climate policy in Australia.
"That is the positive in this rally and in this year - that we need to build that movement and it does need to come from the ground up, because at the moment we are not seeing any action from the top down."
end of excerptThousands of demonstrators have rallied across Australia to demand greater government... more
-
