Alternatives to Slash and Burn (150MB Video)

The Earth Institute of Columbian University is one of a few internationally significant institutions looking at sustainable development in a truly multi-disciplinary manner. Economists, including the institutes head Jeffery.D.Sachs, work alongside ecologists, climate scientists, social scientists and many more. I am a regular visitor to the Earth Institutes video archive, the most recent video looks at alternatives to slash and burn forest clearance. This video is a summary of the recently published book "Slash and Burn Agriculture: The Search for Alternatives".

"This book is a synthesis of the first decade of research by ASB partners and collaborators from 26 different countries, featuring work by 76 individuals including:

• soil scientists
• economists
• ecologists
• anthropologists
• foresters

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute of Columbia University and Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, applauds this new publication as a "remarkable volume addressing the sustainable management of tropical forests with unstinting sophistication, moving the analysis beyond clichés to the true complexities of the challenge." "

The reason for my interest in this book is the number of overlapping challenges it pursues, and the fact it represents 10 years of work by some very interesting people. Deforestation is responsible for the second largest flux of carbon into the atmosphere behind only fossil fuel usage. The process of deforestation also represents a huge destruction of biodiversity. The way in which this land is then managed can mitigate this loss of diversity, it can also prevent some of the enormous loss of carbon associated with agricultural utilisation and most importantly, suitable systems can tie up labour, increase prosperity and slow the spread of deforestation.

This is all facinating stuff but as Climate Change Action is the title of this website hopefully a few of you will be asking, what can i do about this problem? Well you could always sponsor the protection of a few acres of forest. Someone from the "Rain Trust" just subsribed to e-mail updates from my blog (hello there) and this site allows you to actually do something about the problem. Go on, buy one less household appliance, stay in for one night...buy a few acres of forest and help save the planet!

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Adequacy, Realism and Equity In a Climate Change Framework

In a brief update to my last major article "What is the future of action on Climate Change" I am going to look at a report by Paul Baer(of EcoEquity ) and his co-workers. The report entitled "Cutting the Gordian Knot" asks the question: how can we get to an adequate outcome for climate negotiations, bearing in mind the constraints of 'realism' and 'equity'. You can download the report from here but the main point of interest to me is utilisation of 'realism' in a well constructed argument against the use of 'contraction and convergence' as a principle of 'equity'. In my previous article i argue for contraction and convergence so i was naturally interested when a Stanford University political scientist suggested I might want to look again at my support for this concept.(continued...)



My support for contraction on convergence has been based on several considerations but most importantly:

1. The principle of equity; equal access to the global commons of the atmosphere and
2. The simplicity of the system (lack of subjective factors) and the existence of a global cap, which is essential for environmental adequacy.

The report starts with a harsh but realistic view of the situation we are in and the level of emissions cuts required to avoid not dangerous but catastrophic climate change. The severity of this situation along with the basics of climate science are explored in my earlier report "Climate Change Facts and Impacts".

The slant the report is going to take on the principle of equity first becomes apparent relatively early on.

"If we are to hold to an adequacy trajectory, then Southern countries can never reach today's Northern levels of per-capita emissions. To the degree that emissions levels remain correlated with development and wealth, Southern countries will remain forever in a second class world."

The former sentence is clearly the case, the second sentence is key to the report. Development is seen as being limited by the essential emissions curbs required for adequacy.

The rate of the emissions cuts is also shown to be a major factor in deciding upon an equitable framework, it is possible to analyze the requirements of C&C on emissions of the 'North' and 'South' and then to look at the implications these scenarios place on who pays and under what circumstances of development. Infact we see that all trajectories which are adequate

"...are also trajectories that require developing countries to cut back soon."

The critical thing abut "soon" is that this 'gap' under the per capita carbon quota level is one of the main ways that countries of the 'South' would pay form emissions reductions and development according to C&C. To illustrate just how soon emissions reductions will have to occur both in the 'North' and the 'South' the chart below is presented.

The emissions levels of the South are permitted to grow by only 2% per year until 2020 and then remain stable and decline. This is hardly the room for development that is usually thought of for developing nations when considering C&C.

"The fundamental equity problem is that...any adequate transition, the South is quickly cast into a world where it is forces to radically curtail its emissions, long before it has reached a level of wealth even vaguely comparable to that which Northern countries enjoyed when they first started to curb emissions."

The argument put forward by the report is that C&C fails on equity because these countries have a right to develop there economies and this right would be denied them by this framework.
An alternative approach to emissions rights is:

"the right to a climate transition that does not compromise sustainable development"

An interesting and attractive idea. For the sake of brevity I will not go into details but one of the most powerful parts of the report is the argument for the acceptance of this principle for both sides, from the developing nations because narrow self interested necessity requires them to hold out for such a strategy and for the developed nations because they would loose enormously if they didn't accept such a strategy. I am a fan of logical arguments and not only did this one win me over to the principle but I appreciated it's elegance.

The framework proposed is described as 'Greenhouse Development Rights' and envisages commitment based on a measure of wealth not an emissions trigger;

"These three elements-an adequacy trajectory, a development threshold, and an indicator of each north countries obligation to pay for mitigation-add nicely to gether into the GDR framework."

The key advantage of this system over C&C is that we have a better definition for 'equity', right to sustainable development, not the abstraction of emissions rights. This is lead to by a careful consideration of 'realism' which informs us that due to the life or death nature of development in many countries of the south, and the costs of rapid mitigation efforts, that the only 'adequate' outcome is a result of low carbon development funding by the 'north'.

As I have already stated I am actually-to my surprise-moving towards being a convert to this framework. However there are two key issues which I believe need further attention.

1. The necessity of the link between development and emissions, currently strongly evident, but for how long? In New Zealand wind power is now the cheapest form of energy according to a recent news story. These countries have a right to development but is this really antagonistic to GHG policies, Practical Action (formerly ITDG) and many other organisations see synergies not antagonisms.


2. It is assumed that apart from a few countries such as Bangladesh and numerous small island states, that climate change will be a small factor in most peoples lives, and stronger forces deserve priority from domestic financing. I don not think that evidence backs this up and I therefore question the 'nothing to loose' argument for developing nations taking a hard line in negotiations.I don't see adequate commitments from developing nations as much less realistic than such commitments from developed nations. The barrel may not exist.
   

Finally from the point of view of negotiations, C&C does have the advantage of simplicity, we shouldn't under estimate the importance of this. I support GDR but the argument does rest largely on the previous two points and C&C is dificult to abandon without these questions being answered. In my next report I will take a look at the link between development and climate change mitigation, are there real and significant synergies?

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

In a rather ammusing turn of events, the US delegates absurd position on objecting to the word "dialogue" being used to describe future discussions has been used by environmentalists to great effect. The now infomous quote used by the US chief negotiator before throwing his toys out of the pram was:

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it is a duck," delegates quoted him as saying."

The US chief negotiatior was implying that the word 'dialogue' suggests progress towards mandatory cuts...which are of course nessicary but unacceptable to the US.

Environmentalists emptied Montreal toy shops of ducks;

"Some of them quack, or at least squeak," John Lanchbery of Birdlife International told Reuters at the talks in Montreal. "We left one on a chair outside the U.S. office. They were not very amused."

The sunday heral reports;

"an imaginative piece of direct action by Phil Clapp, the president of the US National Environmental Trust. On Friday morning his team scoured Montreal shops for rubber ducks, and within hours the little yellow creatures were ubiquitous in the conference centre.

They were paraded by environmentalists, popped up in ministers’ top pockets, and even made an appearance on the US delegation’s table. The Americans, after being harangued and vilified all week, were finally embarrassed."

If millions werent going to die due to this criminal intransigence by the US this would be all the more ammusing.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Montreal talks make historic progress.

Such is the severity of the consequences of inaction or insufficient action on climate change, it is difficult to know weather to celebrate or dispair when real progress is made-the progress that has been made is real but also only a tiny part of what is required. Tony juniper from friends of the earth has this to say about the progress that has been made:

It has sent a clear signal that the future lies in cleaner and more sustainable technologies and is good news for people everywhere.The centre piece of the agreement is that 150 countries (excluding the US) will start talks on mandatory emissions cuts, for the post-Kyoto period (after 2012). This extension of the Kyoto protocol is the more abitious of two workstreams. The US has however finally signed up to a watered down commitment for continued climate mitigation talks, with emissions targets expressly forbidden, this is under the broader UNFCCC framework.

On the other hand...(continued below)As stated in my previous articleThe chances of sufficent progress being made under an extended Kyoto framework are slim at best. There are many issues with the current Kyoto framework, perticularly the lack of a science based emissions cap to the global framework, the emissions cuts arrising out of Kyoto have, and will continue to arise from the base up, on by means of political 'horse trading'. There are also 'problems in practice' and these problems are perticularly accute in the areas of developmen and adaption funding. Climate change is a multi-faceted issue and one important aspect of this is clearly basic justice. The results of climate change are are the results of industrialisation, and this same process is responsible for the huge inequities in the modern world. Progress has been made on this issue, but much more has to be done, and the written progress has to become progress in action.

For the pop-press version of things check out the bbc article. For the views of the youth oriented its-getting-hot-in-here coallition have alook here. Finally, for a more cynical (realistic?) look at things try the "Climate Justice Now!" blog.


Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Leave Bush behind, not the US.

With continued obstruction from ExxonMobil's man in the negotiating seat (Harlan Watson) the international effort to prevent catastrophic climate change faces formidable challenges. However determination to act decisively on climate change is building around the world and taking the federal government out of the equation is an option gaining increasingly vocal support.(continued...)

US's Frigid Stance on Global Warming

By Anadolu News Agency (aa) Published: Friday, December 09, 2005 zaman.com

The distance between the United States and the international community about methods to combat with global warming became clear at the United Nations Climate Change conference in session in Montreal, Canada.

The US, upon its rejection of the Canadian invitation to join the conference and side with international community, and its insistence to not to take part in the talks is once more being criticized by the world over. Twenty-five American economists, three of whom Nobel Prize winners, called for the US to fight against climate changes that become more and more dangerous every passing day. The internationally renowned economists pointed out the high price to be paid from the climate changes, as well as the hazardous results which continue to mount.

The absolute isolation of the Bush administration has been highlighted by the Australian government's determination to become part of the post-Kyoto negotiations and to call for deep emissions cuts internationally. further more, numerous NGOs are calling for full engagement with state alliances and groups of cities who have attended the conference, usurping the role of the federal government in protecting there people from the dangers of climate change.

How to Engage the US? Leave Bush Behind!

The strong participation of US civil society in these meetings
reinforces the strategic value of holding COP11 and COP/MOP1 in North
America.

A large and diverse group of trade unions, business leaders, faithgroups, and state and local officials is participating here in support of effective climate action. Yet the Bush Administrationcontinues to oppose forward progress on the climate regime and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Mayors from around the world are meeting at the Montreal City Hall.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels spoke of success in reducing the city
government's own greenhouse gas emissions, laying the groundwork for
deep community-wide reductions, and a safer, cleaner and prosperous
future. He highlighted that 192 mayors, representing 40 million
citizens in 38 states, have signed the US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement. Among them, just months before Hurricane Katrina, was
Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans.
On Tuesday, 24 US Senators, including leading Republicans, released a
letter to President Bush, reminding the Administration of
its "continuing legal obligation to participate in the COP in a
constructive way," and noting that "a deliberate decision by the
Administration not to engage in such discussions...is inconsistent
with the obligations of the United States as set forth in the
UNFCCC."
Members of many delegations may have hoped the world might succeed in
engaging the Bush Administration here in Montreal – they must abandon
that hope for now.
Yesterday the US delegation objected to the draft text, which focuses on "dialogue." That the US would oppose even the most minimal
proposal is appalling, but hardly shocking. They could not be more
clear – as at the G8 in Gleneagles this year, the Bush Administration
opposes effective global action on climate change within the UN
system. Period. Full stop.
US local government, business and civil society are mobilising in
support of real action on climate change from the bottom up. Parties
to the Kyoto Protocol, operating within this first COP/MOP, must now
take the Bush Administration at their word: they are not going to
engage responsibly in this process. Instead, delegations should
encourage US society to further expand its work for climate
protection, and then move directly to the next stage of negotiations
within the Kyoto Protocol. The way to help the US forward is to leave
Bush behind.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Talks in Montreal (blogs+video)

Climate talks continue in Montreal and at this, the first meating of the parties to Kyoto there is unprecidented pressure from civil society and green groups. Two good blogs covering these talks are "Climate Justice Nonw!" and "its getting hot in here".

Here are a few of interesting video clips from "its getting hot in here"
1. Hopefull but hopelessly beurocratic.
2. Member of US delegation sheds a tear!
3.Delegates interested in articles not climate science. Youth bring energy and touch of reality.
4. Save hockey fight climate change "the single biggest threat to ice hockey is the loss of ice- here:save our ice stop global warming!".

"climate justice now!"
"Professor Michael Dorsey of Dartmouth College in the US, explains here what the negative impacts are of the oil industry lobby inside the official climate talks in Montreal. He exposes that the Head of the US delegation was hand-picked by Exxon-Mobil and warns that not addressing the pressing question of oil dependency is undermining real action on climate change."

The video is here

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

The European environment - State and outlook 2005

The European Environment Agency has just published a report (60MB pdf) entitled "European Environent-State and Outlook" There is also a video press release as an introduction to the report. And a summary for those of you not wishing to read a 500 page report.[i`ve learent a new trick so now all long posts will be sumarised with a link if you want ro read more]

This is the third state and outlook report on the European environment produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA) since 1994. Looking back, the last report, published in 1999 concluded that, despite 25 years of Community environmental policy, environmental quality in the European Union (EU) was mixed and that the unsustainable development of some key economic sectors was the major barrier to further improvements. That remains the EEA's key conclusion, despite significant progress on some issues demonstrating that environmental policy works. Were we to fast-forward to the year 2010, it would be my strong hope that in its next state and outlook report, the EEA would be able to report significant environmental improvements, not least as a result of reversing unsustainable trends in sectors such as energy, agriculture and transport.

The Press Release

Europe feels the heat as climate change tops the list of environmental challenges

Policy makers, businesses and individuals must act now on a range of environmental matters or pay a heavy price later

The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Ten percent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland's glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5 000 years, says a new report by the European Environment Agency (EEA), based in Copenhagen.

'The European environment - State and outlook 2005', a five year assessment across 31 countries, provides an overview of Europe's environment and points to challenges of which climate change is just one. Other areas of concern include biodiversity, marine ecosystems, land and water resources, air pollution and health. For the first time, the report has a country by country analysis with performance indicators and comparisons for all of the participants: the EU-25 plus Bulgaria, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Romania, Turkey and including Switzerland.

The report says Europe's average temperature rose by 0.95 °C during the 20th century. This is 35 % higher than the global average increase of 0.7 °C and temperatures will continue to rise. The EU has recognised this and set a target limiting the global temperature increase to 2 °C above pre industrial levels.

'Without effective action over several decades, global warming will see ice sheets melting in the north and the spread of deserts from the south. The continent's population could effectively become concentrated in the centre. Even if we constrain global warming to the EU target of a 2 °C increase, we will be living in atmospheric conditions that human beings have never experienced. Deeper cuts in emissions are needed', says Jacqueline McGlade, Executive director of the EEA.

Past EU legislation on environment has worked, says the report. We have cleaned up our water and our air, phased out some ozone depleting substances and have doubled rates of waste recycling. We also have cars that pollute less; without the dramatic improvements made by catalytic converters over the past twenty years, certain emissions would have been ten times the level they are now. Yet, it has taken ten to twenty years for these actions to show results, the report says.

These environmental success stories are now being overtaken by changes in personal consumption patterns. Europeans are living longer and more of us live alone putting greater demands on living space. Between 1990 and 2000, more than 800 000 hectares, of Europe's land was built on. That is an area three times the size of Luxembourg. If this trend continues, our urban area will double in just over a century. Managing urban sprawl is essential if we are to protect our natural resources, says the report.

We travel further and more often and are consuming the planet's natural resources at twice the world's average rate. Transport is the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. For example, air travel is expected to double between now and 2030. As a result, we leave a clear footprint outside Europe, depleting natural resources and damaging the world's environment.

Eurobarometer polls show that over 70 per cent of Europeans want decision makers to give equal weight to environmental, economic and social policies. To take these views into account, the report underlines that policy makers must work with each other at European, national and local levels. They must integrate environmental considerations across sectors such as transport, agriculture and energy and set up a framework within which individuals and business can take action.

'Policy makers must be farsighted. We need a gradual shift away from taxes on labour and investment towards taxes on pollution and the inefficient use of materials and land. We also need reforms in the way that subsidies are applied to transport, housing, energy and agriculture. We need subsidies encouraging sustainable practices and efficient technologies', says Professor McGlade.

'With the necessary incentives built in, such reforms will lead to more investment, innovation and competitiveness. We have already seen this in practice in certain countries and sectors. Strong taxation of petrol in Europe and high regulatory standards led to cars that have been almost twice as fuel efficient as cars on America's roads, in recent decades. We have seen the cost of inaction in terms of people's lives and our environment with examples such as the collapse of fish stocks, the use of asbestos in buildings, acid rain and lead in petrol. It pays to act now to secure the long term', says Professor McGlade.
Notes to the editor:

About the European Environment Agency (EEA): The EEA is based in Copenhagen. The agency aims to help achieve significant and measurable improvement in Europe's environment through the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policy makers and the public.

As part of its mandate, the EEA provides a comprehensive review of the state of the European environment every five years. 'The European environment - State and outlook 2005' includes:

* An integrated assessment of Europe's environment with chapters on:
o Environment and quality of life
o The changing face of Europe
o Climate change
o Air pollution and health
o Freshwaters
o Marine and coastal environment
o Soil
o Biodiversity
o Environment and economic sectors
o Looking ahead
* A core set of indicators, which are a small number of indicators that are stable and which can be used to gauge policy effectiveness, such as progress towards the Kyoto targets. An example of a core indicator is greenhouse gas emissions. The indicators provide timely and relevant information on trends and movements taking place within the environment.
* A country by country analysis based on nine of the core indicators. The analysis provides a comparison of performance in a 'country scorecard', supported by information provided by the countries themselves.

The country analyses were prepared in partnership between the countries and the EEA to provide additional country level perspectives on the scorecard analyses. The selection of indicators included in the scorecard is the responsibility of the EEA and does not necessarily reflect the priorities of the countries. To allow a deeper understanding of the issues at country level, some figures included here are from national sources and so may not be fully comparable with data compiled by Eurostat, the EEA or other international bodies. The EEA takes responsibility for the final result.
* Find out how your country performs by looking at Part C of the report.
* Countries covered by the report: The EU-25 (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom), and Bulgaria, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Romania and Turkey.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Development, Environment and Ecology Digest (DEED)

The central forum of the Campaign against Climate Change is finally proving its worth. This forum which was decided on at the Oxford national planning meeting for the Dec 3rd march has been languishing somewhat due to a certain amount of redundancy, many local groups have Yahoo! or Google Groups and there is therefore no clear incentive for central discussion.

There are however definite advantages to a central forum, at least for major announcements and events. Since Dec3rd I have posted the Edinburgh March photos there and have found several interesting resources from the site, including DEED, another UK blog with a strong, if not exclusive focus on Climate Change.

The commentary on this site is superb, and a wide range of topics are covered, some of which I was un-aware of, this doesn't happen often, and its nice when it does! In particular the Pre-Montreal statement by the US and the Contraction and Convergence Bill where of great interest to me.

My thoughts on contraction and convergence can be found here.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Campaign against Climate Change In London

Hello All,
I have spent a large part of today uploading media relating to the climate change marches that occured yesterday (sat 3rd). I thought it was worth mentioning some of the events and provising a few links. The post below gives an indication of what the Edinburgh demo was like and a few short vidoe clips of the event can be found here.Read more!
There is also loads more information about the other events spread all across the web in a entirely unorganised manner. There is an attempt at organisation here, where there ae photos from many of the events, and if you look in the forum you can also see links to several other protests.For the London event there are both a radio show and a short video available for download. Information about UK media coverage can be found here.

The images here are of 1. the protest outside esso (the UK trading name of ExxonMobil) and 2. Posters of bush and blair;Bush because he wont sign up to kyoto or even talk about an emissions cap even when the US emitts 14tCO2 per person, compared to an average of around 7 in Europe and less than 1in china; Blair because of his changing stance on mandatory emissions targets...the enviornmental movement has no qaulms about the use of technolog to mitigate climate change but technology is not enough, and tough binding targets are required to encourage the sort of determined action that is essential.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Dec 3rd, Campaign against Climate Change march in Edinburgh

The Edinburgh march was a great success with around 400 people in attendance. The mood for action was very posotive and, speaking for CCC-Aberdeen here, i think we where all heartened to se such a motivated group of people, and we are all ready to get back on the campaign and start raising awareness locally.


The rally ended at the scottish parliment building where we heard Mark Ballard(green party), Mark Lazarowicz (labour) , Duncan McLaren (foe) and Ruth Cameron (Edinburgh student union) speak about the importance of action on climate change and, specifically, of our campaign.

The talks can be listened to here.


For more information about the campaign against climate change, which held demos in >30 countries worldwide, check out "Climate Change Campaign"

Home del.icio.us Digg This!